Loading...
1986/08/12City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRES ENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth (Councilwoman Kaywood entered at 10:13 a.m.) COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Ronald Bates CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Greg Hastings PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER: Sheri Erlewine Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Tom Favreau, Hotline Help Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: CHEROKEE MOBILE HOME PARK (CHEROKEE GARDENS): Mayor Roth announced the receipt by the Mayor and Council of a Certificate of Appreciation from the residents of Cherokee Mobile Home Owners Association Inc., Anaheim's first resident Home Park which he read: "For the Anaheim City Council for your assistance in making our dream a reality. We are proud to be the first in the City of Anaheim to achieve that goal. We all thank you." The Certificate was presented at a ceremony held Monday, August 11, 1986. It was signed by the President, Treasurer and Board of Directors. Later in the meeting, Councilwoman Kaywood also commented on the "historic" event, stating that the residents have been working 21 months on becoming the landowners of the Park. Sophie Ertle, President of the Homeowners Association, despite major health setbacks has been the person spearheading the drive to make the dream come true for the residents of the park. Approval of local government was crucial. It was another first for Anaheim and Orange County and the park will now be preserved for the residents. She was proud to have had a part in the approval. Councilman 0varholt complimented Councilwoman Kaywood for being one of the instigators in getting the movement started by putting the residents in touch with people within the City who could assist in their formidable undertaking. Senator John Seymour also played a key role in the process having a personal interest in the situation with some of his relatives being residents of the park. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: "Ramaheim" Day in Anaheim - August 15, 1986. 676 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. MINUTES: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held July 22 and July 29, 1986. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay 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 Overholt seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 31,997,484.39, in accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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-366 through 86R-369, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chamber. (10:13 a.m.) 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 Richard Stuart for bodily injuries sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 18, 1986. b. Claim submitted by Dorene R. Perry for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 3, 1986. c. Claim submitted by Gerald D. & Dennis Jori Todd for indemnity for damages from a lawsuit sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 12, 1985. d. Claim submitted by Heller Industries, Inc. for total and partial indemnity for damage from a lawsuit sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 27, 1985. e. Claim submitted by Montgomery Elevator Co. for indemnity for damages from a lawsuit sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 18, 1986. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - denied: f. Claim submitted by Delandra Gardner for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 28, 1985. 677 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. g. Claim submitted by Catherine Vaccarino for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 23, 1986. h. Claim submitted by Crawford Risk Management Services (Geraldine Pressley, Insured File No. 294-49956-DB) for bodily injury and property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 30, 1985. 2. 108: Approving an application for a Dinner Dancing Place Permit submitted by Cuu Due Nguyen, for Maxim Restaurant, 328 North Stanton Avenue, for dinner dancing Friday, Saturday and Sunday, from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. 3. 108: Ratifying the City Manager's approval of a Public Dance permit submitted by Jesus M. Frias, for Empresa Frias, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center, on August 9, 1986 from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. 4. 170/123: Approving a reimbursement agreement with Chaparral Development Corporation for special water facilities to serve Tract No. 12658 in Anaheim Hills. 5. 123: Authorizing a contract with the City of Brea at a cost of $190 per hour to supply helicopter patrol check services for fire suppression purposes in the Carbon Canyon area in the City of Brea, and crediting said funds to Revenue Account No. 01-3231 (Special Police Patrol). 6. 153: Receiving and filing the 1986-87 Affirmative Action Report. 7. 175/123: Authorizing an agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric for the sale of proprietary software consisting of a utility work order system with payment to the City of a one-time License Fee in the amount of $120,000 and provision for payment of $55 per hour for any technical support in excess of 80 hours. 8. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-366: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AM_ENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-292 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT. (Amending Resolution No. 86R-292 which established rates of compensation for ela~a~ da~ignatad aB Professional and Technical Management, changing the aalary range of ~afety and Training Officer to XgR05, effective August 22, 1986) 9. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-367: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (85-13A) (Declaring intent to abandon a former Southern California Edison easement located on the north side of Embassy Avenue, east of Laxore Street (2950 West Lincoln Avenue), 85-13A, and setting a date for the public hearing therefor, suggested date: September 9, 1986, 1:30 p.m.) 10. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-368: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (85-14A) (Declaring intent to abandon a 678 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. former Southern California Edison easement located at 2642 West Lincoln Avenue, 85-14A, and setting a date for the public hearing therefor. (suggested date: September 9, 1986, 1:30 p.m.) 11. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-369: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (86-1A) (Declaring intent to abandon an easement for public utilities and access purposes on the west side of property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street 2230 West Lincoln Avenue, 86-1A, and setting a date for the public hearing therefor, suggested date: September 9, 1986, 1:30 p.m.) Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 86R-366: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MF2/BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-366 duly passed and adopted. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-367 through 86R-369: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-367 through 86R-369, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED. 170/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4748 - CREATION OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS: Adding new Section 17.08.433 to the Code, for creation of Benefit Districts to finance public street improvements. Submitted was report dated June 24, 1986 from the City Attorney, recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance authorizing the establishment of Benefit Districts to finance public street improvements which specially benefits property within the Benefit District. Mayor Roth referred to a letter received from Bauer Motors and asked if the Bauer Motor property was being affected by the proposed ordinance. He also received a call from the Salvation Army on Lewis Street stating they have been assessed ~10,000 under a certain Assessment District and after receiving approval from their headquarters the assessment doubled. The Mayor wanted to know if there would be any additional effect on the Salvation Army as well. City Attorney Jack White first stated he had not seen the Bauer Motors letter. Relative to the Salvation Army, he did not believe the assessment involved in that case had anything to do with what was being proposed by the subject ordinance. The procedure for Creation of Benefit Districts allows the City to create a district and impose the cost of the public improvements on property benefited by that particular improvement. The cost, once 679 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. established, does not change automatically or on a periodic basis. The proposed ordinance only relates to streets. Mayor Roth stated since it only dealt with streets, he is withdrawing his previous comments. City Attorney White confirmed the ordinance provides that the City Council has the right, after a public hearing and notification of property owners, to establish a Benefit District for public improvements and to assess fees. The plan was not ready to present to the Council at this time but is anticipated in a few months. This merely establishes the procedure to allow the City to go ahead with the public hearings and bring it back for Council consideration. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4748 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4748: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 17.08.433 TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BENEFIT DISTRICTS. 148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - ANNUAL CONFERENCE~ OCTOBER, 1986: To appoint a voting delegate and alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference, October 19 through 22, 1986 in Los Angeles. Mayor Roth recommended that Mayor Pro Tem Pickler be the voting delegate at the subject Conference since he (Roth) was not certain he was going to be able to attend. He also asked for a volunteer to be the alternate. Councilman Overholt stated he planned to attend the Conference General Session on Tuesday, October 21, 1986. He thereupon volunteered to be the alternate. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that Mayor Pro Tem Pickler be the voting delegate and Councilman 0verholt be the alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference October 19 through 22, 1986 in Los Angeles. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CAR/LIED. Since a quorum is not anticipated for the Council meeting of October 21, 1986 due to the League of California Cities Annual Conference, Councilman Pickler moved that a Council meeting not be scheduled that date. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 134/179: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 213 - DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING: Councilman Overholt moved that Tuesday, September 9, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. be the date and time set for a public hearing on the following: GPA No. 213 (READV.), to consider amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to consider alternative proposal of land use from the current general industrial designations to the general commercial designation on property located at 509 East Katella; and to hold a public hearing on Reclassification No. 85-86-33 (READV.), for a change in zone from ML to CL and Variance No. 3568 (READV.), to expand retail uses in an existing retail/warehouse building, with Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum landscaped area in conjunction with GPA No. 213. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 680 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held July 21, 1986, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLAgSIFICATION NO. 85-86-37, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2809, AND REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 86-04: Submitted by Anaheim Hills Racquet Club, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to CR(SC), to permit a 2 and 3-story, 125-unit senior citizen apartment project on property located at 415 Anaheim Hills Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum structural setback (denied), (b) required building location (denied), (c) required recreational-leisure area (denied), (d) required boundary screening (denied), (e) required number of affordable units (denied). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-186, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2809 in part, with approval of removal of specimen trees and withdrawal of the Reclassification. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-32 (READV.) AND VARIANCE NO. 3556 (READV.): Submitted by Yuk T. Lau and So Kuen Lau, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400, to construct a one-story duplex on property located at 114 Harding Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum yard requirements, (b) required recreational-leisure areas. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-190 and 191, granted Reclassification No. 85-86-32 (Ready.) and Variance No. 3556 (Ready.), and granted a negative declaration status. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3579: Submitted by Sid and Charlene Crossley, to construct an addition of 1,500 square feet to an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 313-341 South Magnolia Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-192, granted Variance No. 3579, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3580: Submitted by Fred R. and Jeanne Hunter, to construct a 1 and 2-story, 4-unit apartment building on RM-1200 zoned property located at 721 North Lemon Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) Maximum structural height, (b) minimum sideyard setback, (c) minimum recreational-leisure area. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-193, granted Variance No. 3580, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3582: Submitted by Ivan M. and Darlene K. Turpin, Trustees of the Turpin Trust, to construct a two-story, single-family residence on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 6905 East Overlook Terrace, with Code waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-194, granted Variance No. 3582, and ratified the Planning Director's categorically exempt determination, (Class 3). 681 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. 6. VARIANCE NO. 3583: Submitted by Michael and Cecele Poling, to construct a room addition on RS-5000(SC) zoned property located at 1827 Budlong Circle, with Code waiver of maximum lot coverage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-195, granted Variance No. 3583, and ratified the Planning Director's categorically exempt determination, (Class 5). 7. VARIANCE NO. 3586: Submitted by Elden W. and Sharon Ann Bainbridge, Trustees of the Elden W. and Sharon Ann Bainbridge Trust, to construct a two-story office building on CO(SC) zoned property located at 8190 East Kaiser Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum sideyard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-196, granted Variance No. 3586, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. VARIANCE NO. 3587: Submitted by State College Partners, to establish a 5-lot subdivision on ML(FP) and CO(FP) zoned property located on the north side of Orangewood Avenue and west of State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of required lot frontage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-197, granted Variance No. 3587, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2824: Submitted by Duratech Industries, Inc., to permit a chemical manufacturing facility on M~ zoned property located at 5180 East Hunter Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-199, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2824, and granted a negative declaration status. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2825: Submitted by Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc., to permit industrially-related office uses in an existing one-story building on ML zoned property located at 145-151 East Orangethorpe Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-200, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2825, and granted a negative declaration status. 11. CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 2826: Submitted by Joseph William and Mary Frances Roach, to permit the construction of a 1-story, 4-unit senior citizen's apartment project on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1627 East Sycamore Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum landscaped front setback, (b) minimum floor area of dwelling units (deleted), (c) minimum width of private patios (deleted). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-201, granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2826, and granted a negative declaration status. 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2823: Submitted by Leo and Alice Waldman, (Taco Bell), to permit an addition to an existing restaurant on CL zoned 682 City Msll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. property located at 3138 West Lincoln Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum structural setback, (b) minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-198, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2823, and granted a negative declaration status. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED. 179: CONSIDERATION OF CODE AMENDMENT PERMITTING CHURCHES AS INTERIM USES IN THE CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA: Requesting Council to consider a Code amendment to permit churches as interim uses for a period of 3 to 5 years in the Canyon Industrial Area. This matter was discussed and continued from the meeting of July 22, 1986 and First Reading at the meeting of August 5, 1986, to this date. A report dated July 29, 1986 was also submitted by the Zoning Division, recommending denial and outlining the pros and cons of the issue. At the meeting of August 5, 1986, the proposed ordinance was offered for first reading. Councilman Bay stated he is offering an amended first reading of Ordinance No. 4743. Presently, the proposed ordinance merely adds churches as an additional use in the Canyon Industrial Area. His amended first reading is as follows: After the word, churches; provided, however, any such temporary use on said property shall be limited to a total of not more than three (3) years duration within any consecutive ten (10) year period and further provided that such use, other than church office staff, shall not be permitted on Monday through Friday prior to 6:00 p.m. He had provided each of the Council Members a copy of the amended first reading. The reason behind his amendment is to avoid impacts that would occur if there were daytime operations. It would allow churches to operate as they please on Saturdays and Sundays or after 6:00 p.m. any week day. It will limit traffic congestion coming into the area. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that it be worded, other than by church office staff. She also asked why any consecutive ten year period. Councilman Bay stated most of the vacancies in industrial buildings occur in the one or two years, three at the most, following completion of the building. He did not want to discourage the eventual industrial use of those developments and the potential to increase jobs. It is to avoid anything other than temporary use of the buildings for such use and so that the church will become permanent in another location. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believes it should be clear that the use be limited to a total of not more than three years without extensions. Councilman Pickler stated he believes three years is sufficient. The temporary use is something the Council agrees on and for nothing but church use and by church staff. The Council controls the destiny of each application for a CUP. 683 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. City Attorney Jack White explained the intention was to set up a reasonable period of time which would make it clear there would have to be a lengthy space between any temporary church use and an extension or seeking to reactivate or bring in another church use on that same parcel of property. There is nothing magic about the ?-year hiatus required. The purpose of having a number included at all is to make clear that there is required to be a gap after the 3-year use terminates prior to anyone seeking to reestablish any such use on the property. By including that language, it is his opinion that a person would have to comply with all of the limitations and would not be in a position to seek any variance from those limitations. It establishes a limitation of three years and is limited to use after 6:00 p.m. on week nights with a ?-year gap prior to any perpetuation of that use. The ordinance is the first layer of entree to the City to apply for the use. Relative to how it will prohibit schools, the only limitation expressed is that the church use not be conducted prior to 6:00 p.m. of any week night. Since a CUP is required, those things are going to be covered in each of the applications that comes before the Planning Commission and Council and restrictions can be placed in the permit. Councilman Overholt stated his concern is if churches are allowed, that their expectations are not greater than what the Council is willing to permit. He would rather have the rules out in front so that the Council will not have to confront a problem with a church overreaching the use of the property. The following people then spoke to the issue: Frank Lowry, attorney, Farano &Kieviet. They have no opposition to the first reading of the proposed ordinance as amended. It meets with the intent and philosophy with which they came to the Planning Commission and Council. It was not their desire to have educational institutions included but church Sunday School should be permitted. Establishing schools would be beyond the scope of their intent. Bryan Crow, 6069 Morning View, Pastor, Euclid Street Baptist Church and the recently instituted Garden Church of Anaheim Hills. He is in agreement with the ordinance as it is. Schools would probably be precluded since there is a 3-year limitation because it could not be established successfully. Most of the churches would like to have at least two nights use during the week. If the ordinance is limited to three nights a week, it would preclude a school since it could not be affective under those circumstances but a church could. He then broached another issue wherein at the next Planning Commission meeting he is going to ask that an existing CUP with 15 months remaining on it in the Canyon Area be used with the possibility of extending it for two years. He wanted to be sure that the proposed ordinance will not affect that request. City Attorney Jack White stated if the CUP is approved prior to the proposed ordinance going into effect, that CUP would remain 684 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. in effect notwithstanding the limitation on the length of time of the CUP. He did not believe Pastor Crow had a problem relative to the proposed ordinance. Gerald Bushore, 721 North Euclid Street. Living Faith Church has a CUP pending before the planning Commission. The proposed ordinance is agreeable with them and they have no objection to it. The Council was going to have to ask the right questions in order to determine the right conditions to be placed on requested CUP's. Bob Fulton, Pastor, Interchristian Fellowship, now meeting at Canyon High School. His understanding is this is the first reading of the ordinance and he would have an opportunity to come back and speak to the matter next week. There are a couple of pastors with him today and there are five churches now in Anaheim schools. They would like to look at the new language offered in the amended first reading and talk to their attorneys and others. They will ask questions of the City Attorney or anybody else this week and speak to the issue next week. Questions were then posed to Pastor Fulton by Council Members regarding school use. Pastor Fulton reiterated what he had said at a previous meeting that the State did not permit schools in the industrial area in any case. Mike Taylor, Pastor, Community Christian Church, 4332 East La Palma, Anaheim. He referred to comments by Councilman Bay that if a CUP was applied for on, for example, Building A, at the end of three years the church would have to leave that building and the industrial area. If another congregation wants to come in and applies for a CUP, he did not understand why it would be a problem for that congregation to occupy that same facility. If a CUP is granted, the church may be faced with a ~100,000 to $150,000 expenditure to ready a building for worship services. It would seem reasonable if another church could follow in the same facility at another time. That would save the congregation the same expenses. Councilman Bay stated he understands that logic but the intent is to merely open a crack to try to help churches that want to get started with the full intent that they will move to a permanent location outside of the industrial area. Howard Shaffer, 206 South Sullivan, Santa Aha, Living Faith Church. He thanks the Council for considering the issue. They are going to live with whatever the Council decides. He also had no problem with the amendment stated by Councilman Bay. 685 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. Before 'concluding, further Council discussion followed wherein the consensus of the Council was clear that it was not the intent to allow school use but instead to preclude such use. Mayor Roth announced that second reading of the ordinance would take place at the Council meeting of Tuesday, August 19, 1986 at 10:00 a.m. 179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4744 THROUGH 4747: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 4744 through 4747, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4744: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THEANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RRTATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 79-80-9, CO, 500 South Harbor Blvd.) ORDINANCE NO. 4745: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-14, RM-1200, 917 and 925 So. Webster Avenue) ORDINANCE NO. 4746: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-5, RM-1200, 2230 West Lincoln Ave.) 0RDINANCE NO. 4747: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE Z0NING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THEANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 81-82-21, RM-1200, 730-810 North Loara) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMB~: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4744 through 4747, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 144: EASTERN/FOOTHILL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY: Councilman Bay reported that the next meeting of the Eastern/Foothill Corridor Joint Powers Authority will take place on Thursday, August 14, 1986 at Santa Aha City Hall. A mew Executive Director was selected at the last meeting, John Meyer of Jacksonville, Florida, who will be present at the Thursday meeting but will not be on a permanent basis until September. Mr. Meyer currently heads the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. 169: BEACH BOULEVARD MEDIAN CLOSURE: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on an accident that had taken place on Beach Boulevard caused when a driver made a left turn through the median located south of Lincoln on Beach Boulevard. With the Beach Boulevard superstreet project, medians are proposed to be closed all along the street. She asked that staff check to see if that particular median is scheduled to be closed as well since it is a hazard. 156: INCREASE IN BAIL AMOUNTS: Mayor Roth reported that he met with Mayor Cannon of Garden Grove and Mayor Griset of Santa Ana where they appeared before Judge Ryan in Santa Ana. Judge Ryan is responsible for the setting of 686 City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. bail monies in the County. They discussed with him the problems of prostitution along portions of Harbor and Beach Boulevard. The Judge listened to and indicated there would be an increase in bail amounts from $1,500 to $2,500. They hope to get all the courts to confirm this and the new bail amounts would then be instituted around September 1, 1986. 181/109: ANAHEIM MUSEUM - STATE GRANT MONIES: Mayor Koth reported on. the Mens Advisory Committee Meeting on the Anaheim Museum where discussion was held relative to the subject and the need for follow up. The State had the plans for the Museum for approximately two months. The Grant monies from the State for the Museum will not be released until the State approves the plan submitted. He asked that staff follow up on the matter and send letters to Anaheim's representatives to assist in expediting approval of the plans and release of the Grant monies. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult 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, Orange County Superior Court Case No 40-92-46. b. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1). Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:37 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:52 p.m.) 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3575 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Doyle E. and MarJorie L. Smith P.O. Box 580 Nuevo, Ca. 92637 Neville Libby and Violet Libby 1661 West Cerritos Avenue Anaheim, Ca. 92802 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To establish an 8-lot, RS-7200 single-family subdivision on property located at 1643 and 1651 West Cerritos Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Required lot frontage, (b) minimum lot area, (c) minimum lot width and frontage, (d) permitted orientation of structures. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-174 denied Variance No. 3575, approved EIR - negative declaration. HEARING SET ON: Appealed by Gerald Bushore, agent for the applicant. 687 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 1, 1986. Posting of property August 1, 1986. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 1, 1986. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 23, 1986. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Gerald Bushore, 721 North Euclid, Ste. #202, agent. The subject parcel was before the Council some time ago with only one-half of the property or three-quarters of an acre. This is the property to the east which has been vacant for many years. It still has a garage structure on it. The property to the east was not a part of the application previously. It contains a single-family home used as a rental unit by the owner of the property to the east, Mr. Libby. Mr. Smith does not live in the area. Mr. Libby has owned this home for many years. He was living on Cerritos long before the 7200 Tract was built. The reason Mr. Libby offered to combine his property with the other at this time, at the previous hearings there were comments made that possibly it would be a better development if two of the three-quarter acre lots were Joined together. He felt it would be compatible with the neighborhood. He intends to keep one of the lots and build a custom home on one of the lots for his son. Eight homes on one and six-tenths of an acre is the lowest density he has been involved with in the City. It is RS-7200 zoning. They lose that 7200 on a private street and also lose 10 feet to go back to a well. This will not be a typical tract home development but eight custom homes and will blend in well with the neighborhood. It is a sought after neighborhood. By combining the two lots, they will provide what the Council was looking for when they turned down the proposal originally on the four lots. It is a very low density project. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Neville Libby, 1661 West Cerritos. The developer has achieved a wholesome development on the parcel. The variances requested are within reason and do equate with other similar developments. The project is not a detriment to the area. Mrs. Carol Plettinck who lives directly across the street from the property is happy to see that something is finally being done to enhance her neighborhood. She could not be present to attest the irregularities that occur almost on a daily basis on the vacant lot. The structure has been used by undesirable individuals. The owner has boarded up the structure only to have the boarding torn down and the structure used again. Eliminating the structure from the property will not solve the problem. He wants to rid the environment of the problems occurring on that lot. He moved to the area in 1953. 688 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Eugene Dunham, 1642 Buena Vista - adjacent to and immediately north of the subject property. There are eight identical lots on the north side of Cerritos, two of which constitute the subject property. The general plan designates the property for iow density residential land use. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity. The applicant has not demonstrated any hardship, real or apparent. The requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. It would create a group of substandard lots on the RS-7200 area. A variance request to put four houses on one lot has been denied three times. This variance to put eight houses on two lots was denied by the Planning Commission this year. This proposal doubles the problems enumerated at the previous hearings, i.e., congestion, noise and traffic adding to the destruction of the character of the neighborhood. There are eight lots on the north side of Cerritos which are identical. If the eight lots are broken down and coupled as this variance request, there will be four private streets exiting onto Cerritos in a distance of approximately 900 feet. It would create a hazardous situation considering Cerritos is a two lane street. He asked that Variance No. 3575 be denied. A~roximately eight or ten ~eorle have not been able to ~L~d the meeting but he has seven letters to submit. He read the letter from Phyllis Killingsworth, 1625 West Cerritos into the record, expressing her opposition to the request and the reasons why (made a part of the record). He submitted that letter along with the following letters to the Council: letter August 11, 1986 from Atsuko K. Fennema, letter August 11, 1986 from Catherine and William Tare, 1636 Buena Vista, letter August 11, 1986 from Jeffrey Taylor, letter August 12, 1986 from Miran H. Nichols, letter from Roger D. Fortune and Veedell R. Failure, 1624 Buena Vista and letter from Gail Curcillo, 1630 Buena Vista. All in opposition to requested variance (all made a part of the record). Donna Ward, 1554 West Cerritos. She asked that the Council not allow the five zoning variances requested. If the property is developed according to the existing zoning laws, it would give the owner a healthy fair profit and preserve the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Development within Code would also eliminate the nuisance garage and eliminate the undesirable people using that property. Her four arguments against the variance are: Cerritos Avenue is two lanes in a 1600 block. A wider and busier street will lower property values on Cerritos. Setback law originally came from the establishment of Fire Codes and was then adopted into the Building Codes. The immediate neighbors are forced to take an 689 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL HINUTES - August 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. immediate increase of fire risk. Why is a private street called for - a private street does not have to be as wide and the turning radius and drainage can be substandard to public streets. Public or private, the developer will pay for the initial street to be built. Those streets should be built to public street standards. Palm Lane School has put up portable classrooms to meet the number of new students attending school. Eight more homes will mean more students. She is not against profit but when someone is making a profit at someone else's expense that is not the American way. Mayor Roth asked for a show of hands of those present in opposition to the proposed development. Approximately 20 were present. He then asked for a show of hands of those in favor. There were approximately 14. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Gerald Bushore. The comment was made that there will be four driveways coming from the eight lots. That would be true but right now there are eight driveways. The comment that was made that two houses on one lot would not be objectionable, they would be flag lots with 16 driveways entering from an existing eight. This project could have the potential of cutting those down to four. Mr. Libby does not have other property in the area waiting to be developed. He is intending to live in the one house he has lived in since 1953. Mr. Smith started three years ago to try to sell and develop the property. Hundreds of people have looked at it in terms of building apartments. At present there is speculation on several pieces of the property from someone else who wants to come in and develop the property. The type of development that is going to occur is another development the neighborhood has been extremely upset about. Any other uses on the property are not going to be compatible. Councilwoman Kaywood. Mr. Bushore is making comments that something detrimental could be built on the property if the subject project is not approved. Gerald Bushore. He knows if the project is turned down, the neighbors will be back again when the application goes through the approval process. It is a considerable profit to the homeowners along Cerritos. The pressure is going to be put on that property time and again until something is approved. The proposed project is the most tasteful and he does not know of anything else that would be more tasteful. It is a low density project and fits in well. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 690 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aulust 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-370 for adoption, denying Variance No. 3575, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-370: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3575. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated every time the Council hears about the latest plan in the area, they also hear about the vacant lot, the shack, the weeds and the poor conditions existing on the property. He questioned why something has not been done about the situation. If it is a public nuisance, some action should be taken to do something about it. He is not totally sure when the Planning Department gets more time to do some long-range plamning that some solution to solve both sides of the question on the zoning can be worked out in the future with everybody working on it together. Councilman Overholt suggested that Code Enforcement look into the possibility of relieving the problem; Mayor Roth recalled that was the direction given staff previously. He asked that Code Enforcement again investigate the conditions on the property in order to clean it up. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Pickler and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-370 duly passed and adopted. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 217 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider an amemdment to the Land Use element of the General Plan to consider modifications of the boundaries of the CL Commercial Recreation (CR) area and the Disneyland/Convention Center area. The alternate Proposal of Land Use is as follows: From the current Commercial Recreation designation to either a General Commercial, Commercial Professiomal, Medium Density Residential or Low-Medium Density Residential designation for an area of approximately 3.14 acres bounded on the north by Vermont Avenue, east by an alley and southwest by Interstate 5. AKEA II: From the current Commercial Recreation designation to either a Medium Density Residential or Low-Medium Density Residential designation for an area of approximately 4.07 acres located on the south side of Vermont Avenue approximately 190 feet east of the 691 Cit7 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aulust 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. centerline of Citron Street and 285 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. AREA III: From the current General Commercial and Commercial Professional designations to a Commercial Recreation designation for an area of approximately 22.77 acres located on the northeast corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard. AREA IV: From the current General Commercial designation to a Commercial Recreation designation for an area of approximately 8.54 acres located on the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and 4.21 acres located on the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. From the current Commercial Recreation designation to either a General Commercial, Commercial Professional, Medium Density Residential or Low-Medium Density Residential designation for an area of approximately 12.53 acres located on the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Manchester Avenue, extending approximately 1550 feet north on Manchester Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-202 approved Area I - Exhibit A, Area II - Exhibit A, Area III - Exhibit A, Area IV - Exhibit A, and Area V - Exhibit E (Northern portion for Commercial, Southern portion for medium density residential); approved EIR - negative declaration. STAFF INPUT: See extensive report dated July 21, 1986, outlining the proposed General Plan Amendment in detail. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 1, 1986. Posting of property August 1, 1986. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 1, 1986. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, reported that overall if the Council adopted this General Plan, there will be a net gain of 15.6 acres of commercial-recreation area to the Disneyland/Convention Center Area. Plannin§ Staff has not received any opposition to any of the five alternatives proposed. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Jerry Lecuyer. He is concerned with Exhibit E, the northwest corner of Orangewood. He is in favor of something happening on that property. There are some structures on it now. People are using it for parties. There is a lot of activity in the area which is detrimental to people living there. Greg Hastings. Area V - Exhibit E, presently commercial recreation, would redesignate the northerly portion to general commercial and the southerly portion to medium density residential. It is the old ~ 692 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. Orangewood Mobilehome Park abandoned and in preparation for a 220 apartment unit complex. The redesignation to medium density residential would allow that type of use to be constructed. Jerry Lecuyer. He is satisfied with that. The place is "horrible" and something needs to be done. It is not good for the neighborhood to have a big vacant field in their midst. Even an apartment building will be good for the area. Dick Bauer, Bauer Motors, 1118 Somerset, Newport Beach. He has leased the property as shown in Exhibit E. He is not certain what the rezoning does for him if he wants to put an automotive dealership on the property. Mayor Roth. He acknowledged receipt of Mr. Bauer's letter. He had copies routed to the Council and also to appropriate staff for a S-day turn-around reply. As he recalled, Mr. Bauer leased the building on the property, remodeled it and is constantly being notified by the City on increased and/or additional fees to be paid. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. The property in question is north of the mobilehome park which had the automotive dealership buildings on it. With the action the Council might take today, the zoning would remain the same as it is currently which is commercial. The use they have and which they are proposing is permitted in connection with the CUP as well as the zoning. Nothing that might happen today as the Planning Commission acted on it would in any way adversely impact the land use on the property. Dick Bauer. There are some fees due for use permits and things like that. He is not sure what they are for or what is going to happen to the property. A 15-foot dedication was required by the landlord and he is not sure what that is for either. He is not certain what is happening to the street, the light standards and whether or not he should continue with construction. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. The items mentioned by Mr. Bauer sound like the kinds of conditions required prior to issuance of a building permit. Mayor Roth asked that staff meet with Mr. Bauer upon completion of the hearing. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickl~3the City Council approved the City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 12, 1986, 10:00 A.M. negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth moved to approve the following Exhibits for the five areas involved in General Plan Amendment No. 217: Area I - Exhibit A, Area II - Exhibit A, Area III - Exhibit A, Area IV - Exhibit A, and Area V - Exhibit E. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-371, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 217, Land Use Element as recommended by the City Plannimg Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUITON NO. 371: A EESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 217, EXHIBIT A FOR EACH AEEA I, II, III AND IV AND EXHIBIT E FOR AREA V. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-371 duly passed and adopted. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation (54956.9A). Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:47 p.m.) AFTERKECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:30 p.m.) Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Friday, August 15, 1986 at 2:30 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickier asked if the statement should be read. Mayor Roth answered due to the fact that no press was present in the Chamber audience at this time that the Public Information Officer, Sheri Erlewine, be assigned the responsibility to contact the press advising the reason for the adjourned meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to have the statement read into the record so that it appears in the minutes. The motion of adjournment was thereby rescinded. Sheri Erlewine, Public Information Officer, then read the following statement: 694 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. "The City of Anaheim and the California Angels have been meeting for several weeks to settle the peripheral issues surrounding the Anaheim Stadium parking lot dispute. The meetings have taken place nearly daily during the past week and we are very optimistic about reaching a settlement. Because the latest draft of a possible settlement was amended by both sides as recently as late last evening, the City Council, negotiators, and attorneys are still reviewing the terms. This review will continue today and during the next few days. We anticipate talking with Angels representatives again today and during the next few days to hopefully finalize language in this agreement. The Anaheim City Council is adjourning their regular meeting today until 2:30 p.m. Friday (August 15, 1986) for the purpose of taking formal action on the agreement." MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Friday, August 15, 1986 at 2:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:30 p.m.) LEONORA N. S0HL, CITY CLERK 695