1987/11/17City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17~ 1987, 10:30 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular
session (of November 10, 1987).
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickle~ and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:00 p.m. on November 13, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the adjourned regular meeting of November 10, 1987 to order
at 10:30 a.m.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session
to consider the following item:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership
O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Ehrle seconded
the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (10:38 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Hunter. (12:04 p.m.)
106: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BA!.ANCING FY 1897/88 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: There
was ~o discussion on the budget at this time.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn the 10:00 a.m. adjourned regular
meeting of November 10, 1987. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (12:05 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1060
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 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
(Councilman Hunter entered at 5:00 p.m.)
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Leonard McGhee
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Wayne West
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:00 p.m. on November 13, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs.
Anaheim Hotel Partnership O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59; City of Anaheim
vs. County of Orange O.C.S.C.C. No. 50-96-78.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session.
seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent.
(12:06 p.m.)
Councilwoman Kaywood
MOTION CARRIED.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Hunter, and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting. (1:48 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Rick Gastil, Hotline Help Center, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
1061
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
"No Bozos" Day in Anaheim, November 17, 1987,
Family Week in Anaheim, November 23-29, 1987.
Mr. William E. Perron accepted the Family Week proclamation.
119: EXPRESSION OF COMMENDATION: An Expression of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council, acknowledging and commending Hope
University/Unico National for the work they have done and are doing for the
gifted mentally retarded locally and throughout the nation.
119: EXPRESSION OF CONGRATULATIONS: An Expression of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Jim Farley on his
retirement from the Martin Luther Hospital/Foundation.
119: EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT: An Expression of Support was unanimously adopted
by the City Council supporting the designation of the year from Thanksgiving
1987 to Thanksgiving 1988 as the Year of Thanksgiving as requested by the
National Thanksgiving Staff, Washington D.C.
119: EXPRESSION OF COMMENDATION: An Expression of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mayor Pro Tem Pickler
for his outstanding leadership and contributions during the past year as
outgoing President of the League of California Cities, Orange County Division.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held September 22, September 29 and October 13, 1987. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 3828,712.29, in accordance
with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 87R-475 through 87R-485, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Albert J. Portland for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 10, 1987.
b. Claim submitted by Cathy Ann Kilpatrick for indemnity sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July.14, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by Raymond Gregory for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 8, 1987.
1062
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
d. Claim submitted by Robert Villa for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 7, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by Jane Marie Wurth for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 20, 1987.
f. Claim submitted by Henry Myers, M.D. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 20, 1987.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - Recommended to be Denied:
g. Claim submitted by Karol & Rudy Arriaga for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 21, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of October 14, 1987.
b. 105: Park and Recreation Commission, Minutes of September 23, 1987.
3. i75.123: Authorizing an Easement Agreement with the-Orange County Water
District, to provide for construction and maintenance of drain lines from
three new wells at Anaheim Lake.
4. 123: Authorizing a lease agreement with Anaheim Union High School
District at a cost of 35,222.70 per month, for lease of 11,606 square feet of
space at Trident Junior High School to operate the West Anaheim Senior
Citizens Center, for the term July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988.
5. 123: Authorizing the Tenth Agreement for Fair Housing Services with the
Orange County Fair Housing Council at a cost of $52,000 to administer the
Housing and Community Development Block Grant Funds, for the term November 1,
1987 to October 31, 1988.
6. 123: Authorizing a contract with Spanish Marketing & Media Services, Inc.
(Riverside Productions), at a cost of ~38,600 to be reimbursed from ticket
sales, to conduct a Latino Festival "Gracias 87" on November 26 thru 29, 1987
at La Palma Park.
7. 116/152/153: Authorizing the City Manager to implement a special salary
adjustment to certain management classifications, effective June 26, 1987.
Councilman Bay voted no.
8. 106: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $22,543.02, for 765
each Sylvania metalarc lamps in accordance with Bid No. A-4518.
9. 106: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $47,553.72 for two
industrial loader tractors in accordance with Bid No. A-4492.
1063
City Hall, Anaheim, California - CO~CIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
10. 106: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $30,654.14 for four
(4) each, four-wheeled utility vehicles in accordance with Bid No. A-4497.
11. 106: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of ~14,703.26 for one (1)
each, compact loader tractor in accordance with Bid No. A-4501.
12. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-475: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Construction of
Large Valve Replacements Phase II-B, Account No. 52-606-6329-06329; and
opening of bids on December 17, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
13. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-476: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Meter & Fireline
Assemblies, Vaults and Appurtenances, Account No. 52-606-6329-02853; and
opening of bids on December 17, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
14. ~75: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-477: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Linda Vista 555
Zone Pump Station, Pump Rehabilitation, Account No. 53-620-6329-09513; and
opening of bids on December 17, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
15. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-478: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-363 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION ~D MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (adding the classification of Project Consultant,
X SR10, effective November 13, 1987, and to add the classifications of
Project Consultant and Traffic and Transportation Engineer as eligible to
receive city-owned vehicle or automobile allowance)
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-479: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
17. 158; RESOLUTION NO. 87R-480: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(R/W #3500-49 AND 50)
18. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-481: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (SPEAR PIPELINE
CONSTRUCTION) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Beylik Drilling, Inc., in the amount of $380,957.00 for the Rehabilitation of
Water Wells, Account No. 52-619-6329-07649)
19. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-482: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (BEYLIK
DRILLING, INC.) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible
1064
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
bidder, Spear Pipeline Construction, in the amount of $48,000 for the
Construction of Water Main Relocation at Richfield Channel, Account
No. 52-606-6329-05785)
20. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-483: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (HONDO COMPANY,
INC.) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Hondo
Company in the amount of $160,107 for Play Equipment at Brookhurst, Rio Vista,
Pearson and Chaparral Parks, Account Nos. 16-821-7107, 16-851-7107,
16-820-7107, 16-833-7107)
21. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-484: A tLESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (Awarding a
contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, J. W. Mitchell Company,
Inc. in the amount of $341,701, for Slope Protection at Walnut Canyon
Reservoir, Account No. 52-619-6329-08991)
22. 107: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-485: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Building
Demolition, Area bounded by Lemon Street, Anaheim Boulevard, Zeyn Street and
LaPalma Avenue, Account No. 46-792-625-E274B, and opening of bids December 17,
i987, 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-475 through 87R-485 with the exception
of Resolution No. 87R-478:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
Hunter
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-475 through 87R-485, both inclusive
with the exception of Resolution No. 87R-478, duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 87R-478:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Kaywood and Pickler
Bay
Hunter
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-478 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar.
105: APPROVAL OF MEMBERS - VISION 2000 CITIZEN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
Councilman Bay moved to approve the following community representatives for
membership on the Vision 2000 Citizen Executive Committee, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 6, 1987 from the City Manager: JoAnn Barnett,
Anaheim Union High School District; Floyd Farano, Attorney and Past President,
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce; Lew Herbst, Member - Anaheim Planning Commission;
Paul Kott, Paul Kott Realtors; Herb Leo, Chairman - MCP Foods; Jack Lindquist,
Executive Vice President - Disneyland/Walt Disney World; Mel Miller, Chairman
1065
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
of the Board - Pacific Inland Bank; Paul Mitchell, Vice President, Public
Relations, Karcher Enterprises; Sheri Pignone, Community Services Board; Bill
Taormina, President, CEO, Anaheim Disposal, Inc. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay then asked Charlotte Edmondson, Strategic Planning Manager, to
introduce those members of the Committee who were present today. (Those
present were Mrs. Barnett, Mr. Farano, Mr. Herbst, Mr. Leo and Mr. Miller).
Mrs. Edmondson reported that the representatives had participated in the
original process and are known to the Council for their dedication to the City
of Anaheim.
Mayor Bay. He took part in the Vision 2000 planning and meetings but always
added anytime they voted on Vision 2000 that it be within the fiscal
limitations of the City. Everyone wants to attain the goals of Vision 2000
but there is a limitation on what can be done from the standpoint of fiscal
limitation.
Councilman Pickler. He thanked the representatives present for their
dedication and willingness to work. He feels they can overcome the fiscal
problems in order to accomplish what everyone wants for the City.
Counctlwoman Kaywood. She added her thanks for the tremendous job that has
been done from the inception of the Vision 2000 Plan. When there is a plan
and the goal is established for the future of the City, the funds will be
available.
175/139: URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ANAHEIM: Councilman Pickler moved
to adopt the Urban Water Management Plan, as amended, pursuant to AB 797 as
recommended in memorandum dated November 6, 1987 from the Secretary of the
Public Utilities Board. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman
Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4873 - TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT) - REIMBURSEMENT
TO qUALIFIED ORGANIZATIONS: Adding new Section 2.12.120 to the Code, to
reimburse Transient Occupancy Tax revenues to qualified organizations (amended
first reading).
City Attorney Jack White. Two weeks ago the Council referred to his office
the task of proposing a new draft to the proposed amendment to the TOT
ordinance relating to allowing a tax credit or rebate to organizations that
provide shelter to the homeless. At the direction of individual members of
the Council at that meeting, he has revised the ordinance to add new
definitions of a qualifying non-profit service organization and homeless
person to provide that only organizations which are members of the Anaheim
Human Services Network will be eligible for the tax credit or rebate, that the
organization shall not be allowed to provide shelter for the purpose of
furthering any religious activity or purpose in order to be eligible for the
tax rebate, and finally, only shelter that is provided to persons who
immediately prior to residing in the hotel or motel were residents or
otherwise lived in the City of Anaheim will be eligible for the tax rebate.
He is now resubmitting that to the Council for consideration today.
1066
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4873 for an amended first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4873: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
2.12.120 TO CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE TO QUALIFYING
ORGANIZATIONS.
108: POOL ROOM PERMIT - BAVARIAN INN: Councilman Bay moved to approve a Pool
Room Permit submitted by Maurice John Parole, for Bavarian Inn, 2822 Ball
Road, to have 3 pool tables, in accordance with the recommendation of the
Chief of Police. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
134/179: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 233 - SETTING THE DATE AND TIME FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING: Councilman Pickler moved to set Tuesday, December 8, 1987 at
3:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing on the following: General
Plan Amendment No. 233 - to consider an amendment to the land use element of
the General Plan proposing redesignation from the current commercial
Professional designation to General Commercial, and to consider setting for
public hearings in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment:
Reclassification No. 87-88-22, a proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
CL; Conditional Use Permit No. 2956, to permit an automobile service and
commercial center in conjunction with an existing office structure with
various Code waivers; Variance No. 3721, to establish an 8-lot commercial
subdivision, with Code waiver of required lot frontage; and Variance No. 3720,
to permit a freestanding sign, with various Code waivers, on property located
at 1780-1786 W. Lincoln Avenue, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
127: CANVASS OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 3, 1987: Councilman
Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-486 for adoption, declaring the result of the
canvass of the Special Municipal Election held November 3, 1987. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-486: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS
OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 3~ 1987.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
Hunter
The hayor declared Resolution No. 87R-486 duly passed and adopted.
179: REQUEST TO WITHDRAW APPEAL OF RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-07, VARIANCE
NO. 3685 ~4D WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542: Request from Farano and
Kieviet for withdrawal of appeal of Reclassification No. 87-88-07, Variance
No. ~685 and Waiver of Council Policy No. 542. Property located at 1500 West
Broadway. (See letter dated November 4, 1987 from the Law Offices of Farano &
Kieviet).
1067
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Jack White. He has been ]in discussion with Joan Allen of the
Law Offices of Farano & Kieviet. He indicated it was the position of his
office and he would be advising the Council that he would recommend that the
Council not approve withdrawal of the appeal for the reason that an appeal has
also been filed on the same matter by another member of the public. It is
disputed whether that person had legal authority to act as a representative of
the property owner but in his view that is immaterial. Any opponent has the
right to file an appeal. If approved and the request of the property owner
was withdrawn, the appeal from the other party would still be outstanding and
need to be honored for purposes of due process. His recommendation is that
the City proceed with the hearing on the matter unless the other party also
agreed to withdraw their appeal. There have been ongoing discussions in that
regard to determine whether the parties jointly would be withdrawing the
appeal. As of yesterday, there has been no concurrence.
He explained for the Mayor that the original application was for RM-1200
zoning on the property together with a variance and the Planning Commission
approved a more restrictive zoning - RS-5000 single-family zoning.
Subsequently, the property owner determined to withdraw the request for zoning
altogether, not wanting to have the 5000 zoning resolution of intent on the
property. He reiterated it would be his recommendation that the matter be set
for a public hearing unless the party that has an appeal filed with the City
agrees to withdraw. If they agree to withdraw, he would have no legal
objection to not scheduling the hearing. This is a controversial project and
he realizes by scheduling a hearing that may be involving a large number of
members of the public attending a meeting that may turn out to be fruitless on
their part to attend, but he sees no legal way to avoid the necessity of
hold~ng a public hearing unless the other party also agrees to withdraw the
appeal. The only appeal of issue at the moment is from Massoud Monshizadeh
and his attorney has indicated that he had recommended the appeal be withdrawn
but no official request has yet been received.
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet representing the Schafer family, owners of the
property. It is the position of the owner that the application as it was
filed and pursued substantially exceeded the authority and desire and best
interest of the property owner. The have requested that he withdraw. His
office has not received a notice of any intention to withdraw. The Escrow has
terminated. There is no longer an open Escrow and all authority has been
terminated. It is the property owner's position that Mr. Monshizadeh does not
have any authority at this time. He (Farano) has met with Mr. White and
concurs in his legal findings. His office is trying to settle the matter. He
questioned if the appellant withdraws his appeal in the meantime, would the
property owner come back again before the Council to'have the Council act upon
their request.
City Attorney White. He would have no problem with continuing to hold the
request on file and until such time as he receives a similar request from the
existing appellant to jointly honor those by motion of the Council and allow
the mutual withdrawal of the appeals so that Mr. Farano, on behalf of his
client, would not have to lodge another request at a later date.
1068
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17.,. 1.987, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay. If the Council receives the proper notification to withdraw the
appeal, then the Planning Commission action stands and ~the property has a
resolution of intent to the RS-5000 zone. The City Attorney concurred.
Floyd Farano. It is the desire of the property owner to return the property
to its original RSA-43,000 and that is the reason why they asked for a
termination. If that is not correct, they would like to be so advised.
City Attorney White. If Mr. Farano wants the existing resolution taken off
the property that was approved by the Planning Commission, the proper vehicle
to dc that is through a hearing of the City Council. They would have the
right to deny the application which would remove the resolution of intent to
RS-5000. By withdrawing the appeal, all that is being withdrawn is the appeal
from the Planning Commission's action.
Floyd Farano. It was their original request that the Council terminate all
proceedings. They did not want to subject the Council to the hearing that
would take place on the appeal. The felt the best way to reinstate the
RSA-43,000 was to terminate the proceedings. They were advised that was
appropriate. The withdrawal of the appeal would then leave them in a position
of having the RS-5000 zoning resolution of intent or with the termination
granted by the Council, it would then return to square one or the RSA-4300
zone.
City Attorney White. The way that would properly be done would be to have the
Planning Commission terminate its resolution which he feels they could do
without an additional public hearing. He believes there is a way to get to
where Mr. Farano wants to go without a hearing, provided the City receives the
request to withdraw the appeal from Mr. Monshizadeh. If not, there is another
way and that is a public hearing before the Council with the Council taking
action denying the reclassification application and leaving the property in
the RSA-43,000 zone.
City Clerk Sohl. She reported that a public hearing would need to be held
within 60 days.
Floyd Farano. He confirmed he has hopes of getting Mr. Monshizadeh to also
withdraw his appeal.
144: SELECTION OF MEMBER-AT-LARGE FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION (0CTC): Mayor Bay referred to letter dated November 9, 1987 from
the Chairman of the OCTC soliciting ideas and suggestions for a new
Member-At-Large to fill a vacancy on the Commission.' He asked that it be
placed on the agenda for Council consideration and possible action before the
December 10, 1987 deadline stated in the letter.
No action was taken by the City Council.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held October 26, 1987, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1069
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2882(READV.): Submitted by Darle Hale, for
deletion or modification of Condition No. 1, pertaining to payment of traffic
signal assessment fee of Resolution No. PC87-108, granting Conditional Use
Permit No. 2882, to permit a limousine manufacturing business on ML zoned
property located at 3910 East Coronado Street (units F, H, I and J), with Code
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The applicant requested to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 2882 (Ready.),
pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-216, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2951: Submitted by Laurance N. Munson, to
permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an enclosed restaurant on CL zoned
property located at 2415 West Lincoln Avenue (Units B and C).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-218, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2951, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3711: Submitted by Eric D. and Judith S. Nelson, to expand a
garage on CL zoned property located at 1430 Westmont Drive, with Code waiver
of minimum side yard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-221, granted
Variance No. 3711, and ratified the Planning Commission's categorical
exemption determination, (Class 5).
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2960: Submitted by Kee Whan Ha and Kyung Hee
Ha, (T&T Auto Sales), to retain an automobile sales and detailing facility on
ML zoned property located at 1713 North Orangethorpe Park.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-222, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2960, to expire October 26, 1989, and granted a
negative declaration status.
5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-11 AND VARIANCE NO. 3694--AMENDING RESOLUTION
PC87-171 and 172: Submitted by Planning staff, requesting to amend Resolution
Nos. PC87-171 and 172, nunc pro tunc, correcting a clerical error, granting a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 3-story, 16-unit
apartment building on property located at 700 So. Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-223, amended
Reclassification No. 87-88-11 and Variance No. 3694 (Resolution Nos. PC87-171
and 172).
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2623--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Jeffery
C. Smith, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2623,
to permit a 3-story business and professional office building, on property
located at 2201 East Orangewood Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2623, to expire October 1, 1988.
1070
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3538--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Eve Miller, requesting
an extension of time to Variance No. 3538, to construct a 2-story,
single-family residence on property located at 111 South Martin Road.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No.
3538, to expire March 3, 1988.
8. CO~qTY OF ORANGE, OFFICE OF THE TAX COLLECTOR-TREASURER: Notification
from Robert Citron, Orange County Tax Collector-Treasurer, of his application
filed requesting a separate tax bill on a portion of property located at the
southwest corner of Freedman Way and Haster Street.
The City Planning Commission received and filed the County of Orange, Office
of the Tax Collector-Treasurer application.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2959: Submitted by Stewart Green Associates,
to permit a 22,000 square foot physical fitness center on CL zoned property
located at 2280 East Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-217, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2959, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood. The proposed project is in the East Anaheim shopping
center and the center has already received waivers of the minimum number of
parking spaces. Her concern is that when health spas are involved problems
could evolve as a result of the City's experience with the Holiday Health Spa
on Magnolia which generated overflow parking into residential areas causing
many problems.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The proposed development is on the
southeast corner of the property behind the post office. The Traffic Engineer
and staff did not have difficulty with the use at this particular location.
The number of parking spaces to be used by the facility are in a location
physically intended for this user, and detached from the main center parking
area. It is also required that there be a block wall maintained along the
southerly area which abuts the residential area, partly to keep residents from
parking there.
Paul Singer Traffic Engineer. He looked at the proposal very carefully and
required that they orient their main entrance away from the post office
parking lot and the south parking lot of the center. The main entrance will
be from Peregrine Street into a completely unutilized parking lot. At the
present time, the tenants in the apartment house are parking in that lot. The
wall was required to keep the residents from parking in the lot so that the
parking area will be specifically reserved for the people using the new
facility.
10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-19, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2952 AND WAIVER
OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543: Submitted by M. David Lewis, M.D., for a change in
zone from CL to RM-1200, to permit a 179-unit senior citizens apartment
complex plus a resident managers unit on property located at 1660-1664 West
1071
Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Broadway, with the following Code waivers: (a) required type of parking
spaces, (b) minimum building site area per dwelling unit (deleted).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-219 and 220,
granted Reclassification No. 87-88-19 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2952 and
Waiver of Council Policy No. 543, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to be assured that elevators were a part of the
proposal; staff later confirmed that elevators were included.
End of Planning Commission items.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4879 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17--FLOOD HAZARD
REDUCTION: Requested by Planning staff, request to amend portions of chapter
17.28, relating to Flood Hazard Reduction to comply with certain Federal and
State regulations.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4879 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4879: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
17.28.030, 17.28.100, 17.28.120, 17.28.130, 17.28.170; ADDING SUBSECTIONS
17.28.030.165, 17.28.030.185, 17.28.120.060, 17.28.130.035; AND REPEALING
SUBSECTIONS 17.28.030.100, 17.28.030.110, 17.28.030.200, 17.28.130.021,
17.28.130.030, 17.28.170.020 AND 17.28.170.040 OF CHAPTER 17.28 OF TITLE 17 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4880 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18--RECYCLING
FACILITIES: Request by Planning staff, request to amend Sections 18.44.030,
18.44.050, 18.45.030, 18.45.050, 18.46.030, 18.46.050, 18.61.030 of the Code,
by adding thereto subsections pertaining to recycling facilities.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4880 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4880: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
18.44.030, 18.44.050, 18.45.030, 18.45.050, 18.46.030, 18.46.050, 18.61.030,
18.61.050, 18.63.030, 18.63.050 OF CHAPTERS 18.44, 18.45, 18.46, 18.61, 18.63,
RESPECTIVELY, OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO
SUBSECTIONS PERTAINING TO RECYCLING FACILITIES.
179: REVEIW OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION - NOVEMBER 5, 1987:
1. VARIANCE NO. 3724: Submitted by Patrick L. Meredith, et al, to retain a
patio enclosure and patio cover, on property located at 215 South Emerald
Street, with Code waiver of minimum rear yard setback.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-29,
approved in part, Variance No. 3724, and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination (Class 5). The decision date was
November 10, 1987.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3716: Submitted by George R. Jenkins, to retain a 7-foot,
4-inch high fence on property located at 919 North Summer Street, with Code
waiver of maximum fence height.
1072
City M~ll, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-32,
approved Variance No. 3716, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination (Class 3). The decision date was November 10, 1987.
3. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 87-06: Submitted by Jack and Mary Alice
Wagner, to construct a 2-car garage on property located at 1819 West Harriet
Lane, with Code waiver of minimum garage setback.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-33,
granted Administrative Adjustment No. 87-06. The decision date was
November 10, 1987.
4. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 87-07: Submitted by Ron and Mary J. Nelson,
to construct a single-family residence on property located at 4465 Forest Glen
Koad, with Code waiver of minimum garage setback.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-34,
granted Administrative Adjustment No. 87-07. The decision date was
November 10, 1987.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3725: Submitted by Kay M. and Boniata E. Ladbury, to
construct a second story addition to a single-family residence located at 3160
West Bridgeport Avenue, with Code waivers of maximum site coverage and maximum
number of bedrooms.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-30,
approved Variance No. 3725, and granted a negative declaration status. The
decision date was November 10, 1987.
Councilwoman Kaywood. The lot is a 5,000 square foot lot and under that zone
3-bedrooms are allowed. The applicant requested and Zoning Administrator
approved 5-bedrooms. She does not want to deviate from the 3-bedrooms allowed
under the Code set up initially because it still makes sense. She would like
to know why they are going to be ignoring that limit.
Greg Hastings, Associate Planner. In this case, the Zoning Administrator
approved the waiver of minimum number of bedrooms based on the overall size of
the units in the tract. He confirmed that it was built before the RS-5000
zone ordinance went into effect.
Councilwoman Kaywood. In that case, the tract is already overcrowded and this
would make it more so. She asked that her no vote be registered in opposition
to the approval of the 5-bedrooms.
City Attorney, Jack White. No action is required on the item unless it is set
for a public hearing. The minutes, however, can reflect that while
Councilwoman Kaywood did not set the matter for a public hearing, she
expressed her opposition to the practice.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is also concerned that others do not come in and
use this variance as a precedent.
1073
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3714: Submitted by John N. and Susan C. Craven, to construct
a room addition to a single-family residence located a~ 2543 East Puritan
Circle, with Code waiver of minimum rear yard setback.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-31,
approved Variance No. 3714, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination (Class 5). The decision date was November 10, 1987.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She noted that the room addition requested had a wood
shingle roof. She wanted to know if the roof was treated which is now a
requirement to mitigate fire danger.
Greg Hastings. In this case, the plans did not indicate whether it was fire
treated or not; however, it is a condition of approval that any building
construction meet building and fire codes.
End of Zoning A~ministrator Findings.
170: PARCEL MAP NO. 87-144--FINAL MAP: Redevelopment Agency and City of
Anaheim, requesting approval of the Final Map of Parcel Map No. 87-144,
consisting of 2.57 acres located on the northeast corner'of Anaheim Boulevard
and Lincoln Avenue.
Report of the City Engineer dated November 4, 1987 was submitted, recommending
that the Mayor and City Clerk sign the Ownership Certificate on the Title
Sheet of Parcel Map No. 87-144.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 15, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Councilman Bay moved to direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Ownership
Certificate on the Title Sheet of Parcel Map No. 87-144. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
107: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - HOUSE MOVE ON AT 514 EAST BROADWAY: Request by
Farano and Kieviet, representing Sam Difilippo~ for a Rehearing of the Special
Permit (House Move On) at 514 East Broadway, which was denied by the Council
on July 28, 1987. This matter was continued from the meeting of November 10,
1987.
Mayor Bay. This item was continued from the previous meeting for full Council
action. A full Council was not present today.
Councilwoman Kmywood moved to deny the request for rehearing once again.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he was going to vote
against the denial. He feels something appropriate can be accommplished on
the property and would like to see rendering of what might be done. He wants
1074
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
a project that will be an asset and fit in with the neighborhood and feels
that can be done with the structure that is presently On the property.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the
following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABS~T: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler and Bay
Ehrle and Kaywood
Hunter
Floyd Farano. Last week following the Council meeting, they talked with Donna
Berry, to see if there was a way to make the project more desirable. It was
agreed that such discussion might be pursued, but provided that there are no
other variances or waivers required. In the meantime he has met with the
Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti and Wayne West, Chief Building
Official to determine and reaffirm the previous finding that there are no
waivers required. Mrs. Berry has not been available and he, therefore,
suggested that the matter be continued for at least two weeks until it is
determined if Mrs. Berry is interested in pursuing further discussion. He
does not want to represent that any promises were made because there were
none. The only thing addressed was the possibility of further discussion. It
was determined by general Council consensus that the matter be continued to
Tuesday, December 1, 1987 Council meeting starting at 6:30 p.m. Councilman
Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Councilman Bay moved to
continue the appointment of a member to the Public Utilities Board for the
term ending June 30, 1989 to Tuesday, December 1, 1987 for full Council
action. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
106: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BALANCING THE FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 RESOURCE
ALLOCATION PLAN: City Clerk Sohl announced that Mr. Bill Erickson requested
to speak to the issue.
Mr. kill Erickson, 301 East North Street, made suggestions which he said might
raduea th~ bud~t ~h0rtfall of ~8 million r~c0mm~nding that the Council
consider the following: an entertainment tax, a utility tax, a business
license tax, pay increases moderate, freeze on. hiring, eliminate any further
Certificates of Participation ventures, can City services be cut temporarily,
admittance tax, user fees, and as a last resort, that a property tax issue be
placed on the ballot for the voters. The Transient Occupancy Tax at 10% is
sufficient. The present business license fee should be scrutinized to see if
it is in line or not. A sunset clause, if possible, will eliminate any tax
when the City's finances are on solid ground. .He suggested that the Council
could use any one of his suggestions to see if there would be a positive
outcome. It was time to get things settled.
There was no further discussion by Council Members on the budget.
1075
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4878 - EXEMPTIONS FROM IMPROVEMENTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY:
Amending Subsection .070 of Section 18.04.080 of the Code pertaining to
exemptions from improvements of right-of-way.
Councilman Pickler wanted to know if there was any input to the report from
the development community.
City Engineer, Gary Johnson, reported that a couple of developers are in
process with projects who have been interested but he has not seen an
expression of interest in the changes being proposed from the development
community at large. The matter was submitted to the Planning Commission where
there was some discussion and two recommendations made as he explained at the
meeting of November 10, 1987 (see minutes that date). These were subsequently
incorporated into the ordinance last week when it was given an amended first
reading - (1) deletion of the 10% provision for defining exemptions and (2)
extending the one year period to two years, limiting how many times someone
can come back for an exemption. He is recommending the ordinance as it exists
now since it provides flexibility and will eliminate some inequity from the
prior ordinance. It is far superior to the ordinance they were working under
in the past.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent.
CARRIED.
MOTION
Councilman Pickier offered Ordinance No. 4878 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4878: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.070 OF SECTION 18.04.080 OF CHAPTER 18.04 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM IMPROVEMENTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler reiterated this is a matter he has
had a problem with for some time but it was necessary to have something the
City could rely on to do what needs to be done. He is not completely
satisfied with the situation but it is necessary to have something on the
books. He is certain the Council will keep analyzing the situation and if
need be the ordinance can be changed by a majority vote of the Council.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
Hunter
The PAyor declared Ordinance No. 4878 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4881 THROUGH 4883: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance
Nos. 4881 through 4883 for first reading.
1076
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4881: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-19, CO(SC), 7777 Santa Ana Canyon Road)
ORDINANCE NO. 4882: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRTATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-30, RM-1200, 729, 731 and 733 Knott Street).
ORDINANCE NO. 4883: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 87-88-05, CL, 2020 E. Via Burton Street, 1420 and
1440 No. State College Blvd.)
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:02 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Hunter. (3:20 p.m.)
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 231:
APPLICANT:
City of Anaheim
200 So. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to
consider alternate uses of land from medium density residential to low-medium
density residential, on approximately 3.9 acres located on the north side of
Pearl Street between West Street and 170 feet east of Dwyer Place, and on the
south side of Pearl Street between Carleton Avenue and 170 feet east of Dwyer
Place.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-206 approved General Plan
Amendment, Exhibit "A"; approved EIR Negative Declaration.
PUBLIC NOTICE tLEQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 5, 1987.
Posting of property November 6, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 6, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 28, 1987.
Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, briefed the report which
described the proposed City initiated General Plan Amendment.
He also described surrounding land uses. He noted that
initially a petition was submitted by 53 Anaheim residents
requesting the change in the General Plan. As a result, the
City Planning Commission, on August 3, 1987, directed staff to
initiate the request. The Planning Commission is requesting
approval of the General Plan Amendment, Exhibit "A", low medium
density.
1077
$?
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Margaret Carter, 1224 West Pearl Street. The neighborhood
petitioned the Planning Commission last July for downgrading in
density from medium. They feel it represents the best way to
preserve the present condition of their neighborhood and to be
sure what change may come will not have a negative impact. They
are asking that the Council help keep Pearl Street as it is now
because they like it that way.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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. Councilman Hunter was absent· MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-487 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No 231, Exhibit "A"
· , as recommended by the City
Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-487: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
A/~AHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PI~N DESIGNATED AS AMF~DMENT NO. 231, EXHIBIT "A".
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
Hunter
Ihe Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-487 duly passed and adopted.
Council Members commended the residents in their efforts to maintain the
integrity of their neighborhood.
1078
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
179: VARIANCE NO. 3585--AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
APPLICANT:
Hugo Vazquez, Young Lion Development
2240 West Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim, Ca. 92801
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Request to amend condition of approval: Condition
No. 11, Provision d, of Resolution No. 86R-469. This resolution granting
Variance No. 3585, to construct a 50-unit (granted 44 units) apartment complex
on 2.1 acres, having a frontage of approximately 152 feet on the west side of
Western Avenue, approximately 590 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln
Avenue, (295 and 211 No. Western Avenue), with various Code waivers.
HEARING SET ON:
Required when there is a request to amend conditions of approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 5, 1987.
Posting of property November 6, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 5, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 12, 1987,
recommending consideration by the Council of an amendment to provision (d) of
Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. 86R-469.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Hugo Yazquez, 619 So. Liveoak Drive Anaheim. He referred to the
previous public hearings on the subject (see minu~es of Council
meetings of September 16, 1986 and October 14, 1986) wherein a
44-unit apartment complex was approved on October 14, 1986. The
plans submitted at that public hearing are the plans that are
now posted on the Chamber wall showing a full subterranean
garage 10 feet below grade. The north side of the project was
completely 1-story and set 23 feet back from the property line.
The minutes of that hearing state the words, buffer zone.
Trying to gain a buffer zone became a complicated effort. When
he was ready to pull building permits, it turned out that the
garage is not 23 feet away, but 7 feet away, but below &rade
because it is a £ull 10 feet into the ground. In reading the
conditions of approval, it is not clear whether the garage is
supposed to be set back 23 feet or not. Construction on the
project was initiated in July.
Prior to demolition on the site, an 8-foot block wall was
installed, made of slump stone. The neighborhood not only had
the opportunity to pick out the kind of wall but also, he
landscaped the neighbor's property on the other side of the wall
with shrubbery chosen by the neighbors and without regard to
cost which amounted to approximately $8,000. (He submitted
pictures of the wall - made a part of the record). He also
submitted a letter from his construction lender expressing
concern over the fact that his loan was funded back in July but
1079
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 198.7, 1:30 P.M.
nothing is yet taking place. He wants to start the project and
clear up any misunderstandings.
Relative to the 23-foot buffer area, it is only to be accessible
for maintenance purposes. When he submitted plans to the
Building Department, he was told according to the building and
fire and safety codes that it would be necessary to have two
exits from the property and not just one. He tried to negotiate
the matter on his own without a public hearing to put in
emergency gates so that the security exit would only be used in
case of an emergency. In answer to Council questions, Mr.
Yazquez explained he is not proposing anything different than
what was originally approved. However, he is now told two exits
are required and the neighborhood only wanted one exit. He did
not know at the time that the project would be infringing on a
building code requirement. He cannot agree to do something that
violates the Uniform Building Code or Fire Department Codes.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
Number one is the issue of access into the-23-foot setback. It
was clear the Council and Mr. Vazquez stipulated to, maintenance
purposes only, which means locked access so that no one could
get into that area. Because of the way they designed the
building, they chose to put the second access on the northerly
side. Emergency access means, it is possible to exit in an
emergency but a person can easily pull that same door open. At
the very least, if Council were to approve the request at all,
it would be necessary to approve it to delete the prohibition of
anything except maintenance. The other is the issue of
underground parking. It was apparently intended that about 10
to 13 feet of that parking area be opened to the air with a
steel grating over it. She understood the 23 feet essentially
would be a dead area with no activity including something going
on under the ground. Those two items are the critical issues.
Hugo Vazquez.
Although the plans show that the subterranean garage was
approved as an open garage, when they submitted their plans to
the Building Department, they found out that would violate a
building code and the garage would have to be covered -
completely closed with a ventilation system. Further, his
interpretation of a "heavily landscaped" area is that they are
to plant trees 2 feet on center on the entire north side. They
are buying mature trees that have to be 6 to 8 feet high. Their
landscape architect advises that mature trees cannot be planted
2 feet on center because they will die. They elected to go with
a mature tree 4 feet on center.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
1080
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Steve Worrell, 8881 Garfield Circle, Buena Park.
His property abuts the subject property. He first submitted a
folder of material for each Council Member (made a part of the
record) containing various letters, the 13-point compromise
agreement that was agreed to by the Presidential tract
neighborhood and Mr. Vazquez on October 14, 1986, a chronology
of the efforts that have taken place on the property from July
6, 1987 to August 12, 1987, Council minutes, resolution and
other miscellaneous documents. The plans they were given to
approve do not match the plans posted on the wall. They feel
that the 13 points agreed upon on October 14, 1986 (see minutes
that date) are not being followed.
Condition No. 2 (of the 13 points) stated, "All parking to be a
full 10 feet below ground level with a 23-foot setback from the
northern Buena Park boundary" and, penciled in, "except for ramp
parking due to City of Anaheim Traffic Department ramp
requirements and handicapped parking".
Condition No. 3 stated - "A 23-foot densely landscaped unusable
setback totally blocked of all access for pedestrians and
vehicles referred to as a "buffer zone". This buffer zone is to
be between the Buena Park borderline and the apartment
complex". The 23-foot setback was encroached upon by the
underground parking. Also, there were gates and stepping stones
half way into the buffer zone which Mr. Vazquez said were needed
for maintenance and that the gates needed to be opened for the
Fire Department. An official he contacted in the Buena Park
Fire Department stated those are not necessary. The residents
want the buffer zone to remain a buffer zone now and after the
project is complete. Otherwise, they feel it will be used for
other purposes.
Relative to the trees Mr. Vazquez said he replaced on the
northern boundary, he replaced those that were destroyed by the
construction equipment. The 8-foot wall was also part of the
agreement but it was not constructed in a timely manner and it
created a great hardship on the neighbors. He and the residents
are present today to make sure that the rest of the project goes
well and the buffer zone is adhered to. He also confirmed for
Councilwoman Kaywood that they would object to any parking
within the 23 feet unless it is a requirement of the City.
Robert Papini, 8881 Buchanan Circle, Buena Park.
He is speaking in opposition to the amendments to conditions
being requested today. The residents negotiated with Mr.
Vazquez for many months and finally agreed on 13 points. It is
beyond his imagination that they could get down to the time of
construction and find that the developer does not want to follow
all of those points. There can be no different interpretation
1081
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
of point #2. He objects to the fact that the plans posted on
the Chamber wall are approved plans because they are not. He
wants to know why Buena Park residents got one set of plans and
the Council got another. The residents know the developer wants
to intrude into the 23 feet. It is clear what a buffer zone
is. Any deviation from the 13 points is a miscarriage of
justice. The citizens of Buena Park deserve to have what they
negotiated. He also relayed the hardships the residents endured
during construction of the wall.
Diane Bohen, 8821 Garfield Circle, Buena Park.
She contacted both the Anaheim and Buena Park Fire Departments
regarding exits into an uncommon piece of land. They both told
her it was not Code. There is no such thing as asking for use
into uncommon land such as Mr. Vazquez is asking. The
landscaping on Garfield Circle has not yet been replaced or
repaired. She then referred to letter dated November 16, 1987
from the Mayor of Buena Park, Don Griffin, regarding the
matter. (Council Members explained they had received and read
the letter - previously made a part of the record).
Ronald Ferrell, 8880 Buchanan Circle, Buena Park.
It took six weeks to construct the 8-foot block wall at great
hardship to the residents.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hugo Vazquez.
The posted plan is the one submitted which was signed and it
depicted what was approved at the public hearing with no garage
open whatsoever and fully landscaped with mature trees along the
north side but not on the whole 23 feet. Ground cover is to be
provided after that point. The driveway has never changed - the
parking design has never changed; he has never submitted any
other plans. The garage is set back 7 feet within the 23-foot
setback. When he went to pull his building permits he was told
he would have to have two accessways which was a surprise to
him. He does not need two accessways. The Planning Department
is also now saying the garage is a building. They plan to
landscape the top of the garage building with four inches of top
soil and then landscape the whole 23 feet. The £irst 7 feet
with trees.
Councilman Ehrle.
He asked why Mr. Vazquez does not have his building permits at
this time.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
The Building Department has not issued the permit because the
building plans do not conform to what staff expected based on
what happened at the Council meeting the last time.
1082
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
He asked Mr. Vazquez how he was going to meet the requirements
written into Condition No. 2 and 3 of the 13 point agreement,
the way the garage is designed.
Hugo Vazquez.
Working from the posted plans, he explained that the ground
cover will be planted 16 feet over the garage other than a
4-foot walkway to exit out in case of an emergency.
Mayor Bay questioned why not put the walkway on the other side
of the building.
Hugo Vazquez.
If the Council can override the Building Department, that is
what they will do. The balconies were intruding into the 23
feet so they had to be cut back. They had exits down into the
garage to go from the 1-story units into the garage which were
going to intrude so those were relocated on the backside as
opposed to the front. He reiterated he did not know it was
going to be necessary to have two accessways. The issue had
never come up before. The initial plans did not reflect such
accessways. He presumed that in looking at the plans, Building
saw the 550-foot length and consequently requested that two
exits be provided.
Extensive discussion followed between Council Members and Mr.
Vazquez relative to the basic issues and points of contention
revolving around intrusion into the 23-foot setback by required
accessways and also the underground garage which is 7 feet from
the wall but underground.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
She confirmed that relative to the walkway, it is required by
Code and based on how deep the parking structure is, required to
be at the opposite corner from the other entrance and the people
who get out at that area have to be able to get out to a safe
point or the street.
Wayne West, Ghief B~ildin& Official.
Relative to the exits, it is too great a distance for the people
inside the parking structure to travel and that is why another
exit is required at the rear. As far as the grates and exits,
Building still has not received plans to review, approve or
disapprove. There have not been any plans submitted as to
exactly what Mr. Vazquez proposes to do. Right now Mr. Vazquez
is planning to use the 23-foot landscaped area as a means of
access, when he already agreed not to use that for any purpose.
The Building Department needs to see a set of plans on how he
proposes not to use the 23-foot area, while at the same time
providing a second exit from the structure to cut down the
travel distance.
1083
City Mall, Anaheim, C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
After additional discussion regarding the design of the project
relative to exits out of the property, the Mayor emphasized that
he did not favor the Council or staff engineering his (¥azquez)
development during a public hearing. He asked Mr. Vazquez to
engineer his own development, bring it in and have staff look at
it and they will tell Mr. Yazquez what they will accept. He has
a 13 point commitment to the neighbors that has to be met. He
feels it can be met and still meet the design criteria called
for by the staff. He questioned why the Council was involved in
redesigning the project.
Hugo Yazquez.
The plans were submitted but were not accepted because they did
not meet the criteria since two exits were required that lead to
the street. The recommendation he has always been given is to
exit from the north side. The reason for the public hearing is
just to fine tune the vocabulary because it was loosely written
by the neighborhood and himself.
Mayor Bay.
The true issue is that Mr. Vazquez does not have confidence from
the neighbors that he is not planning to use the buffer area in
some way other than a buffer zone. If he is forced into putting
in walks because he does not have an interpretation on the fire
exit, he could discuss that with the Building Official and
clarify the matter within the next ten minutes. He suggested
that the Council trail the item so that Mr. Vazquez could
clarify the issue with Mr. West.
Wayne West.
The problem is that the original design was changed. The garage
was lowered and it was changed from wood to concrete. The
Building Department has asked Mr. Vazquez to bring in a set of
plans showing exactly what he proposes to do, how the garage
will be ventilated, how it will be exited, etc. Those plans
have not been submitted and he will need time because there are
many things to look at and consider.
Hugo Vazquez.
The only issue that needs to be resolved is whether there needs
to be a southerly exit and how that can be provided through the
assistance of the Building Department.
Councilman Pickler.
He also feels that the underground garage being 7 feet from the
property is another issue; Miss Santalahti stated that does not
bother her but the "emergency" exit relocated along the south
property line with a 23-foot buffer zone means there will be
gates that are locked and cannot be opened except by the Manager.
1084
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
COUN6IL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Mayor Bay.
He recommended that the public hearing be continued until the
plans are submitted to the Building Department and the problems
to meet Code are resolved. The intent is to meet exactly what
the agreement says with the neighbors - a 23-foot densely
landscaped, unusable setback totally blocked of all access for
pedestrians and vehicles to be referred to as a buffer zone. He
feels that is the issue.
Councilman Pickler.
He wants to make sure that staff understands with the garage
being underground that because it is 7 feet from the wall is not
a problem.
Annika Santalahti.
What she would expect, at the next hearing, the Council will get
two drawings, the site plan with the details discussed and a
second plan showing a section through that area.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on Variance
No. 3585 to amend conditions of approval to Tuesday, December 1, 1987.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:59 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, including Councilman Hunter who arrived in the Council Chamber
during the recess. (5:10 p.m.)
179: REHEARING - RECI.ASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2907 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Jerald and Dortheal E. Stanley
236 South Ash Street
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
ILEqUgST/ZONING/LOCATION: Change in zone ~rom R§-7200 to CO, to permit office
use of a residential structure on property located at 236 South Ash Street,
with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-134 denied Reclassification
No. 87-88-02; Resolution No. PC8~-135 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2907;
EIR Negative Declaration recommended be granted.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by James P. Barone, Attorney for the applicants.
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of denial was requested by the
applicant and public hearing scheduled before the City Council on September 8,
1085
C!t7 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
1987. At that time the Council denied the Reclassification and the
Conditional Use Permit; approved EIR Negative Declaration.
Subsequently a request for rehearing was made and granted by the Council on
October 27, 1987 and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 5, 1987.
Posting of property November 6, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 6, 1987.
City Clerk Sohl announced that earlier this afternoon Mr. Stanley submitted a
written request for postponement of the hearing on the item to December 8,
1987. He is still present and may wish to speak to that request.
Mayor Bay.
He asked how many were present for the public hearing. (There
were approximately ten people present - the indication from them
was that five were in favor and five were in opposition). He
then asked to hear from the applicant.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Jerry Stanley.
His attorney is not present and he is asking for a postponement
because he is not really prepared to proceed.
After a brief discussion with the Mayor, Mr. Stanley stated even
though his representative is not present he is willing to
proceed with the hearing and will do his best. Sometime ago he
circulated a petition in the area relative to his request and
there were only two homes who were not in favor - 80% of the
property owners signed his petition. About 93% of those within
the 300 to 400-foot radius signed in favor. What he has
presented to the Council today is a plan showing parking spaces
that have been approved by the Traffic Engineer. Previously he
had six spaces and now he has two additional spaces bringing the
total to eight.
Mayor Bay.
At the original hearing (see minutes of September 8, 1987), in
his opinion the issue was not the parking but one commercial use
in a line of single-family residences, i.e., spot zoning of the
use of that residential for commercial'use in a whole block of
residential. To him, the issue is not parking.
Mr. Stanley.
The property is on one of the busiest streets in Anaheim. He is
adjacent to the commercial center on the east. Broadway Street,
in many areas, is commercial. It is a fast street. He has only
one residential neighbor and she has no arguments with what he
is proposing.
1086
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
1N FAVOR: Gerry Grosso, 2756 North Dalle Street, Orange.
He has been renting the property at 223 So. State College Blvd.
where he has operated a Real Estate Brokerage Firm for two
years. He does not have a parking problem with his clients or
sales people.
Adnan Kahativ, 2366 West Broadway.
It could be spot zoning but he does not think he would consider
it spot zoning in that particular location. He considers it to
be a help and benefit to the residents of that area because it
will act as a buffer from the street. It is an office use
building and not commercial. It is occasionally used or it is
minimally used. Having permitted the use as an office it will
work for the benefit of the owner of the property and the
residents if they put emotions aside and look at the facts.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Charlene Hill, 222 South Ash Street.
She spoke in opposition at the previous hearing and still
believes the issue is spot zoning. She submitted maps showing
the zoning in the area and all along Broadway between State
College Blvd. and East Street as residential. There is
commercial on State College and Lincoln but not on Broadway.
There is no reason to start now. Traffic on Broadway is bad and
it will only get worse. They have circulated a petition and
find that their results are contrary to what Mr. Stanley stated
that the residents on Ash Street were in favor. She thereupon
submitted a petition which was circulated on Ash Street, along
with a map indicating in pink all those who are opposed to
commercial zoning. There is also not enough parking in the area.
Kathy Jahr, 1262 East Elm Street, property owner at 219 Ash
Street.
She is opposed to spot zoning. The integrity of residential
neighborhoods should be maintained without commercial
intrusion. She also submitted a map showing which property is
commercial and which is residential. Approximately 10 to 12
years ago Mr. Stanley's family purchased the subject property as
a residential. Ten years ago it was left unoccupied for a
considerable amount of time to where it became a hazardous
nuisance, especially for children. Eight years ago it was
remodeled to its present configuration. For 5 years it has been
used as part of Mr. Stanley's business. He states as of now he
is operating that business with no walk in traffic and it is not
opened to the public. If it is rezoned as commercial, he could
sell the property and that property would then be opened to any
business, not necessarily compatible with a residential
neighborhood. Saying he is not going to Change the property at
this time has no bearing on the issue. It cannot be said that
no one would live on that property as a residence.
1087
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Malcolm Jahr, 1262 East Elm Street.
There are no businesses along the subject portion of Broadway.
If the property is rezoned, it can be used for various
commercial uses. Originally Mr. Stanley said he would not be
changing the landscaping. He has now submitted a plan where he
will remove landscaping to accommodate the additional parking
spaces. There is a requirement for 13 spaces on that property,
one of which has to be handicapped parking. He does not see how
that requirement can be met. He has a lease on the property
next door for 25 years. If the zone is changed on the subject
property it is for the remainder of the life of the earth.
Joseph Feinberg, attorney, 2180 West Crescent, representing Alma
Keller who owns the property at 211 So. State College Blvd. The
additional parking is not the problem but the extended use of
the property as a commercial property is. The property has been
used improperly as a commercial property. When a City Code
Enforcement Officer attempts to enforce the Code, it was then
Mr. Stanley attempted to change the zoning so he would be in
compliance with Code. With the commercial zone change, there is
still a parking problem. Adding two parking spaces on the back
end of a residential lot, based on a 5-year lease that is almost
3 years old with none of the improvements having been made until
now, still creates questions and problems. He believes the use
is still a spot zone change in a residential area in order to
comply with an existing use that is improper in itself. At
prior hearings it was stated that even some of the tenants of
Alma Keller signed the petition. He had with him 5 letters
obtained by Mrs. Keller from her tenants who signed the petition
saying they signed it under false pretenses. (He submitted the
letters - made a part of the record). The lease dated January
30, 1985 provides for paving in the back end for parking. It
provides for a fence to be installed and for landscaping to be
replaced. That has not been done. He questioned why it would
be expected that it would be done at this time.
Sb~TION BY APPLICANT:
Jerry Stanley. He had the original petitions with him. He then
read for the Council exactly what was stated on the petitions
when they were signed, pointing out that there could have been
no misunderstanding. Relative to the two additional parking
spaces, one is on the side of the building between the wall and
his neighbor to the north where it will not interfere with the
landscaping. His request is a reasonable one. The property's
highest and best use is for office use and the structure lends
itself to it. He requested approval of the Reclassification and
the Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Stanley then reported, upon Council questioning, that he
does not need to put up signs. Planning Staff required that
there be no signs on Ash Street. He had no intention of doing
that. Any signs would be minimal but he will abide by Council's
1088
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
decision. Relative to changing to a Broadway Street address
instead of Ash~Street, he would do whatever the Council wished.
He also has no intention of selling the property. Both of the
buildings will go into a family trust and it will stay with the
family - the building on State College and this building.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mmyor Bay closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL INPUT:
Councilman Hunter.
Since the last hearing, he has met with Mr. Stanley and visited
the property as well as the Real Estate Office on State
College. The rear of the subject structure which faces onto Ash
and Broadway is almost contiguous with his Real Estate Office on
State College. The way the property is used, there is less
traffic than if a family was living there. He travels Broadway
twice a day and he has not noticed that it was being used that
much. He is switching his vote from the last time to a vote in
favor.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
This is not just a conditional use permit request but a
reclassification as well. She has never heard of changing a
zone but telling the applicant he may never have a sign since
the sign would be allowed with a zone change.
City Attorney, Jack White.
The reason this has been proposed as a zone change as well as a
CUP is because the Code provides that a commercial use of a
residential structure is only allowed in a commercial zone by
CUP's. It is not allowed as a matter of right or with a CUP in
a residential zone. In order to legalize the activity occurring
on the property, it is necessary for the applicant to attempt to
obtain both a zone change and a CUP. By changing the zone to
commercial, as long as there remains a residential structure on
the property, the Council, by conditions of the CUP can restrict
how that use is conducted of that residential structure. In the
future, if that structure were removed, then the property would
be able to be used for any of the normal commercial u~es that
are permitted in the zone it would be rezoned to, provided that
the commercial use has met the zoning Code for that zone.
Councilman Pickler.
He asked if they could approve the CUP and deny the
Reclassification.
Jack White.
The zoning Code does not allow a commercial use of a residential
structure, except in a commercial zone. The alternative would
be to change the Code.
1089
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
If this is rezoned and the use changes, the house next door
could request the same thing which "busts" a neighborhood. They
have seen that happen repeatedly. It is all residential on
Broadway until State College Blvd. Once it is changed to an
office, there is no other way to look at it but spot zoning.
Mayor Bay.
Looking at the many other places where there is strip commercial
in the City, it is a meeting place between those commercial
strips, an alley and then residential. The minute commercial
starts crossing into solid single-family residential, that is
where the line should be drawn. Because the structure has been
used for many years illegally is a poor argument. This is a
precedent step that is one of the most dangerous such steps they
can make in the City. People who live next to strip commercial
have enough to contend with.
Councilman Ehrle.
He disagrees. He feels this property is unique and different.
Mr. Stanley has owned the property for many years. He is an
independent businessman who has expanded a business over the
years and although he probably should have done it differently,
he should not be punished by being successful. It is a show
place of most conversions in the City.
Councilman Pickler.
He asked the City Attorney again if there was a way the City
could let Mr. Stanley continue operating without a
Reclassification or a CUP. Possibly some way to maintain status
qUO.
City Attorney White.
He reiterated the only way would be to amend the code itself.
The use also does not fit the definition of a Home Occupation
Permit because it involves generation of a certain amount of
traffic over and above what the code allows as well as the use
of non-resident employees. He confirmed that they cannot place
a condition on the property that limits the use of the property
under the terms of that zone.
Councilman Pickler.
He would then like to see the code amended as articulated by the
City Attorney; Council consensus did not favor such an extreme
solution.
After further Council discussion and debate, Councilman Pickler
suggested a continuance of the public hearing.
Residents who were present in the Chamber audience requested
that the matter be heard at a night hearing.
1090
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 17, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved that the public hearing on Reclassification
No. 87-88-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2907 be continued to Tuesday,
January 5, 1988 at 8:00 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
105/114: CONSIDERATION OF REDUCTION IN SIZE OF THE GOLF COURSE COMMISSION:
Councilman Pickler. The City's Golf Course Commission, at present, is a
nine-member Commission. He does not feel there needs to be nine members on
that Commission but perhaps seven or even five and that the smaller number
could be achieved by attrition.
City Attorney White explained the Code states that the Commission consists of
nine members. The code would have to be amended in order to make a change.
Mayor Bay asked the City Attorney to look at the issue, the general consensus
being that he look at a five-member Commission.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:28 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor Pro Tem called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present with the exception of Councilman Bay. (8:58 p.m.)
Mayoz Pro Tem Pickler announced that no quorum was anticipated for the Council
meeting of November 24, 1987.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (9:00 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1091