Loading...
1986/02/25City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickier and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti CODE ENFORCEMENT AND HOUSING SUPERVISOR: John Poole Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Captain Joseph Huttenlocker, Salvation Army, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn 0verholt, Jr. led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: Pan American Golf Association Appreciation Weekend in Anaheim, February 29-March 2, 1986, Annie Anaheim Acolade Awards Day in Anaheim. Mr. Ben De. Leon accepted the Pan American Golf Association proclamation. 119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Don Roth presented Mr. Ed Stotereau of the Anaheim Convention Center with a bronze plaque received from the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee commemorating the City's participation in the 1984 Olympics. The Mayor also read the plaque which is to be permanently mounted in an appropriate exterior or interior area of the Convention Center. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mary Jones, upon her retirement as Director of Community Affairs at Disneyland. 119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOMe: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to visiting Mexican firefighters. Fire Chief Darrel Hartshorn explained that although representatives of the 126 firefighters (two from Guatemala and the balance from Mexico) presently in training in the City wanted very much to attend today's meeting, they were so involved in the training program he decided it would be best to make the presentation at the Friday luncheon. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held February 4, 1986. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 119 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,969,397.29, in accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved. 144: ORANGE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES: Jim Kenan, Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC), to discuss the formation of an Orange County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). Submitted was report dated February 14, 1986 from the City Engineer, recommending support of the establishment of the Service Authority and directing the OCTC to serve as the Service Authority for freeway emergencies in Orange County. Jim Kenan, Finance Director, OCTC, briefed the proposed program, that of installing call boxes on Orange County Freeways. (See the Executive Summary briefed by Mr. Kenan contained in the January 3, 1986 Arthur Young Study representing a report to the Commission on an implementation study of SBl199 (Craven/Bergeson) enabling counties and their cities to establish service authorities for freeway emergencies). On January 1, 1986 SBl199 became law providing a funding mechanism which would allow for financing the installation and operation of a call box system in Orange County. The legislation authorizes that each SAFE organization can collect up to $1 per registered vehicle annually in the County in order to pay for the call box system. The County of Orange and the majority of cities in Orange County must approve the resolution to establish a SAFE organization. One-third of the freeway miles in Orange County are in Anaheim. Today, 20 cities in the County had approved the SAFE resolution as well as the County. If Anaheim approved the resolution today, it would be the Agency to put OCTC over the top, thus allowing SAFE to be formed. The first meeting of the Agency would be held March 10, 1986 if approved. Council Members then posed questions to Mr. Kenan on different aspects of the call box proposal wherein Mr. Kenan clarified that the plan was to install a call box at 1/2 mile intervals to start, but based on technology selected, could be improved. It was expected that the first call box would be installed in 12 months if SAFE received approval from Anaheim today. Discussion then followed relative to the life of the $1 fee. Councilman Pickler felt there should be some stipulation that if the technology was such in a few years eliminating the need for call boxes, then the $1 fee should be removed. Mr. Kenan felt, given that direction, that recommendation was a possibility and those comments would be discussed at the first meeting of SAFE where comments would be incorporated in the formation of the Agency. He also reported for Councilman Overholt that the projected annual cost of the program was anticipated to be $1.6 million. Costs would range from $1 million to $1.5 120 6! City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL HINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. million but they would also be setting aside funds to replace call boxes and dependent upon the technology selected the boxes would have a 10 or 20 year life. He confirmed if the Council voted favorably, collection of the $1 per registered vehicle would start without any further action by the Council. Councilman 0verholt asked what further input the Council would have on the make up of the Authority; Mr. Kenan answered that the Council would be agreeing that the make up of the SAFE Agency would be the members of OCTC and the members who serve on that Commission in order to avoid forming a whole new Agency with a new set of administrative fees. He also clarified that Los Angeles funded their call box program from general fund dollars and that the California Highway Patrol provided operators free of charge but that would not be true in Orange County. Councilman Overholt expressed his concern over the $1 fee and wanted to know what the Council could do today to be assured it would not be a perpetual tax on automobile owners residing in Orange County. The use of the freeways in Orange County was not limited to people who owned cars and who lived in the County. He was also concerned this would not be the last time the City heard about a ~1 per car fee to finance this project or some other project deemed to be worthy. He was inclined to recommend that the Council pass the resolution but on a one-year basis until such time as appropriate sunsetting language was proposed and the Council had an opportunity to approve that as well. Mr. Kenan explained that Anaheim, as other cities, had a voice on the current make up of the Commission and thus there was a mechanism to register concerns. He would be concerned if there was a one year limitation up front because of the long range commitment involved. Mayor Roth stated the Commission should consider some provision that after a ten year period of time or when the cost of the system was amortized, the $1 fee would terminate; Mr. Kenan stated the Commission could incorporate that language into their deliberations at the initial meeting of SAFE. Councilman Overholt asked if the funds raised could be used for any purpose other than the freeway emergency system; Mr. Kenan answered no. Councilman Bay noted in the Arthur Young Study that there was nothing which showed that the cost of the program was goin& to total ~1.6 million a year. The potential revenue was $1.6 million and the projected cost ~1.1 million which would not necessarily be $1 per automobile. He assumed then that the revenue was going to be set up on a ratio to meet the costs. If the fee was set at $1 per car, there was going to be an overage. He was also concerned as to when it would end and also wanted to know if the OCTC was allowed to use the revenue for administrative costs. Mr. Kenan stated that 0CTC could not use any of the revenue for administrative costs but SAFE could. Only those charges assigned directly for the work related to the program could be charged off. Councilman Bay commented on the fact that Los Angeles County paid for the call box system out of general funds but Orange County offered no such solution. 121 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986~ 10:00 A.M. He was concerned that throughout the State when it came to transportation Orange County always had to be first in coming up with a new revenue source to do the things that had to be done, without additional revenue sources, which was not true in other counties throughout the State. He did not believe that Orange County was getting a fair shake in comparison to other counties. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-78 supporting the establishment of the Orange County Service Authority for freeway emergencies and directing the Orange County Transportation Commission to serve as the Service Authority for freeway emergencies in Orange County. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-78: A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CItY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-78 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Pickler suggested that a letter accompany the resolution when transmitted expressing the concerns enumerated by the Council especially relative to the sunsetting of the fee. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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. 86R-70 through 86R-77, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Anaheim City School District (File No. 2501-86-0002) for indemnity for claim from a third party for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 29, 1985. b. Claim submitted by Nancy King for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 10, 1985. c. Claim submitted by Mark Kelm for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 14, 1985. d. Claim submitted by Donald L. & Gale A. Averill for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 12, 1985. 122 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. e. Claim submitted by V. S. S. Inc., dba Vehicle Springs Service for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 5, 1985. f. Claim submitted by Sandra Sundstrom for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 27, 1985. g. Claim submitted by Diane Krawl for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 21, 1985. h. Claim submitted by Karen Birtcher for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 27, 1985. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - denied: i. Claim submitted by Stephen Anderson for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 16, 1985. J. Claim submitted by Greg Lawson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 1, 1985. Claims filed - recommended to be accepted: k. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company (File No. B-175710-05-RWB) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 18, 1985. 1. Claim submitted by Wayne & Karen Bilhartz for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 8, 1986. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Report for January 1986. 3. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the six month period ended December 31, 1985. 4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the North Orange County Community College District to provide dance bands for tea dances at Martin Recreation Center in La Palma Park for the calendar year of 1985, with the profits shared 50 percent by both parties. 5. 123: Authorizing a First Amendment to Agreement with Tri-County Officials Association in an amount not to exceed $53,000 to provide athletic officials to officiate the adult sports leagues conducted by the Recreation Department for a one year period commencing March 1, 1986. 6 a. 123: Accepting the termination of the agreement with Lee's Maintenance Company effective February 19, 1986 to provide custodial services. b. 160/123: Accepting the bid and authorizing an agreement with Menzies International California, Inc., dba Certified Building Maintenance, in an 123 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. amount not to exceed $388,641.12 for the two year period, March 1, 1986 through February 29, 1988, with firm pricing for the first year and pricing subject to change but limited to 80% of the Consumer Price Index on the second year, to provide custodial service for the City, in accordance with Bid No. 4297. 7. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-70: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Broadway Street and Storm Drain Improvement, Broadview Street to Empire Street, Federal Aid Urban Project No. M-Mil2(2), Account Nos. 12-791-6325-E1460 and 51-484-6993-00732; and opening of bids on March 27, 1986) 8. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Kraemer Boulevard Street Improvement, Crowther Avenue to 450' south of La Palma Avenue, Federal Aid Urban Project No. M-M007(1), Account Nos. 46-793-6325-E3770 and 51-484-6993-00710; and opening of bids on March 27, 1986) 9. 175/137: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 83R-168 OF THE CITY COUNCIL (AS HERETOFORE SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED). (Amending Resolution No. 83R-168, authorizing the issuance of Electric Revenue Anticipation Notes, covenanting that the City will comply with each provision of HR 3838 and a Letter of Instruction from Bond Counsel pertaining to HR 3838) 10. 175/123: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-73: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES RRT.ATING TO THE INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT AND A RELEASE BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF LOS ANGmL~S IN THAT CERTAIN ACTION ENTITLED CITY OF ANAHEIM V. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SA.ID RELEASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Approving the terms and conditions of certain agreements between the City and the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles relating to the Intermountain Power Project and a release from the City to Los Angeles in that certain action entitled "City of Anaheim v. LADWP SCV 225 301, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager, or his designated representative, to deliver to LADWP these certain agreements and said Release and to execute such other documents as are necessary to dismiss the subject litigation) 11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. 12. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #3426-1) 124 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. 13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-76: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #3500-37 & 38) 14. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-77: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES. (C.P. NO. 305 AND R/W NO. 3638) Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-70, 86R-71, and 86R-73 through 86R-77: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-70, 86R-71, and 86R-73 through 86R-77, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 86R-72: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-72 duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED. 175/123: UPRATING OF ADDITIONAL UNITS AT THE HOOVER DAM POWER PLANT: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize the execution of an Interim Power Purchase Contract with the Bureau of Reclamation (U.S. Department of Interior) and the Western Area Power Administration (U.S. Department of Energy), to provide funds for uprating of additional units at the Hoover Dam Power Plant, as recommended in memozandum dated February 21, 1986 from the Secretary of the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - EL TORITO RESTAURANT: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the application for a public dance permit submitted by E1 Torito Restaurant, 2020 East Ball Road for dance to be held March 1, 1986, from 12 noon to 5:00 p.m. in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held February 3, 1986, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-14 (READV.) AND VARIANCE NO. 3518 (KEADV.): Submitted by Dorothy Lee MacDonald, proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 25-unit apartment building on property located at 917 and 925 125 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. South Webster Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum fence height, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum number of bachelor units. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC86-33 and 34, granted Reclassification No. 85-86-14 (Ready.) and Variance No. 3518, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 207: Submitted by American Home Mortgage, to amend the Riding and Hiking Trails portion of the Environmental Resource and Management Element Including the deletion of the Nohl Ranch Trail and portions of the Lakeview and Four Corners Trails and addition of trail segments adjacent to Royal Oak Road and Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-35, granted Exhibit B of General Plan Amendment No. 207, and granted a negative declaration status. A public hearing will be held on the subject GPA No. 207 on March 18, 1986. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2757: Submitted by Sik Yam Chan, et al, (Rustic Motel), to construct a 57-unit addition to a 24-unit motel on CL zoned property located at 916 South Beach Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-36, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2757, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2758: Submitted by A. G. and Doris Richter, (Uncle Gee'z Restaurant), to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 1098 North State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-37, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2758, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2759: Submitted by General Electric Company, (General Electric), to retain the accessory indoor storage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in an existing industrial building on ML zoned property located at 3601 East La PalmaAvenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-38, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2759 for a period of two years to expire February 3, 1988, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. VARIANCE NO. 3532: Submitted by Gary A. Nie, to construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment building on RM-1200 zoned property located at 415 South Kroeger Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback from an alley, (b) minimum sideyard setbacks, (c) minimum recreational-leisure areas. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-40, granted Variance No. 3532, and granted a negative declaration status. 126 55¸. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1985, 10:00 A.M. 7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 3533: Submitted by Estate of Verla W. Brown, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200, to establish a 2-lot, single-family residential subdivision on property located at 660 South Sunkist Street, with Code waivers of minimum lot width and frontage and permitted orientation of structures. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC86-41 and 42, granted Reclassification No. 85-86-20 and Variance No. 3533, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. VARIANCE NO. 3535: Submitted by Michael J. Garan, et al, to establish a 2-lot, single-family residential subdivision on RS-7200 zoned property located on the east side of Evelyn Drive, south of Cypress Street, with Code waivers of minimum lot width and frontage and required rear yard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-43, granted Variance No. 3535, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2722 --SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by PBS, Inc., requesting approval of specific plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2722, to construct a 3-story, 41-foot high commercial building with certain Code waivers on property located on the north side of Santa Aha Canyon Road and on the southwesterly side of Riverview Drive. The City Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2722 - Specific Plans. 10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-4 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2605--EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by Grubb and Ellis, requesting extensions of time to Reclassification No. 84-85-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2605, a proposed change in zone to CL, to permit a multi-screen indoor theatre and semi-enclosed restaurant on property located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, west of Imperial Highway, with certain Code waivers. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification No. 84-85-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2605, to expire January 21, 1987. 11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-25 AND VARIANCE NO. 3136--EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by Gunston Hall, Inc., requesting extensions of time to Reclassification No. 79-80-25 and Variance No. 3136, a proposed change in zone to RM-2400, RM-3000, RS-HS-22,000 and OS zones, on property located southwesterly of Nohl Ranch Road, between the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road with Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification No. 79-80-25 and Variance No. 3136, to expire January 21, 1987. 12. CO~;DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2762: Submitted by Don V. and Garnet A. Edmunds, (Power Breaking, Inc.), to retain a concrete breaking and removal operation with outdoor storage and required enclosure of outdoor uses on ML zoned property located at 2691 East Taft Avenue. 127 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-39, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2762, and granted a negative declaration status. The City Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 13. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 208, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-21AND VAILIANCE NO. 3534: Submitted by Kathleen F. and Sammy John Nobles, Terry F. Wylie and Edward L. and Yolanda E. Roldan, to consider an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan from general commercial and low-density residential designation to medium density or low-medium density residential designation, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 40-unit apartment complex on property located at 1918-1932 East Cypress Street, with Code waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC86-44, 45 and 46, recommended adoption of Exhibit B and denial of Reclassification No. 85-86-21 and Variance No. 3534, and granted a negative declaration status. The City Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing will be held on March 18, 1986. End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED. 123/153: ORDINANCE NO. 4696: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4696 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4696: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AN AMEND~T TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4696 duly passed and adopted. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4697: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4697 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4697: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION .2280 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING AND STOPPING. (relating to parking and stopping on Carpenter Avenue, on the north side and on the south side, from Shepard Street to the easterly limit of Carpenter Avenue) Roll Call Vote: 128 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4697 duly passed and adopted. 142/107: ORDINANCE NO. 4698: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4698 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4698: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS 7.24.030, 7.24.050, 7.24.060 AND 7.24.070 ANDADDING SECTION 7.24.080 TO CHAPTER 7.24 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBILLS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4698 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4699: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4699 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4699: 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 84-85-12, ML, 2790 East Ball Road) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4699 duly passed and adopted. 114/111/162: NO SMOKING ORDINANCE: Councilman Overholt referred to letter dated February 20, 1986 received from Allan Hughes, Executive Director of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and expressed his concern that the Chamber had taken the position that, "no amounts of modification or alteration would be acceptable to the business community" relative to the proposed ordinance. The Chamber is opposed to the proposed ordinance, "based on the conviction that any attempt by government to regulate smoking in the private work place is an unacceptable invasion into the private sector..." Regardless of the Chamber's philosophy he (Overholt) would still welcome specific critiques of the proposal and as requested at the meeting of February 4, 1986 that the Chamber come up with some recommendations dealing with the problems that they see might be involved in implementing the work place portion of the ordinance. The Council was scheduled to consider the ordinance again on March 4, 1986 and any information from them as an organization, from their members or any part 129 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. of the business community to assist the Council in trying to work its way through the issue would be helpful. 114/106: BUDGET DATA: Councilman Bay asked if the budget information he requested at a previous Council meeting was now scheduled to be discussed at the Council meeting of March 18, 1986. City Manager William Talley answered that it was not scheduled for that date. The third-quarter sales tax information was expected to be received around the 16th to the 18th of March. After consulting with staff, Mr. Talley reported that the figures would be available on March 17, 1985 but he felt it best that the matter be scheduled for the March 25, 1986 meeting so that staff could prepare a report and submit it for that date. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be held to confer with the City's Attorney regarding: a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, O.C. Superior Court Case No. 40 92 46. b. Potential Litigation - pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9B1. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:32 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:46 p.m.) 170: PUBLIC HEARING - PARCEL MAP 85-420: APPLICANT: Evedean and Craig S. Miller 7688 Calle Durango Anaheim, Ca. 92808 ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: Requesting amendment of conditions of approval to create a 3-parcel division o~ land on approximately 1.9 acres located on the southeasterly side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west side of Martin Road and the north side of Martella Lane. HEARING SET ON: Appeal of the City Engineer's decision by letter dated January 2, 1986. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 13, 1986. Posting of property February 14, 1986. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 13, 1986. STAFF INPUT: Report of the City Engineer dated February 13, 1986 recommended approval and upholding of the conditions imposed regarding drainage relative to Parcel Map 85-420. 130 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Craig Miller, 7688 Calle Durango. The property he owns is almost 3 acres in size. The purpose of the subdivision is to build a house on one lot, to get bank financing for one lot and to have the land legally subdivided for each of his three children. It is strictly for estate planning. A storm drain needs to be installed on the west corner requiring 15 feet of easement. The present storm drain of 8 or 10 feet adequately handles the drain off. The storm drain was approved to be installed om his neighbor's property but he refused to negotiate or talk to anybody. He (Miller) did not mind giving up the 15 feet but he definitely needed the lot split. (He submitted a photograph of the house he intends to build). COUNCIL QUESTIONS: Mayor Roth. It was his understanding that when the master plan for the hill and canyon area was developed, the subject area was going to be treated differently where the people developing in that area would have to pay for the storm drains as the property developed. He assumed this situation was nothing out of the ordinary but standard procedure. STAFF INPUT Gary Johnson, City Engineer. The condition relative to the storm drain was a very normal one. The City has a master planned storm drain, in a drainage reimbursement district. The parcel being proposed to be subdivided is in a position where the alignment of the storm drain needs to go through it, and the typical way is to get a dedication of an easement through the parcel map or some other zoning action. If the City did not obtain the easement in that manner, it would have to be purchased at a later date and funds expended from the reimbursement district. There were funds available to reimburse the Millers for a portion of the cost. The City is only requesting as a condition that the storm drain be placed along the frontage of the property. The storm drain would have to be extended at a later date and as the further property develops, those people would have to pay the acreage fee, and extend the storm drain. He confirmed that it is only an access easement so that the City can maintain and clean the storm drain. The property could be used except there can be no construction over the easement portion. Mr. Miller. They are not questioning paying a proportionate share of the storm drain development but the additional $50,000 to $60,000 to install the drain and the period of time it will take to get reimbursed. The storm drain costs including engineering will be approximately $40,000. 131 City Hall.~ Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Pickler. It was his understanding it would cost Mr. Miller $9,575. Gary Johnson, City Engineer. The storm drain including engineering costs would be approximately $40,000. The reimbursement district is being paid at the rate of $2,090 per acre by the Millers. With that contribution and with the $24,700 the reimbursement fund now has to reimburse the Millers, it was estimated that the balance would be approximately 59,500 and that would be repaid as development occurs. It was only an estimate but he was comfortable that it was realistic. Evedean Miller. In discussing the matter with Anacal Engineering who has been looking at that area and the storm drain requirements for approximately two years, they estimated that according to the City to improve the storm drain along their property, the estimated cost was between $70,000 and 580,000. Gary Johnson. Jay Titus of his staff indicated that the $80,000 was for the entire storm drain because it would need to be extended. That would be the only way he could see that it could cost 580,000. Craig Miller. If he had known that, there would have been other directions he would have taken coming through plan check. The matter was never discussed. They already had their plan to do the grading and the only thing they wanted was a lot line change for the three lots. Councilwoman Kaywood. The $40,000 figure given by the City Engineer is based on actual bids recently received. Mr. Miller. He confirmed he did not have a written bid from Anacal Engineering. Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked Mr. Miller if the figures given by the City with the amount in the reimbursement fund and the upfront fee of $9,500 was going to be a problem. Mr. Miller. He answered that was acceptable. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. 132 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Pickler moved to approve Parcel Map No. 85-420, subject to the same conditions imposed by the City Engineer without any change. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2747 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLI CANT: McDonald's Corp., (McDonald's Restaurant), 8840 Complex Drive San Diego, Ca. 92123 (Skip Sterling, owner) ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To permit expansion of an existing drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 3210 West Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-8 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2747. Approved EIR - negative declaration. HEARING SET ON: Appeal by Mr. Jay Kent Bewley and Mr. James W. Schmidt, Bewley Maintenance (owners of the adjacent car wash). PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 13, 1986. Posting of property February 14, 1986. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 13, 1986. NOTE: Advertising included the fact that the public hearing would be continued to March 25, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. as requested by the applicant and as acted upon by the City Council at their meeting of February 11, 1986 by motion. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1986. STAFF INPUT: Leonora N. Sohl, City Clerk The City Council at its meeting of February 11, 1986 indicated their willingness to continue the public hearing to the meeting of March 25, 1986 since the agent for the applicant in his letter of February 4, 1986 reported that he would be out of the country on February 25, 1986, the day the public hearing was originally scheduled. COUNCIL ACTION: Councilman Roth moved to confirm the Council's previous action that public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2747 be continued to Tuesday, March 25, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:10 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: being present. The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members (7:00 p.m.) 133 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2738 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Euclid Street Baptist Church of Anaheim 1408 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92802 ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To permit Hope University, an elementary school, a pre-school, and to construct a 2-story, 8-unit housing facility in conjunction with a church on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1408 South Euclid Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) required setback of playground area, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum fence height, (d) maximum structural height. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-17 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2738, in part. Requested waivers (a), (b), and (c) were granted for a period of three years to expire July 1, 1989. HEARING SET ON: Appeal by Howard Richey. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 13, 1986. Posting of property February 14, 1986. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 13, 1986. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 20, 1986. APPEI3ANT'S STATEMENT: Howard Richey, 1655 Palais Road. A petition containing 401 signatures of residents in opposition who are directly affected by the proposal, and 50 to 60 letters had been submitted. He then referred to the map posted on the Chamber wall indicating by orange markings those residents of the immediate area surrounding the church property who were opposed. The neighborhood is expressing their opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2738 in its entirety. He stated the issues on which each spokesman would speak - land usage, depreciation of property values, future use of home at 1677 Chanticleer, Hope University and all church schools, zoning and uncontrolled growth, traffic, noise, and the testimony of residents whose property abuts the church property and school. He then submitted a letter from Mr. Don Reed, Principal of Hope School in the Anaheim Union High School District which clarified that Hope School is one of the schools of the Anaheim Union High School District, a public day school program serving the needs of developmentally disabled students between the ages of 13 and 22, and that Hope University is a private program serving adult age students who have an interest in music. There is no relationship between the two programs. The Hope University program is experimental by their own admission. It is not a matter of, "not in our backyard" but a matter that should 134 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. concern the Council - whether the 1408 South Euclid Street is the place for such a trial when the land is surrounded on three sides by single-family homes and on the fourth by one of the busiest streets in Anaheim. PUBLIC INPUT- IN OPPOSITION: Gloria Biehl, 1639 Chanticleer. The issue is solely one of land use. The property involved is 2.9 acres and the uses in relation to the surroundings are the important factors, factors that place limitations on the property. It is not a good location for the proposed facility. The illegally established school has outgrown the property. The property is not suitable for any school. There is no buffer zone and there is no way of creating one. It is perfectly suited for a church and a small pre-school. The use should be returned to that use and remain only that. Trying to legalize something because it is there does not make sense. If it is approved, the Council should simply condemn the 21 legally existing and lovely homes surrounding the subject property because the Council would be doing exactly that without so admitting at this time. Rose Struck, 1517 West Harriet. By allowing the use, the home values of the community and neighborhood surrounding the proposed site would drop or remain stagnant. The residents purchased their homes in good faith and the City should not betray that faith and trust. The residents are objecting to the requested change of the present zoning to accommodate a University which does not belong in a residential neighborhood. There is no benefit to the City or community short or long term. The effects of the Council decision will have long-range implications. The residents are opposed to a school of any kind, or for any apartments to be built on the premises. Dorothy Rubin, 1674 Chanticleer. Reverend Crow purchased a private residence at 1677 Chanticleer 7 years ago across the street from her home which was to be used for the church Secretary. In the past 5 years, numerous residents have come and gone. In the last few years, the house has been used for church classrooms. The pool and grounds have been used for church activities. The house will be included in the purchase for use by the staff of Hope University. Additional adjacent homes will be especially attractive to Hope University. The residents are adamantly opposed to new school zoning and new apartment zoning abutting single-family residents. She urged the Council to vote no on the CUP - no schools, no Hope University, no apartments. Corrine Newell, 1679 Buena Vista. She first submitted three letters sent to Pastor Crow of the 135 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. Euclid Street Baptist Church by the former Planning Director, Ron Thompson dated July 21, 1976, October 10, 1980 and June 7, 1984. The residents are asking the Council to consider the real issue - land usage and zoning suitability. Their experience with the Euclid Street Baptist Church has been far from pleasant. She recounted some of the history starting in the Spring of 1982. She also referred to the November 25, 1985 and January 6, 1986 Planning Commission minutes containing extensive testimony (see minutes those dates). None of the residents purchased homes next to a school but open ground or a church. No school zoning of any sort has ever been shown on zoning searches done by realtors for recent purchases. There is only 4 feet 9 inches between her home and the fence that abuts the present CL zoned property, i.e., for professional offices or a quiet use. None of the 10 residents abutting the 1408 South Euclid Street property play areas support Conditional Use Permit No. 2738. She asked that the Code Enforcement Manager be asked about the 1982 CUP request and that the City Attorney clarify the letters submitted. The residents have tried to be tolerant, but an increase of 47 school children to 190 over three and-one-quarter years is abuse of property that slices right through a housing tract. The land was never developed to accommodate a school. The final proposal is a boarding school housing musicians. There could be 6 uses on the property - a church, daycare, pre-school, elementary school, Hope University and the Discovery Twirlers, a square dancing group. She urged the Council to deny the CUP on the real issue - land use. Quiet use is needed, not impacted use. Louise Dreher, 1656 West Palais. They selected their home because it did not abut the grade school. When Pastor Crow came by their house with a petition for a church to be built that would abut their property, they were assured it was only for a church and he would personally make provisions to control noise, traffic and "be a good neighbor." Although apprehensive, they signed the petition and since then they have been let down by both Pastor Crow and the City by (1) allowing expansion of the church originally there, (2) the construction of 2-story buildings too close, to property lines and overhead power lines, (3) use of the plant (facilities) for a school. By not properly fencing and controlling his property, Pastor Crow has invited many unsupervised activities to take place. The transfer of the property to Hope University represents a further perversion of the original agreement as well as a risk to the City and Hope University in establishing a substandard permanent facility for their activities. She asked that the Council take the necessary action to return the parcel of land to the use the homeowners agreed to and deny the use of a school or any permanent facility for Hope University. 136 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1985, 10:00 A.M. Adrian Douglas, 1567 West Palais. The residents have been and will continue to be confronted with the operation of the pre-school and the elementary school along with being subjected to the possibility of the establishment of Hope University to be operated in conjunction with those schools already functioning on the site. It means a traffic increase, an increase in the number of people and the extension of operating hours. Occupancy will increase from approximately 275 to 322 adding to the current traffic problems. The intersection of Ball Road and Euclid now handles 120,000 vehicles a day. He conducted a traffic survey on the Euclid Street entrance of the subject site on February 24, 1985 at 6:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. Fifty-five vehicles entered the church property and 3 remained. On February 25, 1986 on the Edda Lane entrance, there were a total of 135 vehicles and 20 remained. It is obvious that the existing pollution and traffic problems can only be made worse if the CUP is approved. The area residents are requesting denial of the CUP. Rosemarie Schulmeister, 1684 West Palais. The proposed use on the 2.9 acres would be use by a pre-school from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., an elementary school from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Hope University from 4:00 p.m.to 9:00 p.m. plus the Baptist Church and their activities. There is already over use on the property. Added to that will be additional noise of traffic and construction crews to construct the 2-story building. Her home is 10 feet away from the church buildings and she is very concerned. Relative to the existing buildings, there were 66 Code violations. She wanted to know if those had been corrected, if the Fire Chief had inspected the site and if there were adequate fire exits. There is very little maintenance of the existing buildings. She is concerned about the quality of the structures amd soundness of the buildings. She questioned her rights and asked that the buildings be inspected to see that they meet the current Code standards. Debbie Katz, 1678 West Palais. Her home backs up to one of the 2-story buildings used as classrooms. What was believed to be for Sunday School only had grown into a pre-school and elementary school with over 250 students. The noise was intolerable. Windows on the second story have been open on days when it is warm and children have walked up to those windows. There is no fire exit on the back side facing her yard. Lights were still left on all night lighting up her bedroom as reported at the Planning Commission hearing of January 5, 1986. Noise was emanating from the building at 3:30 a.m. on February 21, 1986. She wanted to know what was going on and also the use of the 2-story apartment building. She urged the Council to say no to Hope University and to eliminate the pre-school and elementary school leaving the church with no schools at all. 137 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. Bruce Newell, 1679 Buena Vista. He has been an Engineer for 28 years. He then gave a presentation relative to the concerns about noise disturbances existing at present and the noise level study that Hope University had undertaken by Alfred Long on December 7, 1985. He submitted a comprehensive and detailed diagramatic chart showing the current and proposed buildings on the subject site, the surrounding residences, and sound level measurements he had taken delineated by several colors with sound levels documented under different circumstances. Ail readings were higher than the City of Anaheim Code noise level of 60 decibels (db). Readings taken ranged from 65.0 db to 92.4 db (see charts entitled - Graphic Representation of Hope University Sound Levels, Page 1 and Measured Levels Combined with Background Noise - Noise Levels Projected, Page 2 - made a part of the record). He concluded his extensive presentation by stating that the proposal was not suited to be implemented in a tract with residential homes and urged that the Council give the residents their well-earned peace by voting no to all of CUP No. 2738. The residents needed a decrease in noise levels and not an increase of any kind. MarilynRichey, 1655 Palais. The residents were not given prior notice when the 2-story building was built behind the Dreher's residence or the establishment of the schools by either the church or the City. She questioned why the residents must be subjected to church and school petitioners countering the residents efforts in opposing further expansion of uses and neighborhood impact when only a handful lived within a block or two of the church grounds and the rest lived in other parts of Anaheim and even other cities. The question is whether or not the residents want a school on the property. The answer is no. She urged the Council to deny CUP No. 2738 in its entirety. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (8:27 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (8:32 p.m) PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Gregory Sanders, Attorney, representing the applicant, 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 660 Costa Mesa, Ca. 92625. He first asked for a show of hands of those present in support. There were roughly 130. Essentially, two issues are involved. The first related to the planned phaseout and transition of the Euclid Street Baptist Church and the Euclid Street Christian School and the second relating to the permitted use on the property for Hope University. He first clarified the residency population of the proposed building on the corner of Buena Vista and Euclid Street which would contain 8 units and house approximately 35 students. 138 43 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Sanders then referred to letter dated February 19, 1986 sent to the Mayor and Council Members outlining several issues beginning with the Purpose of Petition for a CUP. The only purpose for applying for the CUP is to make sure that when the Euclid Street Baptist Church vacates the property entirely, that Hope University will be a permitted use on the property. Mr. Sanders' extensive presentation then focused on a refutation of the allegations made by the residents whose homes abutted the property - traffic, noise, privacy, off-site parking and buildings constructed without building permits (see Mr. Sanders' letter of February 19, 1986 - Pages 2, 4, 5 and 6 which addressed each issue including supporting documents in the form of exhibits attached to the letter A through I). He also addressed the following issues broached in the presentation of the opposition: the lowering of property values (he submitted a pamphlet, "They Will Not Lower Property Values"), emphasized the fact that the inference had never been made that Hope University and Hope School were affiliated, and that a number of minor violations had been corrected. Mr. Sanders concluded, if Hope University is to thrive in Anaheim and if it is to be a permitted use on the property currently occupied by the Euclid Street Baptist Church, it is necessary that a sufficient amount of time be given to the church and school to transition out of the property. In order to do so, he is recommending an amendment to Condition Nos. 26 and 28 of Resolution No. PC86-17 (see Page 7 of the February 19, 1986 letter), the first having to do with the phaseout of the school, and the second with the phaseout of church activities until the congregation is completely dissipated. Vincent Lupo, 22708 Stag Street, Canoga Park, Ca. 91504, Spokesperson for Hope University, Member of the Board of Directors of Hope, and past National President of UNIC0 National amd current National Chairuu~n of UNICO's Mental Health Program. He is the original petitioner on the property in question. He then briefed the history and purpose of UNIC0 (Unity, Neighborliness, Integrity, Charity and Opportunity). UNICO felt the property at 1480 South Euclid is ideally suited and located. If Hope University could turn out young individuals as gifted, talented and as fine as HI-HOPES, Discovery Twirlers and Joy Singers, everyone should feel proud of the accomplishment. He confirmed for Councilman Overholt that UNICO's involvement is in support financially of the building of a UNIC0 College for the gifted mentally retarded. UNICO is the financial backing but had nothing to do with the curriculum, were not involved with Euclid Street Baptist Church, and were not involved with the purchase of the property. Doris Walker, 1755 West Greeuleaf, Executive Director, Hope University/UNICO National College. 139 44 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. She explained the Hope University program, described the typical student and explained why the subject property and facilities were ideally suited for their purposes. She presented petitions in support containing 1,076 signatures including those of 432 Anaheim residents. Louis Rohrs, 818 South Lemon, Pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church. HI-HOPES have been using their facilities weekly for the past year and have not posed any problem relative to sound. He lives next door to the church and at no time did he hear HI-HOPES practice with their amplified instruments. At no time did they pose any trash problem in the parking lot, there had been no complaints from adjoining areas, and approximately 60 to 70 students were there at the same time. He urged approval of the CUP. Kenneth K. Kendall, Jr., 2105 West Forest Lane, Anaheim. He represents Glass Mountain Inn, a local charity whose handicapped members wished to voice their support for Hope University. There were 19,000 handicapped citizens in Anaheim. They were looking for compassion, understanding and fair treatment. Paula Margeson, 3311 West Lincoln. She was speaking as an Anaheim resident, President of Access Anaheim, and staff person for the Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled. She spoke in support of the subject application. Dr. Paul Ktenel, Executive Director of the Association of Christian Schools International. He asked the Council's support of the application. It would give the school of 250 students time to relocate and enable an orderly transition. Susie Teffler, 1550 West Palais, representing Euclid Street Baptist School as a parent and neighbor in the community. Their children have been enrolled in the school for the 5 1/2 years since moving into their home. They are proud of having the church and school in their neighborhood. It i~ good for the neighborhood and a wonderful opportunity for the students of Hope University to be able to use the property for their functions. She submitted a petition containing 526 signatures in favor as well as letters from the students of the Euclid Street Baptist Elementary School. Many of the signatures are from Anaheim neighbors. It is important for the school to have a 3-year transition period in order for the students and the school staff not to be upset. Julie Mayer, 1531 West Harriet Lane. She expressed her personal support for Hope University to establish a Fine Arts school at the subject site. She was 140 City Hall~ Anaheim} California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. speaking as a parent of a handicapped child and on behalf of the Anaheim Arts Council expressing that Council's support of the project. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilman Bay. He asked the City Attorney for a legal opinion on statements made by Mr. Sanders, (1) that the current church operations are all related and legal under the current CUP, and (2) that Hope University is also a related use and legal under the current CUP. In reading the Planning Commission's decision, the Commission implied that the current church operations were not all related and legal. Jack White, City Attorney. His opinion after carefully reviewing the provisions of the Zoning Code as well as the existing CUP for the church is that Hope University, the elementary school, and the pre-school together with the proposed 8-unit housing facility which would be in the nature of a dormitory for students at the University, is that each of those uses would independently require a CUP just as the church requires and has a CUP. It is his opinion that none of those uses are accessory uses which are otherwise permitted as incidental to a permitted church use on the property. Even though he did not have an occasion to speak with Mr. Thompson, the City's previous Planning Director, he believed that his letter was the basis for some of the positions that have been taken by the applicant. He also did not believe that any member of his staff had occasion to discuss the matter with Mr. Thompson before he (Thomspon) sent out his letter to the church. He reiterated his opinion that each of the uses independently would require a CUP regardless of whether or not the church continued in existence at the location. To that extent, he disagreed with both of the statements made by Mr. Sanders. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. Answering Councilman Bay's question on the Code violations, there were 31 Code violations found in October of 1985 and all had been corrected with the exception of the modular classrooms which were still on the premises. Councilman Bay. The issue is one concerning churches all over the City, current and future, and whether or not the interpretation not only by the City's legal advisors but also by the Council determines whether day schools, elementary schools, high schools or any other operations are church related uses and covered under the umbrella of a CUP. The advice of the City's legal Counsel is they are not. 141 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood. She referred to the letters submitted by Mrs. Newell dated July 21, 1976, October 10, 1980 and June 7, 1984 from Ron Thompson, Planning Director to Pastor Crow. If she had received those letters, she would have assumed she was totally covered. SUMMATION/REBUTTAL BY THE APPELLANT: Mr. Jack Olson, 1646 West Chanticleer. He referred to the show of hands requested by Mr. Sanders of those present in support. He asked for a show of hands on those people who previously raised their hands who lived in the affected neighborhood, i.e., the Anawood Tract east of the Euclid Street Baptist Church. There were approximately 3 people. The issue has been presented as an emotional one. The residents living in the affected area and as outlined on the posted chart did not speak on emotion. In order to put the issue in proper perspective, it was necessary to consider the use of the property as if the future owners and users of the property were not handicapped. The speakers opposed contested the use of the land, but the speakers in support tended to promote the emotional issues. The residents are objecting to the use of the property as a school. If the subject property were used as originally intended instead of being used as proposed, none of the current problems would exist. Mr. Olson then spoke to the issues of traffic, noise, privacy, the 8-unit apartment with 3 bedrooms for each unit, and other issues in his summation. He emphasized that all the comments made are with respect to having the school on the property not with having retarded children or adults in the neighborhood. The objection is to having a school on a piece of property, that is too small and too confined for that property. Ail of the speakers for the opposition lived in the area surrounding the property. The people who know what is best for the community are the people who live in that community. None of the people had an objection to the church but to the school and the apartments. COUNCIL ACTION: ~ayor Roth closed the public hearing. Questions were then posed by Council Members to a number of speakers to clarify certain statements made in their presentations as well as questions posed to the City Attorney and Planning staff. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilman Roth. He noted that Mr. Olson stated when the students were up to 260, it was time to do something. The proposal presented will be winding down those figures and it was a good proposal. It was an opportunity for the church to phase out the schools thereby reducing the activity. Further, Pastor Rohrs testified to the 142 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. fact that the practices held at his facilities were not disruptive. Councilwoman Kaywood. Reiterated the fact that the thrust of the 3 letters written by the Planning Director to Pastor Crow indicated that he (Crow) had permission to expand and continue every use. She was concerned over the accusations and inuendos that everything on the property was illegal. Jack White, City Attorney. He gave his input and opinion relative to the 3 letters specifically the letter of July 21, 1976. As he indicated previously, he knew of nothing that would indicate that Mr. Thompson was basing his information on any legal advice from the City Attorney's Office. He personally did not agree with the comments that indicated somehow the approval of a church by a CUP would automatically allow a day-care center to be operated in conjunction with that church. He would have to believe at the time the permit was approved in 1970 and even the original one in the early 1960's, it was not the contemplation of either the applicant, Planning Commission, or City Council that approval of a church would automatically also be deemed approval of a pre-school or elementary school on the property regardless of the size. He did agree if he received the letter of July 21, 1976 he was entitled to continue the activity Just as the letter of June 7, 1984 also so indicated with regard to Hope University. The October 10 letter related to portable units on the property rather than a specific use. The letters did, however, indicate there was no intent of the parties to conduct an illegal activity. The legal point that needs to be made is whether or not as a matter of law Mr. Thompson had the right to bind the City Council by his representations as to what may or may not be legal under the Zoning Code. An individual member of the City staff does not have a right to make a representation to an individual upon which they rely if it turns out that that representation is later incorrect and that it would be binding upon the City. Councilman Bay. He asked staff what had been the pattern on uses by churches in the City. There were a number with schools and day-care centers. He questioned if they had specific CUP's, was the present issue an exception, or just like the rest. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. Having reviewed 8 churches in the City approved during the past 20 years, the practice has been that CUPs have addressed schools and in many cases the number of children. Through the years, it has become more strict. 143 210 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay. The pattern fits the legal opinion of the City Attorney. Regardless of the decision tonight, it is important that the Council stay clear on the requirements of CUPs under the City's ordinances and laws and what the pattern has been so that the Council did not establish a precedent that once there is a CUP for a church, it can do anything that the church considers is related to its activities under that CUP. He felt strongly that land use precedents set on an emotional argument are the most dangerous thing to zoning and the protection of residents of the City now and in the future. If there is no other greater purpose than zoning and for people to put up with zoning in a free enterprise government, they have a right to depend on the fact that it will protect the peace and tranquility of where they live. He reiterated, the issue tonight is purely one of land use. Councilman Pickler. He felt the issue was emotional on both sides. The church was operating a pre-school and an elementary school since 1978. If Hope University had not come in, the issue would not be what it was today. Complaints in the past have been about the noise, and the neighbors wanted that eliminated. The subject proposal would do that. The church was not a problem. The levels of traffic, noise and congestion were not in violation of the City's Codes. He would hope that both sides could resolve any issues. Although there was no legal CUP, the implication was that it was there. The noise element was going to be removed since Hope University would be for only 100 students with a building that was going to accommodate 8 students and perhaps their parents. The Council could also make it a condition of the CUP that a site plan review of the plans for Hope University be submitted to the Planning Commission and also the City Council. Councilman Overholt. The church people felt they were within their rights as far as the City was concerned to do what they were doing. He was concerned, as he already stated, that the residents did not start complaining about the activities on the property until the fall of 1985 and the City of Anaheim through the Planning Director, rightly or wrongly, took certain actions that would lead a reasonable person to believe that they had a right to do what they were doing. It was also his understanding that the church owned a house on Chanticleer. He wanted to know if it was being used by the church at the present time. Gregory Sanders. The church owns one house on Chanticleer. is being sold to a private resident. It is in escrow and 144 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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, and incorporating the Planning Commission findings and the public comments received both at the Planning Commission and City Council regarding environmental matters. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-79 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2738, subject to City Planning Commission conditions but amending Condition Nos. 26 and 28 as follows: Condition 26 - That the existing elementary school shall be permitted in conjunction with the church for a maximum of 250 students for the 1985-86 school year; a maximum of 160 students for the 1986-87 school year; a maximum of 120 students for the 1987-88 school year; and a maximum of 100 students for the 1988-89 school year. The elementary school shall be completely relocated from the site no later than July 1, 1989. Condition 28 - That the existing church use shall terminate within three (3) years from the date of the resolution, provided however that after the expiration of three years church and Sunday school activities may be conducted on the property on Sundays, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with a maximum church service attendance of 250 persons. That the site plans for Hope University when they decide to build be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2738. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay spoke against the Resolution. The Planning Commission set up to remove the elementary school by July of 1986. The church services will exist as long as there is anyone who wants to attend. By offering the resolution as stated, the Council was making legal all the functions taking place on the property now, adding Hope University, and continuing the church services. In effect, the resolution ignores all the requests from the surrounding neighborhood and the people who had to live with it making it worse than the ruling from the Planning Commission. Councilman Overholt. No one had an objection to the church use, but to school use. He agreed with a 3-year trailing off period for the school until 145 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. July of 1989. He suggested relating the reduction of the elementary school to when Hope University is established on the property. Additional discussion followed between Councilman Overholt, Gregory Sanders and Doris Walker revolving around the phaseout of the school wherein amendments were made that were acceptable to the applicant and in which Councilman Pickler concurred. Jack White, City Attorney. He suggested minor changes and additions to the conditions for Council consideration, one being that the only use of the 8-unit housing facility be for the students of Hope University with a covenant to be recorded on the property stating same. Gregory Sanders. He suggested that the Council limit the use to students of Hope University, staff and members of the students' immediate families. There will be occasions when parents would be visiting from out of town and Hope University would like the flexibility to enable them to house people overnight; Councilman Pickler. He later confirmed that his intent was to allow students, faculty and parents to be housed in the 8-unit apartment building. At the conclusion of discussion on modifications and additions to the conditions, Councilman Bay asked for clarification if the Council was voting that the school will be there until July of 1989, the church will be there forever, and Hope University could come in any time they were ready. Jack White, City Attorney answered yes, and further providing that Hope University would not be allowed to commence until the elementary school was cut in size not to exceed 160 students. A Roll Call Vote as then taken on the foregoing resolution with amendments and additions to certain conditions as follows: AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 21: That prior to issuance of a building permit for the 8-unit housing facility, the existing pre-school and elementary school uses shall be wholly terminated from subject property. AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 26: That by July 1, 1989, the existing elementary school shall be wholly terminated from subject property. The student enrollment shall be reduced, in phases, as follows: (a) Maximum enrollment of 250 students through July 1, 1985. (b) Maximum enrollment of 160 students through July 1, 1987. City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. (c) Maximum enrollment of 120 students through July 1, 1988. (d) Maximum enrollment of 100 students through July 1, 1989, on or before which date the elementary school will be terminated on subject property. A covenant stipulating to the phased termination shall be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. Prior to recordation, said covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Proof of recordation shall be furnished to the Planning Department within 90 days from the date of this resolution. AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 28: That the existing church use (Euclid Street Baptist Church) shall terminate within three (3) years from the date of this resolution, or by July 1, 1989, whichever is later; provided, however, that after said termination, church and Sunday school activities may be conducted on the property on Sundays, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with a maximum church attendance of 250 persons. A covenant so restricting such use shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. Proof of recordation shall be furnished to the Planning Department within 90 days from the date of this resolution. NEW CONDITION NO. 29: That no portion of Hope University shall commence on subject property until the elementary school enrollment is reduced to no more than 160 students (July 1, 1986). NEW CONDITION NO. 30: That occupancy of the 8-unit residential facility shall be limited to students, staff, and/or immediate family members of Hope University students; and that a covenant so restricting such use shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. Proof of recordation shall be furnished to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit for such facility. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-79 duly passed and adopted. 101/123: LOS ANGELES RAMS AGREEMENTS.' City Manager William Talley briefed memorandum dated February 25, 1986 from Program Development and Audit, recommending that the Council approve four agreements with the Los Angeles Rams Football Company, consent to assignment and assumption documents and to approve as to form proposed form of contracts to be entered into between the Rams and licensees of the Rams (see memorandum dated February 25, 1986 - subject: Los Angeles Rams Agreements Pages 1 through 3 - made a part of the 147 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M. record). He had reviewed the documents as well as members of his staff and concluded they were not detrimental to the position of the City. He recommended Council approval. Councilman Roth moved to approve the following agreements with the Los Angeles Rams Football Company: 1) Second Amendment to Operations Agreement; 2) Master License - Executive Box Suites; 3) First Implementation Agreement; and 4) Operations Agreement - Executive Box Suites. That the Council consent to the following documents: 5) Assignment and Assumption of Lease and Consent of City of Anaheim; and 6) Assignment and Assumption of Leasehold Interest and Consent of City of Anaheim. That the Council approve as to form the proposed forms of contracts to be entered into between the Rams and licensees of the Rams which forms are entitled: 7) Los Angeles Rams - Executive Box Suites Anaheim Stadium Sublicense Agreement; and 8) Sublicense Agreement for Seats - Anaheim Stadium, as recommended in memorandum dated February 25, 1986 from Program Development and Audit. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was opposed to voting on the matter tonight since he did not have a chance to read the documents. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted no. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:22 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 148