1987/12/01City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
The Assistant City Clerk called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City
Council to order at 12:00 noon and recessed same until 4:00 p.m. for lack of a
quorum.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Wayne West
SENIOR REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Richard Santo
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 2:30 p.m. on November 25, 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 0.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59; City of Anaheim
vs. County of Orange 0.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. Potentlal litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Cession.
seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent.
(3:20 p.m.)
Councilman Pickler
MOTION CARRIED.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Ehrle, and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting. (7:01 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Mary Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
1093
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL'MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Hospice Week in Anaheim, December 1-7, 1987.
Pastor Steiff and Mary Andrews accepted the Hospice Week proclamation.
119: DECLARATION: An Expression of Congratulations was unanimously adopted
by the City Council and presented to Barbara DeBow for her contributions
toward the betterment of her students at Ball Jr. High School. Ms. DeBow was
chosen as one of four finalists for State Teacher of the Year Award by the
California State Department of Education. She was personally congratulated by
the Mayor and Council Members.
119: RATIFICATION OF DECLARATION: The Council ratified an Expression of
Recognition which was presented to Dr. Earl Reum for his many years of
dedication and contributions to Anaheim student leaders. The Declaration was
previously presented by Mayor Pro Tem Pickler.
119: PRESENTATION - SISTER CITY COMMITTEE: Mrs. June Lowry of the Sister
City Committee, on behalf of the Committee and on behalf of Anaheim Sister
City, Mito, Japan presented Mayor Bay with the following: A Resolution from
the State of California, commemorating the 10-year anniversary of the Sister
City relationship between the City of Anaheim and the City of Mito, Japan; a
Resolution from the County of Orange also commemorating the 10th anniversary
milestone; a Certificate from Mito, Japan to mark the 10th anniversary of the
relationship between the two Cities signed by Mayor Kay Stgawa and lastly, a
plaque from the citizens of Mito and its Mayor to Mayor Bay with the
inscription, "May our friendship last forever". Commemorative programs were
also presented to the Council Members marking the recent visit of the Sister
City Committee Contingency to Mito, Japan.
Mayor Bay, on behalf of the Council, thanked Mrs. Lowry for the presentation
and also thanked Mayor Pro Tem Irv Pickler who made the recent trip to Japan
in commemoration of the 10-year Sister City relationship. He also thanked the
members of the Sister City Committee who have worked so diligently in keeping
the relationship between Mito and Anaheim alive.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held October 20 and November 3, 1987 and the adjourned regular
meeting of October 20 (held October 27, 1987). Councilman Hunter seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,33,831.63 for the
period ending November 20, 1987 and $1,949,046.56 for the period ending
November 25, 1987, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following
resolutions were read by the Interim City Manager.
1094
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and
resolutions on the Consent Calendar, after reading of the title thereof, and
that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, un_less after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the
reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 87R-488 through 87R-489, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance
Nos. 4884 and 4885 for first reading.
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 Virgene Droesbeke for wrongful death due to design
and maintenance of street on or about August 9, 1987.
b. Claim submitted by Supercross, Inc. for contractual dispute due to
actions of the City on or about January 1, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by Myrtle L. Larson for slip and fall at Anaheim
Senior Citizens Center on or about September 25, 1987.
d. Claim submitted for Garrett Jones for wrongful death purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about July 19, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by General Exposition, Inc. for indemnification and
contribution due to actions of the City on or about October 18, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by Manuel Preduim for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 25, 1987.
g. Claim submigted by Dana A. Roessner for property damage and bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 16,
1987.
h. Claim submitted by Lisa Shaw for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about July 18, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Services Board, Minutes of October 8, 1987.
b. 107: Building Division, Statistical Report for period ending
October 31, 1987.
1095
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
c. 105: Senior Citizens Commission, Minutes of October 8, 1987.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of October 15, 1987.
3. 153/152: Authorizing the Human Resources Director to solicit proposals
and interview executive search firms specializing in the utilities engineering
field and negotiate an agreement with the selected firm to recruit for an
Assistant General Manager - Engineering, Electrical Engineering Manager and
Principal Electrical Engineer.
4. 153: Receiving and filing the Quarterly Report on settlement of wage
claims resulting from employee grievances (August - September, 1987).
5. 123: Authorizing an Agreement No. 3848 with Caltrans, for landscaping of
embankment slopes at Miraloma Avenue, Sunkist Street, Tustin Avenue, Riverdaie
Avenue and La Palma Avenue on Route 91 and 57 Freeways.
106: Approving the modification of the Public Works - Engineering Department
FY 87/88 program budget by adding the Route 91/57 Slope Landscaping Project to
Program 792, and increasing revenues and expenditures by $200,000.
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Newport Pacific Realty and Investment
Corporation to provide 9 affordable rental units in a proposed 111 unit
apartment project to be located at 2736-2740 West Lincoln Avenue.
7. 106: Authorizing modification of the Public Works - Engineering
Department 1987-88 Resource Allocation Plan by increasing the allocation in
Program 791, Storm Drains, by $870,736 for the East Richfield Channel and the
Walnut-Goodhue Storm Drain.
8. 161: Receiving and filing the Annual Progress Report for the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency for fiscal year 1986/87, in accordance with Section
33080, Calif. Health and Safety Code.
9. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order~rithout competitive bidding to the Anaheim Public
Improvement Corporation in the amount of $33,369 for 28 infrared tube heaters
for the Fleet Maintenance vehicle service facility.
10. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to the Anaheim Public
Improvement Corporation in the amount of ~11,949.98 for one power sweeper for
the Convention Center.
11. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $36,292.28 for one
loader/backhoe, in accordance with Bid Proposal #A-4502.
12. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $42,940.73 for two
walk-in type vans, in accordance with Bid No. A-4509.
1096
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987~ 4:00 P.M.
13. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-488: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED
TO THE GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (creating the classifications of Typesetting
Technician, U 1109 and Typesetting Technician Trainee, 907, effective
December 11, 1987)
14. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-489: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
15. 150/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4884: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
SECTION 11.04.100 TO CHAPTER 11.04 OF TITLE 11 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
~mLATING TO TRESPASSING IN WETLAND HABITATS.
16. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4885: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 14.32.320 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT ISSUANCE OF PARKING CITATIONS BY ADDITIONAL
CITY EMPLOYEES. (to permit issuance of parking citations by contract parking
checkers)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter, Kaywood, Pickier and Bay
None
Ehrle
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-488 and 87R-489 duly passed and
adopted. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
End of Consent Calendar.
124/106: BETTERMENT III ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT/FEES: Submitted was report
dated November 18, 1987 from the Convention Center General Manager, Lynn
Thompson, recommending the appropriation of ~949,390 from the General Benefits
Fund to the Convention Center Fund for the subject contract.
Mr. Curtis Stricker, 1117 Wakefield Place. He is concerned with the amount
proposed to be spent for the design construction of the Convention Center
parking garage. He has checked with other architects and feels the fee amount
for the services the City is going to get is too high. He asked that the
Council not act on the recommendation until they have investigated the matter
further and are provided with evidence relating to those figures.
Mayor Bay. He explained first that this was not limited to architectural
design money but it also involved administrative management during the
construction period and the whole project. He also explained that the subject
amount in the original $1.6 million that was appropriated from the City toward
the Betterment III design is not coming out of the Anaheim City General Fund.
It is a loan of money out of the City's General Benefits Fund until the time
the actual bonds are issued or whatever is issued to finance the whole
Betterment III expansion. When the bonds are issued, the $1.6 million plus
1097
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
the $900,000 will immediately come back to the Anaheim General Benefits Fund.
The project was approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council and the
Community Center Authority on October 29, 1987. It was not approved by the
Anaheim Union High School District but that did not have an effect on the
actual financing of the project; however, the City would still prefer to have
the School Board majority vote in favor and are still hoping that will occur.
City Manager, Bob Simpson. They will be happy to provide Mr. Stricker with
the numbers he requested. The actual architectural fee included in the
$949,000 is $461,000, which is probably in line, based on the estimate of
construction costs of the garage. The meeting on the 29th was only to certify
the Environmental Impact Report. The funding for the project has not yet been
voted on. As the Mayor explained, the monies that are being borrowed from the
City's General Benefits Fund will be repaid when that bond issue has been sold.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to appropriate an amount not to exceed
$949,390 from the General Benefits Fund to the Convention Center Fund to be
administered by the Community Center Authority to implement the contract
amendment with the architect for Betterment III relating to the design of the
parking structure to be located at the corner of Convention Way and West
Street, bidding services and contract administration, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 18, 1987. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: BUS SHELTER PROGRAM - ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT: Submitted was report
dated November 3, 1987 from the City Engineer, Gary Johnson, recommending the
assignment of the agreement with Shelter Media, to Shelter Media
Communications Inc., for the City's bus shelter program.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Shelter Media had built the number of shelters
they promised they would build.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer. They have been in compliance with their contract
and are proceeding in accordance with the agreement. The recommendation is
merely an assignment of that agreement. He will provide additional
information in the coming week as to the status of their work.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She wants to know how many shelters there are. The
~helters have been maintained but she does not know if they have built as many
as promised.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent.
CARRIED.
MOTION
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-490 for adoption, consenting
to an assignment of an agreement with Shelter Media, to Shelter Media
Communications Inc., for the City's bus shelter program, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 3, 1987 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
1098
City Hall, A~_aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-490: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO ASSIGNMENT OF AN AGREEMENT FROM SHELTER MEDIA, A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, TO SHELTER MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES. ·
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
Ehrle
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-490 duly passed and adopted.
123: STADIUM FIELD IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPLAC~4ENT: Submitted was staff report
dated December 1, 1987, recommending that the Council authorize an agreement
with Austin Company for the replacement of the Stadium Field Irrigation System.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Hunter, 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 Wednesday, November
25, 1987, at 2:30 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement
relative to posting the item on the printed agenda. Councilman Ehrle was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to authorize an agreement with the Austin
Company in the amount of $19,786.00 for the replacement of the Stadium Field
Irrigation System, as recommended in memorandum dated December 1, 1987.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION
108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4886 - APPEALS - TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT)
PROCEEDINGS: Amending Subsection .010 of Section 2.121.070 of the Code,
pertaining to appeals of hearing officer determinations in Transient Occupancy
Tax proceedings. Submitted was report dated November 17, 1987 from the City
Attorney, recommending the proposed ordinance.
City Attorney White explained that the ordinance would authorize the City
Manager or City Treasurer to file an appeal from any decision of a Hearing
Officer relating to an imposition of a hotel or motel Transient Occupancy
Tax. Currently the Code only authorizes the hotel/motel operator to file an
appeal. It does not give City staff or the City itself a similar right. It
would be appropriate for City staff to have the same rights and on that basis
he is recommending the ordinance
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4886 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4886: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.010 OF SECTION 2.12.070 OF CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO APPEALS OF HF2%R_ING OFFICER DETERMINATIONS IN TRANSIENT
OCCUPANCY TAX PROCEEDINGS.
105: RESIGNATION FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to accept, with regret, the resignation of Judy Olsen from the Community
1099
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL'MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
Services Board, as tendered in her letter of November, 1987, and authorizing
the City Clerk to post said unscheduled vacancy. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that a letter of thanks be sent to Mrs. 01sen
for her four years of service on the Board.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held November 9, 1987, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-23: Submitted by Barbara J. Polentz, for a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to construct a single-story, 4,000
square foot medical building on property located at the northeast corner of La
Palma Avenue and Leisure Court.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-231, granted
Reclassification No. 87-88-23, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3722: Submitted by Yolanda and Raymond A. Masciel, to
establish a 2-lot subdivision and to construct 2 single-family residences on
roperty located at 1010 No. West Street, with the following Code waivers:
a) Minimum lot area, (b) minimum front yard setback, (c) required garage
setback, (d) minimum side yard setback, (e) minimum rear yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-232, granted
Variance No. 3722, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2958: Submitted by Mun Kyo Cho and Hyon Sun
Cho, to retain a 672 square foot billboard on ML zoned property located at 806
No. Brookhurst Street, with Code waiver of permitted location.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-235, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2958, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2962: Chi Yang Lan and Chert Li Su Lan, (Anchor
Motel), to construct a g-unit addition to an existing 20-unit motel on CL
zoned property located at 1538 East Lincoln Avenue, with the following Code
waivers: (a) Required type of parking spaces, (b) minimum dimensions of
covered spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-238, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2962, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3604: Submitted by Signe Ferguson, for an extension of time
for Variance No. 3604, to construct a triplex on property located at 836 So.
Philadelphia Street, with Code waiver of minimum building site area, to expire
October 13, 1988.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-240, approved
Variance No. 3604.
1100
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1~ 1987~ 4:00 P.M.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1720--TERMINATION: Submitted by Albert J.
Marshall, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1720, to permit
a recreational vehicle park in conjunction with a motel on property located at
2736-2740 West Lincoln, with certain Code waivers, to comply with conditions
of approval of Variance No. 3654.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-240, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1720.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2695 (REV. 2) (READV): Submitted by Thrifty
Oil Company, request for approval of revised plans to permit a convenience
market with gasoline sale and off-sale beer and wine on CL zoned property
located at 2801 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-224, recommended
denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 2695 (Rev. 2) (Ready), and previously
approved a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant
and, therefore, a public hearing would be held at a later date.
8. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-20: Submitted by City of Anaheim, for a change
in zone from ML to CL to bring subject properties into conformance with the
General Plan, consisting of approximately 14.8 acres located at the northeast
corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (1490 South Anaheim Boulevard
and 333 East Cerritos Avenue).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-225, denied
Reclassification No. 87-88-20, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing would be held at a later date.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2955: Submitted by Robert Louis and Helen A.
Clark, (Chevron Service Station), to permit gasoline sales in conjunction with
a proposed convenience market on CL zoned property located at 2175 West La
Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-233, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2955, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing would be held at a later date.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2953: Submitted by F. J. Hanshaw Enterprises,
Inc., et al, to permit a 672 square foot billboard on CL zoned property
located at 1112 North Brookhurst Street, with Code waiver of maximum height
(denied).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-234, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2953, and granted a negative declaration
status.
1101
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant
and, therefore, a public hearing would be held at a later date.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2954: Submitted by Dwyer J. and Susan M.
Beesley, to permit a 2-story, 26-foot high, 9-unit senior citizen's affordable
apartment complex on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 125 North Gilbert
Street, with Code waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit.
Note: Density bonus exceeds 25 % limit set forth in Council Policy No. 543.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-236, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2954, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickier and, therefore, a public hearing would be held at a later date.
Dwyer Beesley requested to speak. He is the applicant on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2954. He questioned why the matter was being set for a public
hearing.
Councilman Pickler. He feels that 9 units in that area of Gilbert is too
heavy a density, especially considering the traffic on that street.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were elevators proposed in the project;
Mr. Beesley answered no since it was only a 2-story complex.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern in observing other senior citizen
apartments, many of which were sitting vacant on the second floor, since the
elde=ly do not wish to walk upstairs. She thereupon asked that staff look at
the ordinance for senior citizen projects and require an elevator even if only
2-stories.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. They can draft a standard condition
to be included in all staff reports requiring that senior projects have
elevators.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2961: Submitted by B. W. and Marcella V.
Walters, to permit an 80-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex on
CL zoned property located at 2222 West Colchester Drive and 835 So. Brookhurst
~treet, with Code waiver o£ minimum site araa per dwelling unit. Note:
Density bonus exceeds 25% limlt set forth in Council Policy No. 543.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. ?C87-237, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2961, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be held at a later date.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2963: Submitted by Sigmund J. and Gloria M.
Sliwoski, (Games Plus), to permit on-sale beer in an existing billiard parlour
and amusement arcade on CL zoned property located at 3242 West Lincoln Avenue,
with Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces.
1102
City Hall, A~abeim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-239, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2963 for one year, and granted a negative
declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be held at a later date.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2950 (REV. PLANS): Submitted are revised plans
for property located at 1177 So. State College Blvd.
Planning Staff requested a determination from the Planning Commission as to
whether these plans are in conformity with previous actions, and it was
determined they are and no further action is necessary.
Councilman Pickler posed questions to staff relative to the subject. He also
wanted the staff to continue to study CO zoning for the subject property which
was one of the recommendations listed on page 2 of the November 9, 1987 staff
report. He would be in favor of an office use but not retail since the
proposal was adjacent to residential. He felt retail use would only cause
problems in the future.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Council could direct staff to
prepare a Reclassification for zoning from CL to CO. However, the developer
has prepared revised plans and is getting ready to submit those to Plan
Check. He coming in under the CL zone with a straight retail center.
Councilman Pickler. He is concerned with CL. He would have preferred that
the Planning Commission determine that the staff should continue to study the
CO zoning for the property.
City Attorney White. By the time the study is complete, the developer will be
through Plan Check and will have or be entitled to building permits. The only
limitation the City could impose would be to adopt a moratorium on building in
the CL zone while the study is being conducted.
Councilman Pickler moved to declare a moratorium on the subject parcel until a
study by staff is completed.
Before action was taken, City Attorney W~L{te explatnad ~n order to hava a
moratorium, it will be necessary to prepare an ordinance and bring it back to
the Council. It will take four votes to adopt such a moratorium whereas only
a majority (3 votes) can direct staff to prepare the ordinance.
Councilman Pickier amended his motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance
declaring a moratorium on CL zoning for the subject property. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
1103
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1~ 1987~ 4:00 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
No further action was taken by the Council.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items.
179: REQUEST FOR WITHI~AWAL OF AN APPEAL - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-07,
VARIANCE NO. 3685 AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542: Request from Farano
and Kieviet for withdrawal of appeal of Reclassification No. 87-88-07,
Variance No. 3685 and Waiver of Council Policy No. 542. Property located at
1500 West Broadway. This matter was discussed at and continued from the
meeting of November 17, 1987, to this date. (See minutes that date).
City Clerk Sohl. It is recommended that the subject request be continued one
additional week to December 8, 1987. The City is still waiting for a letter
from Mr. Monshizadeh concurring with the request for withdrawal. There is
time until December 14, 1987 to set the matter for a public hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the request for withdrawal on the
subject Reclassification and Variance for one week. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
107: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - SPECIAL PERMIT - HOUSE MOVE-ON - 514 EAST
BROADWAY: Request by Farano and Kieviet, attorney representing Sam Difilippo,
requesting a Rehearing of the Special Permit (House Move On) at 514 East
Broadway, which was denied on July 28, 1987. This matter was continued from
the meetings of November 10 and November 17, 1987 to this date. (See minutes
those dates).
Mayor Bay noted that the matter was continued from the previous meeting to
this date due to lack of a full Council. Unavoidably there was no full
Council this week as well, due to Councilman Ehrle's absence since his mother
is gravely ill.
Mr. Frances Nutto, 621 Jambolaya Street, requested to speak. He then read a
prepared statement (made a part of the record). His statement contended that
the buildings which were illesally moved to the site had numerous violations
of the Zoning Code and the Building Code and there were also not enough
parking spaces. He asked that the City Council reject the project unanimously
and order the structures to be removed.
Councilman Pickler. He understands the way the structure will be oriented on
the lot it meets all building and zoning requirements.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Although it will require
modification to the buildings the way they are currently, they can comply with
Code. The information given to her showed that the structures can comply.
Mayor Bay. He referred to memorandum dated November 16, 1987 from Wayne West,
the City's Chief Building Official which is a part of the agenda material
1104
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
stating, "Attached is a copy of a plot plan (referring the subject house
move-on) that he received this afternoon from Sam Difilippo. The plot plan,
as it exists, meets current Building and Zoning requirements." Therefore, it
is not a question of a waiver or variance on meeting the zoning. That is not
the issue.
Mr. Nutto urged the Council to investigate the matter before doing anything.
City Attorney White. He pointed out this is not a public hearing. It is only
a determination by the Council on a request for rehearing and the basis on
which the request would be granted or denied. Any testimony relating to the
merits of the matter is out of place at this time. He then gave the
chronology of events leading to the second request for rehearing which is
before the Council today. The applicant is within his rights to be requesting
another rehearing at this time. It is totally up to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood. At the meeting of July 28, 1987 (see minutes that date)
there was a discussion regarding a timeframe for removing the structure since
it had been sitting on the subject property without permission since
February. Thirty days was the time discussed but no formal action was taken
on the time for removal.
City Attorney White. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that until the
administrative process becomes final by exhausting the last available appeal,
the courts would be very unlikely to entertain an application either for an
injunction or a criminal complaint while such a process is still pending.
This is the last step of the administrative process. If the Council denies
the request for a rehearing, the matter becomes final administratively. The
staff then would be able to take immediate action. If the rehearing is
granted, that hearing will bring the matter back under Council jurisdiction to
be heard at a later date.
Glen McLellan, 511 East Broadway. He met with Mr. Difilippo's attorney last
night. There are still no new plans so there was nothing to show the
neighbors. It was indicated if they go a new hearing they could present new
plans. He does not believe it is possible to modify the building to meet
zoning requirements. He urged the Council not to grant the rehearing because
there has been absolutely no progress in almost a year's time and no
cooperation with the neighborhood.
Joe Smith, 5205 East Rolling Hills Drive. He urged that all subsequent
meetings regarding this issue be held in the evening.
It was determined by a show of hands, requested by Mayor Bay that 13 to 15
people were present on this subject.
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, representing the applicant, Mr. Difilippo. He
filed a letter with the Council dated November 13, 1987, listing four points
that he intends to bring to the Council if a rehearing is granted. It is new
material. The petition for reconsideration of the issue is an absolute must
to protect Mr. Difilippo's legal rights. They have no choice but to proceed
with the action for the purpose of exhausting administrative remedies.
1105
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL'MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
Mayor Bay asked if the request for a rehearing is denied, does that exhaust
his administrative remedies; Mr. Farano answered it did. Whether the Council
hears the matter or decides not to grant a rehearing would exhaust their
administrative remedies.
City Attorney White concurred.
Councilwoman Kaywood. Initially the applicable ordinance was changed because
of the wording that took away rights of the governing body that when 51% of
the neighborhood opposed the move-on, the Council had no choice but to deny
the request. Now it seems to her that the neighborhood has no rights.
City Attorney White. The criteria for approving a house move-on are as set
forth in the Code. He does not think that that gives the neighborhood no
rights. It is part of the public hearing process. The reason for hearings
are so that the neighborhood can express opinions or present evidence as to
whether or not those criteria that are in the Code have been satisfied. Those
are the rights any neighbors have in any type of hearing process, be it a
zoning hearing or in this case a building oriented hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to deny the request for a rehearing of the
Special Permit (House Move On) at 514 East Broadway. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he was going to vote
against the motion. He feels if the rehearing were granted, the applicant
could provide a plan showing conformity with the area.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial and carried by the
following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
Councilman Hunter thereupon moved to grant a 30-day timeframe in which the
~trueture id to be removed from the property. Councilwoman Kayw0od seconded
the motion.
Before any action was taken, Mayor Bay stated he was not sure that 30 days is
reasonable; Mr. Farano stated that his client is requesting 60 days.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the subject structure be removed from the
property within 60 days. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman
Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (8:20 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Ehrle. (8:35 p.m.)
1106
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 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. After
extensive discussion and testimony this matter was continued to this date from
the meeting of November 17, 1987.
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.
CEQA FINDING:
At its meeting of November 17, 1987, the City Council approved an EIR negative
declaration for this project.
Mayor Bay.
The public portion of the hearing was closed at the previous
meeting. The continuance was to give an opportunity for revised
drawings to be submitted and evaluated by staff in order to
solve the problem of retaining the integrity of the buffer
zone. He asked to hear first from staff.
Wayne West, Chief Building Official.
There was a problem with exiting out the rear of the property
which encroached into the 23-foot setback. That has been
resolved by the stairways now coming out the front. Previously,
there was not enough space on the front of the building for the
required 10 feet. They were able to move the building back to
acquire that 10-foot for the exit corridor. However, by moving
the building back, it was necessary to encroach into the
landscaped setback area by 2-feet (from 23 feet to 21 feet) but
still leaving 21 feet which would serve the intent of what was
trying to be accomplished by a buffer zone. The plans were
submitted yesterday at 11:00 a.m. They have not been completely
checked but the floor plan and site plan show that the setbacks
1107
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1~ 1987~ 4:00 P.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
PUBLIC INPUT:
and the necessary exits from the parking structure would meet
minimum Code. It was now a matter of going through the process
of checking for structural integrity.
Mayor Bay.
He surmised that the technical problems of ingress/egress for
fire safety was solved but that resulted in a reduction of the
buffer area from 23 feet to 21 feet; Mr. West answered that was
correct.
Hugo Vazquez.
He first confirmed for the Mayor that he had not talked to the
neighborhood group about the changes. He has worked completely
with the Building Department. In order to provide the required
exits, they had to completely re-engineer and redraw the plans
to accommodate the intended purpose of the buffer zone area.
There will now be absolutely no necessity for any person to
intrude into the buffer zone area.
Mayor Bay asked to hear from a spokesman from the neighbors
adjacent to the subject property.
Steve Worrell, Presidential Tract, Buena Park.
He briefly viewed the plans before the beginning of the
hearing. Once again the 13 points contained in the compromise
agreement between the neighbors and Mr. Vazquez have been
disregarded. At the last hearing, they left with a 23-foot
setback and now it is a 21-foot setback. Item 2 of the
agreement which was signed by Mr. Vazquez clearly states that
all parking is to be a full 10-feet below ground level with a
23-foot setback from the Buena Park northerly boundary line.
Now it is 6 feet away. They are asking the Council to uphold
the 23 feet unusable setback. The residents are also concerned
that since their homes are built within 5 to 6 feet of the
property line that earth moving and digging equipment to get
down to 10 feet will be structurally detrimental to their
hom~. Tha probl~m~ hava arisen baeau~ of th~ vary narrow ~ize
of the lot, a large portion being only 78 feet wide. Too many
units are proposed for the property. The leading units in the
lot are actually 28 feet high. Everything within 103 feet of
the boundary is supposed to be single-story but 28 feet seems
high to him. The landscaping that was supposed to be done on
the Buena Park side has not been completed to this date. The
plan is not acceptable to the Buena Park neighborhood as a group.
Hugo Vazquez.
He has received nothing in writing that the landscaping has not
been complete on the Buena Park side. This is news to him. The
neighbors can also choose whatever they would like on the
project side of the wall. His loan is now well overdue. He has
1108
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
spent a great deal out of pocket to carry the project.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked how'far away the beginning of the parking is going to
be from the neighbor's wall.
Hugo Vazquez.
It is 6 feet 10-inches away from the property line. They are
going down over 10 feet in order to drop the parking completely
below grade. The parking plan has never been changed. They
meet the spirit of the agreement in that, there would be no
reason at ail for any individual now or in the future to have
accessibility to that area. The gates that are there are to
prevent anybody from walking into the buffered area. There is
no gate to the existing homes. There are gates inside so that
the prospective tenant does not go into the setback. If the
neighbors would prefer the gate to be a block wall or a closed
fence, he would have no problem agreeing with that.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff if there would be any danger of
structural damage with construction of the garage taking place
6 feet away from the Buena Park property line.
Wayne West.
Anytime there is excavation in an area close to a property line
there is a possibility of damage to structures on adjacent
property. Normally this is covered through a construction bond
or something of that nature.
Hugo Vazquez.
They have an Insurance Policy required by their lender,
Centennial Bank, that not only covers their workers but also
covers any damage that would occur to neighboring properties.
They can provide a copy of the Insurance Policy to the City
Attorney tomorrow morning.
Robert Papini, 8881 Buchanan Circle, Buena Park. He reiterated
concerns expressed at previous public hearings regarding the
project and what he feels has been a disregard of the
neighboring residents. He also submitted a photograph taken
£rom h~s property ~rom the middle of Buchanan toward the wall,
blacking out 24 feet to show what the neighbors will be looking
at from Monroe or any place on Buchanan. The height is impacted
by the 23-foot setback now proposed to be 21 feet. That setback
is almost all concrete. He heard Mr. Vazquez say it is going to
be covered with dirt. He does not see anything in writing.
With everything the neighbors have experienced, Mr. Vazquez is
not going to get the cooperation of the Buena Park citizens
without coming forth with a firm, informative program of how he
is going to develop that project. They feel that the 13-point
compromise agreement is a binding contract. They want to know
why the residents are not getting their needs taken care of by
the
1109
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
elected officials. Two weeks ago they had a better plan than
the one that has been presented today. The agreement clearly
states 23 feet and they want the 23-foot setback as agreed to
and the way the City Council imposed it as a condition of
approval of the project. He then showed and described an
illustration he had which emphasized the importance of the
23-foot buffer zone in relation to the northern boundary line of
the project and adjacent residents. The buffer zone has been
reduced from 23 feet to 21 feet because Young Lion Development
cannot engineer the project to stand up to the agreement he made
with the neighbors and which the Council approved as condition
of approval of the project in October of 1986.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay again closed the public hearing.
Councilman Hunter.
He was not on the Council when approval was given to the project
at the public hearing on October 14, 1986 on a 5-0 vote.
However, he has spoken with the City Attorney, read the minutes
of the previous meetings and listened to ail the discussion. It
appears that Mr. Vazquez wants a variance from 23 feet to 21
feet. He does not feel it is an unreasonable request.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 87R-491 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-491: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-469. (Condition Nos. 11 and 14).
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay asked staff with the change in design what
conditions were affected.
Annika Santalahtf~ Zoning Administrator.
On the staff report dated November 12, 1987, under
recommendation, this would need modification. There would be a
revised exhibit - Revision 2 of Exhibit 1 - and subsection d of
Condition 14 and Resolution 86R-469 would also have to be
amended as follows:
(d) That a minimum twenty one (21) foot wide setback shall be
maintained between the north property line and the proposed
single-story apartments. The 21-foot setback shall consist of
the following:
1110
City Mall, Anaheim, Cml~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
(1) A minimum six (6) foot ten (10) inch wide densely
landscaped buffer shall be planted and maintained adjacent to
the entire north property line. The landscaping shall include
trees planted on two (2) foot centers along the entire north
property line.
(2) A four (4) foot wide sidewalk may be located adjacent to
the landscaped buffer at the north property line.
(3) A solid flat concrete slat shall be constructed over the
below-grade parking spaces. There shall be at least four (4)
inches of soil over the concrete and landscaping shall be
installed and maintained thereon. The top surface of the
concrete and soil shall be no higher than the finished grade of
either the adjacent sidewalk or the landscaped buffer.
(4) Access to the 21-foot wide setback area shall be limited to
maintenance or emergency purposes only. Minimum six (6) foot
high fences and gates shall be installed to prohibit any other
pedestrian or vehicular access. The gates shall be kept closed
and locked at all times.
Mayor Bay.
In the 21-foot buffer, the portion over the garage that is 10
feet below the surface will be planted.' A certain portion will
only be 4-inches deep on top of concrete, thus limiting that
area to small plants. The dense portion of the buffer zone will
be in the 6-foot 10-inch area between where the underground
garage ends and the wall begins. The planting of trees will be
limited to that 6-foot 10-inch portion. He also surmised that
the alternatives to this plan are a reduction in the number of
units.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
She confirmed that the Mayor's understanding was correct. She
also confirmed that the alternate to the plan would be a
reduction in the number of units. She believes that
approximately one-half of the parking is located in that area.
At worst, that would mean a reduction in density by one-half.
It would probably be less but it would at least be a one-quarter
reduction.
Mayor Bay.
He is amazed that Mr. Vazquez signed an agreement setting up a
23-foot buffer zone before he had his design approved for the
density of the project. If they held to the letter of the
agreement, he does not believe the project could be built. He
(Vazquez) signed the agreement with the neighborhood; the
Council did not sign that agreement.
Councilman Hunter clarified he was offering the resolution with
the changes as stated by staff.
1111
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1~ 1987~ 4:00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter, Kaywood and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-491 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (9:22 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Ehrle. (9:32 p.m.)
176: PUBLIC HEAKING -ABANDONMENT NO. 87-i3A: In accordance with application
filed by Tice Engineering Services, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a portion of an existing fire access easement on the south side
of Nohl Ranch Road, west of Anaheim Hills Road, pursuant to Resolution No.
87R-456, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in
accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated October 26, 1987 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment, subject to the filing of a Parcel Map.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Mr. Joe Serina, 780 So. Quale, Secretary/Treasurer - Anaheim
Hills Master Association. The Master Association has had a
problem on the subject property on which there appears to be a
natural water spring or a small flow of water coming from the
property. They shut off the water on that entire slope for 60
to 90 days to determine whether it was the Association's water
system or a natural drainage problem. The problem was so great
they had to stop building a wall close by. Subsequently a
drainage system was installed. There is nothing but weeds on
the slope at this time. It will cost $3,900 to have the whole
area replanted. Without having a chance to review exactly where
the fire break is coming, he is asking the Council to hold off
makin8 any decision on the abandonment until such time as the
Master Association has a chance to review the matter.
Richard Santo, Senior Real Property Agent.
He confirmed there would be no problem in delaying approval of
the abandonment.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Abandonment No. 87-13A to Tuesday, January 12, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
1112
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3709:
APPLICANT:
Paul D. & Diane Williamson
7283 Columbus Drive
Anaheim, Ca. 92806
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a two story, 35-foot high,
single-family residence located on the northeasterly corner of Copa de 0to
Drive and Nohl Ranch Road (Lot 32 in Tract No. 12576).
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: The Zoning Administrator granted Variance No.
3709, in part, (ZA87-28); determined to be categorically exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR (categorically exempt,~Class 5).
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Councilman
Ehrle and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 20, 1987.
Posting of property November 20, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 20, 1987.
STAFF REPORT:
See the decision of the Zoning Administrator (ZA87-28) dated October 13, 1987.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. Paul Williamson.
He is now the owner and developer of the lot. Balloon tests
were performed which the Council will first want to see.
Mr. Phillip Schwartze, Vice-President, Phillips, Brandt and
Reddick.
His company has prepared a visual impact study on the subject
41-lot subdivision and have prepared information for Council
review (submitted was letter dated December 1, 1987 from Mr.
Schwartz - Subject: Peralta Hills East View Analysis, attached
to which were the results of the visual impact study done on all
41 lots). He then narrated a slide presentation which
illustrated the balloon test method used to determine if 35-foot
building heights would substantially impair vistas from adjacent
existing properties. The helium filled balloons were suspended
at heights of 35 feet and 25 feet (the latter being the height
allowed in the scenic corridor). He pointed out that every lot
pad is located lower than Nohl Ranch Road. The slides also
showed how some of the existing homes on the eastern end of the
development might be impacted. At the conclusion of the slide
presentation, Mr. Schwartz referred to the grading plan which
was submitted, indicating all the grades of all the lots and how
those lots are oriented to one another, as well as a location
map showing the tract as it relates to the existing residents
around the area. It is their opinion that the only major
impact, in terms of potential houses or the houses located along
]_113
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
the eastern boundary of the tract area are lots 34, 35 and 36.
The topography has created many unusual circumstances. The
fence issue speaks for itself.
Mayor Bay.
It is apparent looking at the view from existing homes on the
eastern end and the difference between the 25-foot and 35-foot
balloon on lots lots 34, 35, 36 and perhaps 37, there is quite
an impact on that view where that 10-feet does make a great deal
of difference.
Phillip Schwartze.
It is a difficult decision as to whether it impacts existing
views. It would appear the views from existing residents
located on the east into lots 34, 35 and 36 of the new tract, he
cannot say the view will be blocked but the houses will be
bringing a bulk directly into the face of that area. There is
nothing else that will be seen except other houses located at a
further distance - 34, 35 and 36 do require some special
consideration.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Joe Serina, 780 South Quail, Secretary - Treasurer of the
Anaheim Hills Master Association.
He is speaking as member of the Association. The Association is
generally charged with the responsibility of enforcing CC&R's.
One of the ordinances the Association is currently fighting in
court, with about nine different lawsuits, is the blocking of
views. At last count there were temporary restraining orders on
all nine. The CC&R's state that nobody can build, erect, plant,
do anything or cause to do anything which will have an impact on
the view of any of the residents in the Anaheim Hills area. As
members of the Board, they look at that as being views which are
directly associated to the property immediately impacted by
whatever is being built. The balloons do not depict the full
impact of the house to be built. Taking 35 feet and multiplying
that by an average side of a house of 100 feet it would create a
wall of 3,500 feet. He would like to see slides which would
have that kind of an impact on most of the properties up there.
He believes that on lots 32 through 39 there would be an
impact. It was also mentioned that there was a hill
approximately the same size as the 35-foot high balloon.
Looking at a natural hill with natural shrubbery is not the same
as looking at a house 35 feet high. All of the existing owners
in Anaheim Hills are going to be impacted one way or another if
the builder is permitted to exceed the 25-foot height variance.
The Association has had a number of serious complaints from the
members in the Association concerning the 35-foot height
situation which is the subject of the next public hearing. He
strongly recommends, if nothing else, that the Council keep the
height limitation at 25 feet. If the Association could have its
1114
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
way, they would like to see the entire area rezoned for
single-story houses. If it was zoned single-story then none of
the views would be impacted by anybody.
Joseph Smith, 5205 East Rolling Hills.
On lot 32, he would suggest that the height be set at 20 feet.
The builder is attempting to create a series of gothic towers
rising above the surrounding neighborhood dominating the
landscape from every direction. The builder and the subdivision
of lots on his property made that plan. It was designed to
maximize the number of revenue producing units at the sacrifice
of horizontal square footage. The builder now seeks a variance
in vertical height to further increase the profitability of
those lots at the expense of the neighboring voting taxpayers in
that area. Relative to lot 32, the location of that pad
elevated as it is from the surrounding area places that in a
position of prominence. If 35 feet is allowed, that will have a
dramatic impact on the entire area. He will be back to echo
those opinions for lots 29 through 39 since he feels those pose
the greatest danger to the surrounding neighbors for that
community. He urged the Council to deny the request or to
review the granting of a 30-foot variance and recommended that
the Council set the height at 25 feet~ After answering
questions posed by the Council, Mr. Smith concluded that the
variance should be denied on two grounds - (1) the precedent it
sets for every other lot in that development and, (2) the pad is
situated on a prominent point shared by lots 29, 30, 31 and 32.
There is no reason to grant the variance in the face of the
obvious community interest not to grant it.
Dick Miller, 490 So. Old Bucket Lane.
His lot is on the west and directly adjacent to lot 10. His
house is probably the most affected. There will be six houses
in a direct line of sight from his home. If all are 35 to 45
feet high, there is going to be one block wall on that property
because the landscaping is not going to cover the houses.
Thirty-five feet is the very maximum he could live with and they
are going to be huge boxes.
Don Pilero, 411 Brook Lane.
His concerns are the same as those expressed two weeks ago. He
lives on the eastern slope adjacent to the project. For the
last three meetings he has constantly heard references to value,
dollars, money. He did not hear any reference to the quality of
life of the people. Some Council Members are saying they would
love to have a neighbor build a $2 million home next to them and
how their home would then appreciate. There is no value on the
quality of one's life. There is no appreciation to property
until it is sold. As discussed, there was a hill on the
property which came to a point. It was not a massive structure
of 35 or 40 feet in front of their residence. Looking at a hill
with greenery and wildlife is more pleasant than looking at
1115
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
homes. All they are asking is that their quality of life be
protected. He recommended that the Council limit the lots that
impact the residents to single-story.
Donald Vanhoff, 5202 Rolling Hills Drive.
The lot number below him is 37. They took the liberty of going
into his backyard to take the photograph of a balloon instead of
a billboard which would have been more representative of what
actually it will look like instead of a little balloon. It is
not right to build a house 35 feet high. Once the precedent is
set, it will be the same for every house in the development. It
does have an impact on him. He bought his house because of the
views and now houses are going to be 35 feet high and will block
his view.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Paul Williamson.
He is building a personal home for his family. He has revised
his plans. The hill where he is building now was 48 feet higher
than it is at present. His pad was also 34 feet higher. He is
asking to build at 33 and 1/2 feet. The lot he has chosen is
hundreds of feet from homes in the area. It does not obstruct
the neighbor's view. He asked that the Council grant his
variance so that he can start building his house.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Mayor Bay.
The question is whether to allow a 10-foot variance over the
25-foot limitation to 35 feet on residential lot 32 in the
development. Variances are set up to handle exceptions. He
does not agree with those who say there should be no variances
whatsoever, especially in those cases where there is no impact.
It is the right of the property owner to have some variation to
the strict letter of the Code. Tonight he is not going to
listen if in one case he hears an argument to hold to Code and
against holding to Code in another.
Councilman Hunter.
He is empathetic with Mr. Williamson trying to build his "dream
house". In the bigger picture, the residents in the hill and
canyon area are finally saying they do not want the City to
destroy the reason they moved to the area. He feels the reason
why they are present tonight on this issue is because of the
"great wall" built on Nohl Ranch Road enclosing the subject
development to the south. He believes if Mr. Peloquin would
have compromised on the wall earlier there might not have been a
Chamber full of people present tonight. It is a difficult
decision to make in this case. He questioned if Mr. Williamson
should be punished because of the great wall.
1116
?1.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
Councilman Pickier.
Relative to the wall, he feels there is a compromise. Relative
to the height variance, they are not setting a precedent. He
does not think that Mr. Williamson's home is going to impact
anyone. He cannot say that someone cannot develop a piece of
land that does not have an effect on the houses around it.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She visited the property and saw lot 32 on which Mr. Williamson
is asking for 33 and 1/2 feet. She did not see an impact to the
homeowners on the east from lot 32 or from any other area. If
lots 34, 35, 36 and 37 request a variance, those lots will be a
different situation than lot 32. She does not see any reason to
make Mr. Williamson a "scape goat" because of the wall issue.
Relative to variances, there is no such thing as a precedent.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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 Ehrle was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution, granting Variance No. 3706 allowing
the 33 and 1/2 foot height limitation as requested.
Before any action was taken, Joel Fick - Planning Director,
reported that Mr. Williamsonhad done some redesign. He would
like to clarify whether Council wanted to approve the height
variance at 35 feet or at 33 and 1/2 feet.
Mr. Williamson clarified that he would like to get 35 feet but
he would be satisfied with 33 and 1/2 feet. That is why he
submitted his letter and revised his plans. He then emphasized,
however, that he was talking about the ridge line on the house
in requesting 33 and 1/2 feet.
The requested variance would be for the maximum overall height
of the structure.
Mr. Williamson stated he did not understand it that way and if,
in fact, it is the overall height, he would have to have 35 feet.
Councilwoman Kaywood amended her proposed resolution to grant
the variance at the 35-foot height limitation.
A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution and failed to carry by the
following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
1117
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
City Attorney White explained that the Council has failed to take an action on
the application. If an opposite resolution is offered (denying the variance)
and it is also a two-two vote, the only real alternative is to continue the
matter until a full Council is present so that Councilman Ehrle, after
familiarizing himself with the proceedings that have transpired tonight could
vote on the matter but no additional testimony would be taken.
After a brief Council discussion regarding the time for continuance of the
public hearing, Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on
Variance No. 3709 to Tuesday, December 8, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White confirmed that the hearing has been closed. The only
reason the matter is continued is to attempt to break the tie vote. When the
matter is discussed next week, members of the Council will be entitled to vote
whether there are three, four or five members, but it would take three votes
to pass the resolution whether it is to approve or deny the Variance.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3706:
APPLICANT:
Peralta Ltd.
3150 East Birch
Brea, Ca. 92621
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a 6-foot high solid block wall with 7
foot, 3-1/2 inch high pilaster on approximately 40 acres on the north side of
Nohl Ranch Road, approximately 300 feet northeast of the centerline of 01d
Bucket Lane, with Code waiver of maximum fence height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-209 denied Variance No. 3706;
approved EIRNegative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant, Vic
Peloquin~ Peralta Ltd.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRF~TS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 20, 1987.
Posting of property November 20, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 20, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated October 12, 1987.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Vic Peloquin, 280 Crisalta Way, Anaheim.
He is requesting a variance on the wall located on the southerly
portion of the subject property to allow pilasters that are 7
feet, 3 and 1/2 inches high which are 15 inches higher than the
wall.
1118
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Robert Zemel, Chairman, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition,
7330 Stone Creek Road Anaheim.
It is difficult to address the Council at this time. The
pilaster variance has been up in the air in conjunction with the
wall. There have been some meetings and he anticipated, prior
to his coming up to speak that there would have been a
disclosure on what had taken place at those meetings.
Councilman Pickler.
He has met with Mr. Peloquin as well as Mr. Zemel and others
where discussions had taken place about putting openings in the
wail. He wants to emphasize that the wall is going to remain in
place one way or the other. He felt he got Mr. Peloquin to
agree that he would give seven openings in the biggest wall
panels. It was a compromise he thought had been worked out that
would be beneficial to all. It was not necessarily what he
wanted or what Mr. Zemel wanted but something they could live
with. Mr. Peloquin was agreeable at the time but now he does
not know what he plans to do. At this point, Mr. Peloquin has
not said he was going to act on that compromise.
Robert Zemel.
There is a misconception that his group has held up the
project. The wall was built without a public hearing. The
people impacted did not have a chance to speak publicly until
September at the Planning Commission hearing. At a recent
hearing before the Council, Mr. Cardoza (of Peralta Ltd.)
addressed the Council and asked for a time to meet with the
Coalition. That meeting took place two days before tonight's
meeting. An offer of compromise was communicated to him by
Councilman Pickler the next day on behalf of the developer,
leaving only one day to talk to the community. The pilasters
being an integral part of the wall make it impossible for
affected citizens to separate them from the wall itself. He
believes the developer's offer to open up wrought iron fencing
in seven sections of lengths of 42 to 50 feet each does
sufficiently mitigate the extended height of the pilasters with
regard to the intrusion into the environment and that the
landscape in these designated cut outs be limited to ground
cover or low shrubbery. Some positive things have resulted from
the hearings. The staff report dated November 23, 1987 to the
Planning Commission regarding fencing regulations and
recommendations which, if staff recommendations are followed,
the ordinance proposed would prevent any future loss of view.
The balloon study will eliminate many of the unanswered
questions. They are also looking forward, additionally, to
having that test be required by the City in future developments
prior to public hearings. He thanked the Council for their
attention and concern to their cries for help and especially
Councilman Pickier who had spent a great deal of time on the
matter. Getting some of the view back and the potentiality of
1119
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
an ordinance to prevent this type of situation from happening
again, coupled with the fact that they were able to get to this
point within City government rather than an expensive court
system allows him to feel that every consideration was looked at
by all sides.
Joe Serrena, Anaheim Hills Master Association, 780 South Quail.
Since there is talk of compromise, he would like to know exactly
what that compromise entails.
Raymond Pepo, President Canyon Terrace Homeowners Association
(99 homes).
Their homes are located between Meats and Shannon, many facing
Nohl Ranch Road. The problem with regard to the wall is the
noise factor. Since the wall was built, the peace and quiet
they used to have has been taken away. The residents cannot sit
out on their patios or open up their windows between 6:30 a.m.
and 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The noise is coming
from the wall and they did not have that noise before the wall
was built.
Sandra Ramich, Point Quissett, Secretary of the Homeowners
Association, 5134 Greensboro (132 homes).
She asked that they not destroy the reason why the homeowners
bought where they did. The wall destroys that reason. There is
noise now. If there are seven, 50-foot wrought iron openings,
that comes to only 10% of the total wall. It is not
appropriate. She would like to see the wall taken down
completely but knows that cannot happen. She would then like it
to be wrought iron.
Melinda Franklin, Point Quissett.
She would have no problem with approving the variance for the
pilasters if, in fact, there was a compromise relative to the
wrought iron openings. She is not certain that they have such a
compromise and she is concerned that the developer could also
change his mind as soon as the pilasters are approved.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Vic Peloquin.
He is concerned with the environment in the City. He has been a
member of the community since 1958 and had built many projects
within the City. They have spent a great deal of time and money
on design of the project and have gone through many public
hearings with regard to the Tract Map, Grading Plans, General
Plan Amendment, hiking trails, etc. There were no concerned
citizens at those hearings. They showed the wall on all of the
plans from the beginning. They got a permit and started the
wall and that is when concerns were raised. He has met with
Councilman Pickler and Mr. Zemel with regard to requests to make
some compromise - open up some wrought iron sections along the
wall. He did not want to have the wall affect Mr. Williamson's
1120
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
home or future homes in the subdivision that would be hindered
by a 25-foot height limitation. Relative to the compromise, he
would like to condition it upon the future approval of the City
Council of the height variances of the homes within the
development when there is absolutely no effect on anybody in the
area. He will make the compromise with regard to the seven
openings of wrought iron in the wall but would like the Council
to consider the needs for the homes to be developed within the
subdivision if they request a height variance and that height
variance does not affect anybody. If those variances do not
impact anybody those variances should be considered with regard
to the compromise on the wall.
Councilman Hunter.
He is concerned that Mr. Peloquin is trying to tie the
structural height limit back to the wall.
Councilman Pickier.
There are two different items involved. The seven openings
proposed by the developer will help in resolving the problem of
the wall. If Mr. Peloquin will give those openings, he is ready
to go along with the variance requested on the pilasters but not
to tie the height variance to the compromise on the wall.
Vic Peloquin.
He is not prepared this evening to finalize an agreement with
regard to the openings. He would like to have the Council's
vote with regard to the pilasters if they feel the pilasters are
a benefit to the ultimate look of the wall. If the Council
feels they should postpone the matter to a future hearing which
might come up with regard to a variance request, he would be
glad to resubmit it at that time to the Council.
City Attorney White interjected and emphasized that
unequivocally the City cannot legally tie the variance requested
for the wall in any way, shape or form to the height variance or
future variances which may be filed for structures within the
development. They are totally separate issues. The City cannot
make a deal or a contract in that resard. If a height variance
is approved for the pilasters, the Council has the discretion to
do that with or without Mr. Peloquin's consent and to place
reasonable conditions of approval on the height variance with or
without his consent, one of which may be that he install all the
pilasters and that seven or more wrought iron openings be
installed in the wall. If Mr. Peloquin does not wish to avail
himself of that variance, he has the right to build the wall
according to Code. There is no way to tie the height variance
for the wall to the variances for the structures. It cannot be
done tonight, a week from tonight or a year from tonight.
Robert Zemel.
He expressed concern that once again he had been "duped".
1121
Prior
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
to this meeting they had an agreement. Prior to the Planning
Commission hearing there was an agreement but just before he
stood up to speak to the Commission, Mr. Peloquin told him their
agreement was no longer any good. Now before tonight's meeting
he (Zemel) met with Mr. Peloquin and his partners wherein he
(Zemel) said he would abide by their wishes and that the
Coalition was going to speak on behalf of the pilasters, the
only reason being because they felt the openings promised would
mitigate the extension of the pilasters. Now, after he spoke in
favor, Mr. Peloquin pulls the compromise away which is similar
to the way the wall was constructed in the first place. He does
not want their silence to deem that they feel that the wall is
legal. It is not legal, there was no public hearing. There is
a sound problem and when a structure causes a sound problem it
requires a public hearing. The final agreement was that the
balloon study would speak for itself. The Coalition members did
mot speak on the height study. They were going to speak in
favor of the pilasters. There is no way any of them would agree
to the pilasters without the compromise - no openings - no
pilasters, also emphasizing the fact that they do not even
believe there should be a wall there in the first place.
Joe Serina.
He briefly talked to Mr. Zemel when he walked into the hearing.
He was assured a compromise has been reached. He is trying to
get an idea of how big the openings were going to be and it is
his understanding there will be approximately seven openings on
45 degree angles which amounts to a linear footage of between 70
and 100 feet vs. 3-quarters of a mile. He believes the builder,
in his attempt to tie the compromise to future building heights
is holding a "knife to their throats". The Council thought it
had a compromise that was going to stand alone and Mr.
Peloquin's attempt to change it to a building height is
ridiculous. The Council should not stand for it.
Vic Peloquin.
The height variance was brought out in the conversations that
were held. It was a surprise to him tonisht with a home that
does not have any effect that the Council would vote on it as
they did. In the spirit of cooperation, however, he would like
to offer the seven openings. Bob Zemel was not "duped". He
(Peloquin) felt a house that did not have any effect relative to
a height variance would have been approved. He reiterated he
would like to go ahead and open up those seven panels in order
to get approval of the variance on the pilasters. Relative to
the openings, one would be 52 feet, one 51 feet and five
openings in excess of 40 plus feet. The total distance will
equal approximately 310 or 315 feet. The openings are recessed
hack into the additional landscaped areas. It was a compromise
that was both for safety for cars that might leave the highway
and for light impact along Nohl Ranch Road. It will also
prevent someone standing on the sidewalk and viewing people's
backyards.
1122
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
Mayor Bay asked if they were talking about 3 feet of stone and 3
feet of wrought iron.
Mr. Peloquin explained they would be removing 3 feet of the wall
and replacing it with 3 feet of wrought iron.
Joel Fick.
Staff's suggestion would be if the Council were to look
favorably on the compromise that the variance be granted subject
to a minimum of 310 to 315 feet of open wrought iron or a
combination of wrought iron and block wall within the recessed
landscaped areas and that Mr. Peloquin submit a plan to staff.
Mr. Zemel suggested that the landscaping would be low shrubbery
or a ground cover so that the view is not impacted.
Vic Peloquin.
They have submitted a landscape plan to the City which was
approved. It was requested by the City that they plant trees in
certain areas. The trees might have some impact with regard to
extra height but no impact underneath the trees. The cutouts
were for a specific purpose - to add more landscaping to the
wall with regard to the cut outs.
Robert Zemel.
His only concern now would be the landscaping.~ If there are
only going to be seven openings, some being only 40-foot
sections trees should not be planted in those areas. If there
is an opening, then it should be left as an opening. The
shrubbery should be 3 feet or less. He also confirmed for the
Mayor that he and his group are in favor of the pilasters but
only in conjunction with the compromise.
Further discussion followed relative to limiting the landscaping
in front of the openings to 3 feet with no trees.
Vic Peloquin.
At the conclusion of discussion, he stated they will try to
plant the trees on the outskirts and not in front of the wrought
iron openings.
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. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk.
1123
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-492 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3706, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission but
subject to stipulation by the developer and as stated by staff that there be
seven openings in the wall totalling a minimum of 310 to 315 feet, which
openings will be a combination of wrought iron and block within the recessed
landscaped areas and that the landscaped areas consist of low shrubbery so
that the view through the wrought iron will not be obstructed. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-492: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3706.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
Ehrle
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-492 duly passed and adopted.
105: APP01NTMENT 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 8, 1987 for full Council
action. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: DISCUSSION - ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE COMMERCIAL/RECREATION AREA: To
consider possible zoning regulation in Commercial-Recreation area. Submitted
was report dated November 20, 1987 from the Planning Department, recommending
that the Council direct staff to further study possible amendments to the "CR"
zone, and to obtain Planning Commission's recommendations prior to submittal
to Council for a possible adoption.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the discussion regarding zoning
regulations in the commercial/recreation area ~or two weeks. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
106: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BALANCING THE FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 RESOURCE
ALLOCATION PLAN: The following people spoke with regard to the City budget:
Mr. Doug Kintz, President, Anaheim H.O.M.E., 2012 Norma Lane,
Anaheim, Ca. 92802.
He read a prepared statement, the essence of which was to
recommend, on behalf of the organization, that, "...the Anaheim
City Council formulate and approve an ordinance which will
impose a 10% admission tax on all commercial amusements within
the City of Anaheim. The proposed ordinance should be written
in such a manner as to exclude appropriate non-profit
1124
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
organizations and charitable organizations such as schools and
churches." As a special consideration he would also like the
Council to consider the complete and total elimination of City
property taxes with the passage of the proposed admission tax.
If the Council fails to approve such an ordinance by February 2,
1988, Anaheim H.O.M.E. is prepared to circulate a petition
initiative in order to present the issue to the voters of
Anaheim.
Betty Ronconi, 2141 South Walnut.
She is speaking in favor of an admission tax ordinance which, in
her opinion, would benefit the entire City of Anaheim without
discrimination according to location. They believe the fears of
taxing the tourist industry away are exaggerated and somewhat
unfounded. The alternate to an admission tax puts the burden of
the City financing back upon the citizens of Anaheim. The
Council has been considering raising utility taxes and business
license fees. Utilities are a necessity of life, not an
optional entertainment expense or a luxury.
Ron Bengochea, 1751 South Nutwood.
He is a native of Anaheim and has a family of five. It is
expensive now for him to be able to take his family to
Disneyland. If it were more expensive, he would not be able to
take them as much or to go to ball games. He understands the
City has a budget problem. There are a lot of residents in
Anaheim who support the various tourist attractions. Those
attractions are good for the residents and they keep kids from
doing other mischief things. He does not think an amusement tax
is the answer to the budget problems. The Council should look
instead at other alternative routes. There are many other
family people like himself and he is not sure if an admission
tax goes to the voters that there will be as much support as the
proponents of such a tax thinks there is.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 West Palais.
He hopes that the Council will not fall into the same trap as
the Federal government and the State by seeking a fresh source
of revenue rather than taking time to evaluate spending
priorities in order to determine if any economies can be made
without sacrifices in service and evaluate the cost
effectiveness of the programs and equipment the City is
currently buying.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the discussion on recommendation for
balancing the Fiscal Year 1987/88 Resource Allocation Plan for one week.
Councilm~n Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION
108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4873 - TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES: Adding new
Section 2.12.120 to the Code, to reimburse Transient Occupancy Tax revenues to
qualified organizations.
1125
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
Mayor Bay. He does not intend to vote for the proposed ordinance. He feels
it is a foot in the door for a serious precedent to go after the Transient
Occupancy Tax. It will lead to nothing but problems in the future. Even
though it has been amended and tightened up, it still points at an area right
now where the City is already transferrin~ through federal monies in the
amount of $240,000 a year.
Councilwoman Kaywood. If people can be housed overnight instead of wandering
the streets or parks, it will save more than the $5,000 to $7,000 estimated to
be reimbursed in passing the ordinance in police services. If there are major
problems, three votes can change the ordinance.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES: The title of the following ordinances were
read by the City Clerk.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all the ordinances.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4873 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
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 ANAHEI3! MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES TO QUALIFYING
ORGANIZATIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter, Kaywood and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4873 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4879: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4879 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4879: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
17.28.130, 17.28.030, 17.28.100, 17.28.120, 17.28.130, 17.28.170; A/)DING
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 RRL~TING TO FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter, Kaywood, Pickier and Bay
None
Ehrle
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4879 duly passed and adopted.
1126
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4881 THROUGH 4883: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance
Nos. 4881 through 4883 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4881: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE REIATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-19, CO(SC), 7777 Santa Aha 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 RELATING 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 REFER/LED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRL~TING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 87-88-05, CL, 2020 E. Via Burton Street, 1420 and
1440 No. State College Blvd.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter, Kaywood, Pickier and Bay
None
Ehrle
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4881 through 4883, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4880: Amending Sections 18.44.030 and.050 and
18.45.030 and .050 and 18.46.030 and .050 and 18.61.030 by adding thereto
subsections pertaining to recycling facilities.
City Clerk Sohl announced that the City Attorney recommends that this proposed
ordinance be continued for one week to be considered and voted on at the same
time as the proposed ordinance relating to recycling facilities (see next
item).
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue Ordinance No. 4880 for one
week. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Ehrle was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4887 - RECYCLING FACILITIES: Adding Chapter 18.95 to
the Code, relating to recycling facilities.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4887 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4887: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 18.95
TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RECYCLING FACILITIES.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4888: Amending Title 18, Reclassification No. 86-87-18,
RM-1200(0), of Frontera Street, east of Park Vista).
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4888 for first reading.
1/27
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1, 1987, 4:00 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4888: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM ~JNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclassification No. 86-87-18, RM-1200(0), of Frontera
Street, east of Park Vista)
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Bill Ertckson, 201 East North Street. He expressed his pleasure with City
Manager Bob Simpson, after reading the City Manager's statement of October 16,
1987 given at a Management meeting. It is evident to him (Erickson) that Mr.
Simpson has the political acumen, demeanor that is wholesome and a tranquil
manner that will help in the solutions to inherited problems with the past
administration.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 West Palais. He also referred to the article regarding the
drug busts in the Chevy Chase area and shares Councilman Hunter's abhorrence
of drug traffic on the City streets. There was a question whether the
traffickers were going to be charged and this is something that upsets him as
well.
Janet Erwin, 1543 South Hampstead. She owns an apartment building in the
Lynn/Jeffrey area. During the Redevelopment meeting in their area last
summer, she made a complaint that she had not seen a street sweeper in their
area for about 18 months. At that time she was advised that she owned the
alley. Then someone said she did not own the alley. The next Monday a street
sweeper came through and she got ticketed for being on her own property. The
sweeper came through on an unposted day. Now she has not seen any street
sweepers since last summer. She questioned why they do not get their alleys
swept. Secondly, she has a complaint relative to Jaycox, the City's
contractor for commercial trash pick up. The new Jaycox trucks are white.
With the old green ones the dirt that accumulates on those trucks was not so
noticeable. She recommends that Jaycox also clean their trash bins every once
in a while. There are trash bins that have been sitting there for six years
that have never been cleaned and some have wet sludge in the bottom. They are
paying over $300 a year for use of those bins and they are never cleaned.
ADJOUNRNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilman Hunter seconded
the motion. --Councilman Ehrle was absent. MOTION CARRIED (12:13 a.m.,
December 2, 1987)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLF. RK
1128