Loading...
1998/05/12ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, May 12, 1998 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: MAYOR: Tom Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Dave Morgan CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING MANAGER: Greg Hastings ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 12:55 p.m. on May 8, 1998 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall) containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly opened the workshop portion of the Council Meeting of May 12, 1998 and welcomed those in attendance. (3:13 p.m.) City Manager, James Ruth. Staff, under the direction of Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager, has been working dilligently for some time putting together a series of programs and initiatives in the west part of the City to address social and economic conditions. He introduced Dave Morgan who will give the presentation today which will be an update on the progress of the program as well as some of the initiatives coming in the next year. 116: NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NIP) UPDATE: Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager. Today's presentation will (1)review the comprehensive approach to neighborhoods that the City is currently taking throughout Anaheim, (2) provide examples of programs and results taking place specifically in west Anaheim and, (3), present the Council with a list of proposals that will be coming before them in the next 30-60 days for policy direction. Mr. Morgan's presentation (supplemented by Power Point slides, hard copies of which were submitted and made a part of the record) covered the following topics briefing each of the points under the main topics: Community Planning Areas, Corridor Strategies, Neighborhood Improvement Fund & Process, Resort Neighborhood Program, CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Targeted Neighborhoods, Historic District, Focus on Western Parts of Anaheim (Law Enforcement, Community Activities, Physical Enhancements, Neighborhood Fund, Corridor Beautification, CDBG Investments), Looking to the Future Citywide, Additional Efforts Under Design. In concluding his overview, Mr. Morgan stated one of the purposes of putting this structure together was so that staff can begin to develop a reporting mechanism where they can come back to the Council every six months and give a status report on each of the programs and any new developments that may be occurring. Results are being seen, they appreciate Council's support, and staff is present to answer any questions. Mayor Daly. The report presented is comprehensive and impressive. Many goals and objectives to beautify the City's corridors have been accomplished and it sounds like there will be a lot of progress made in the next 12 months as well. One of the problems discussed in the past but not brought up in a formal way is the problem of aging shopping centers -- typical neighborhood shopping centers with a ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 grocery store. He would like to incorporate an examination of some programs that might work with the property owners who own these centers. He is interested in staff suggestions for restoring and improving those commercial centers. Council Member Tait. There were previous discussions regarding a pilot program to see what could be done with some of the run-down medians in the City. He is interested in the upgrading of existing medians by looking at various models and subsequently instituting a pilot program. Council Member McCracken. She agrees with the Mayor relative to upgrading commercial centers which sometime set the tone for the surrounding community. After additional comments and questions, Mayor Daly thanked staff for the informative presentation. They look forward to future updates on this important issue. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to Closed Session items. PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items. The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Police Association. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existincl Liftclarion: Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 Property: 424 Adele St (Two Flags Market) Negotiating Parties: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Toan Dang and Mrs. Hong Tran. Under Negotiation: Price and terms. RECESS: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:50 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of May 12, 1998 to order at 5:11 P.M. and welcomed those in attendance. INVOCATION: Mary L. Hibbard, of the Anaheim United Methodist Church gave invocation. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tem Lou Lopez led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: DECLARATIONS RECOGNIZING PAINT YOUR HEART OUT PROGRAM SPONSORS: Declarations of recognition were unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Paint Your Head out Program Sponsors. Carolyn Griebe, Project Coordinator, Paint Your Heart Out Anaheim Program briefed the specifics of the program which takes place annually in the City briefing how many houses were painted this year with volunter help. She also read a letter from one of the people whose home was painted noting that the heartfelt statements of appreciation make the program very worhtwhile year after year. Mrs. Griebe then first introduced Tom Hollywood, Chairman of the program and subsequently introduced representatives of Plantinum Plus Sponsors of the program (sponsors who donate $10,000 or more either monetarily or in goods and services) as well as Platinum Sponsors ($5,000) as follows: (some were unable to be present) Platinum Plus Sponsors - Dutch Boy Paints, Powers Family Foundation, Thee White House, William Gillespie Foundation. Platinum Sponsors - Anaheim Angels, Anaheim Disposal, Anaheim Publit Utilities, Broadway Construction, Disneyland Resort, Diversified Brands/a Sherwin-Williams Company, Orange County Register, Rubberset, The Related Companies, Times Orange County, Turner Construction. Mayor Daly presented those present with Declarations and each were personally commended and thanked for their generosity in such a worthy cause. He especially thanked Carolyn Griebe and Tom Hollywood who make the program possible as well as all those involved including City staff and the many volunteers. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following Proclamations were issued by Mayor Daly and authorized by the City Council: Police and Fire Personnel Apprieciation Week in Anaheim - May 11 - 16, 1998 National Pubic Works Week in Anaheim - May 17 - 23, 1998 Pastor Bryan Crow, Anaheim Religious Community Council, accepted the (1st Annual) Police and Fire Personnel Appreciation Week Proclamation along with Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman, Gary Wilder, Fire Division Chief and representatives from the Police Department, Detective Ed Cook, Officer Robert Flores and Dave Comstock, and Lt. Jim Flammini. As Mayor Daly stated in reading the Proclamation, this recognition "will give special thanks to the Police and Fire personnel in services at various houses of worship throughout the City to express their appreciation on behalf of a grateful community". Pastor Crow explained that the Anaheim Religious Community Council is a direct result of the Gang and Drug Task Force. It is a unique cooperative effort of the religious leaders of the community and this is the first step of their involvement. Gary Johnson, Public Works Director and City Engineer accepted the National Public Works Week Proclamation and in doing so wanted to recognize the 164 employees of the department. This year, as in past years, he wanted to especially recognize two outstanding Public Works employees who are present this evening, Don Mills, Lead Street Maintenance Worker and Bob Luciano, Senior Construction Inspector. He gave the background on both employees which explained why each were singled out for recognition. Mr. Johnson then presented to the Council a framed lithograph of the Public Works Week (national) poster; Mayor Daly accepted it on behalf of the Council and asked that it be displayed in a prominent place in City Hall. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME: PROCLAMATION recognizing May 18, 1998, as Meals On Wheels Day in Anaheim. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,753,565.01, in accordance with the 1997-98 Budget, were approved. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST There were no speakers under items of Public Interest. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There were comments under item no. A18, see under that item. MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of May 12, 1998. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A22: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Lopez, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 98R-82 through 98R-85, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book. A1. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management. The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended: a. Claim submitted by National Pacific Mortgage for M.C. Davoodbhoy for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 18, 1998. b. Claim submitted by Walter R. Fedricksz for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 20, 1998. c. Claim submitted by Patrick P. Tocher for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 18, 1997 through March 18, 1998.. d. Claim submitted by Michael R. Coulter for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 24, 1997 through March 24, 1998. e. Claim submitted by CMM Enterprises Inc. dba Dairy Queen for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 4, 1998. f. Claim submitted by Tina M.Clark for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 29, 1998. The following application for leave to present late claim was recommended to be denied: ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 g. Leave to present Late Claim submitted by Adelfa Delgado Abarca for bodily injury sustained purpartedly due to actions of the City on or about September 9, 1997. A2. A3. A4. A5. A6. A7. A8. A9. A10. All. A12. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission meetings held March 18, 1998, and March 25, 1998; and the special meeting held April 2, 1998. 158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1772 Biscayne Court (R/W 5220-14) - Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition payment of $143,000 to Graver Escrow. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 15131, and the Subdivision Agreement with Kaufman and Broad Coastal Inc., and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. Tract No. 15131 is located at Explorer Way and Wiley Way, and is filed in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 88-2. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 15142, and the Subdivision Agreement with Kaufman and Broad Coastal, Inc., and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. Tract No. 15142 is located at Wiley Way and Sunset Crest Street, and is filed in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 88-2. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 15143, and the Subdivision Agreement with Kaufman and Broad Coastal, Inc., and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. Tract No. 15143 is located at Heatherwood Road, and is filed in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 88-2. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the submittal to the Orange County Transportation Authority of a request for funding of eighteen improvement projects under the Combined Transportation Funding Program. (Request for $3 million for the Arterial Highway Rehabilitation Program for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00.) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real properties or interests therein to the City. (R/W 5220-14) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real properties or interests therein to the City. (R/W 5261-14) 123: Approving Program Supplement Agreement No. M-004 to administer Agency-State Agreement No. 12-5055 covering construction of railroad crossing improvements at Philadelphia and South Streets. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase order, in an amount not to exceed $187,000 to the Trane Company, for one 500 ton air cooled chiller for the Community Center/Gym Boxing Center. 160: Accepting the law bid of Mercury Air Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $80,000 for helicopter Jet A fuel, as required for the period of July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999, with three one-year optional renewals, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise renewal options, in accordance with Bid #5795. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 A13. 160: Accepting the low bid of The Okonite Company, in an amount not to exceed $1,414,864.50 for 25,000 feet of copper and 70,000 feet of aluminum 15KV 1000 KCMIL underground primary cable, in accordance with Bid #5801. A14. 160: Accepting the low bid of Trayer Engineering Corporation, in the amount of $38,660 for ten 15KV loadbreak subsurface switches, in accordance with Bid #5799. A15. 160: Accepting the low bid of Dapper Tire Company, in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for police vehicle tires, for a one year period beginning July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the option to renew for one additional year, in accordance with Bid #5797. A16. 160: Accepting the low bid of the Okonite Company, in an amount not to exceed $87,034.50 for 30,000 feet of 15KV underground distribution power cable, in accordance with Bid #5794. A17. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two years old. (Finance Department.) A18. Approving the revised Citizen Participation Plan for federal entitlement programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Community Development and Community Services Departments.) Seferino Garcia. As far as the new neighborhood councils coming on board, he hopes the Council votes for them and also for the councils that are adding parts of neighborhoods to their target areas. One is the Walnut Area which was the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council (SANC). It is the area where a park and a community center is going to be built. It took over five years for that area to become part of a target area if the Council approves it tonight. Relative to the Diamond-Pearl Area, in that area there is an empty lot they would like to see become a mini park. In the Walnut Area, the City is buying six acres (to the north of Betsy Ross School). That land is very valuable to the City. There are 12 acres left and he feels the City should look into the rest of the acreage considering the problems now with overcrowding in schools and projected enrollment. He feels it would be feasible for the School District and the City to look into the remainder of the acreage at that site. Mayor Daly. He asked the City Manager to explore the ideas suggested by Mr. Garcia and respond back to the Council in the future. Both suggestions are worth looking into and they look forward to staff's analysis. A19. Approving the waiver of $410 in facility use fees as requested by the Orange Empire Sertoma service organization (for the use of the Boysen Park Baseball Field for the purpose of conducting a baseball camp for deaf youth on August 17 - 21, 1998). A20. Approving the Master Consultant Agreements with Willdan Associates, David Volz Design, and Purkiss-Rose/RSI, for professional services on capital projects. A21. Approving an Agreement with Rosendo Romero and Laura Romero for rental of an apartment at the Jeffrey-Lynne Neighborhood Center. A22. ORDINANCE NO. - ..... (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Section 14.32.310 of, and enacting a new Section 14.32.310 to Chapter 14.32 of Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to sale of goods or merchandise by vehicle. City Manager Ruth. He noted that the City Attorney is asking that this item be continued for one week. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. (Item A22 continued one week.) ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R-82 throuclh 98R-85, both inclusive, for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-82 through 98R-85, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. A23. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Appointment to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy of Julie Mayer, term expires June 30, 1999. (Continued from the meetings of March 24, 1998, Item A15, April 7, 1998, Item A42, and May 5, 1998, Item A17.) Mayor Daly opened nominations Council Member McCracken nominated Paul Williams; Council Member Zemel nominated Harry Cdhu (both gave brief background information on their nominees). MOTION. On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Lopez, nominations were closed. MOTION CARRIED. The nominees were then voted upon in the order in which they were nominated. Paul Williams: Ayes: McCracken, Lopez, Daly. Abstained: Tait, Zemel. Harry Cdhu: Ayes: Tait, Zemel. No: McCracken, Lopez, Daly Mr. Paul Williams was thereupon appointed to the City Planning Commission filling the vacant seat of Julie Mayer for the term ending June 30, 1999. ITEMS B1 - B2 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF APRIL 23, 1998 DECISION DATE: APRIL 30, 1998 INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 15, 1998: 1. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 138 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3: OWNER: TCW REALTY FUND, VA HOLDING, 865 South Figueroa, Ste #3500, Los Angeles, CA 90017 AGENT: MVA ARCHITECTS, Attn: Michael Valk, 2151 Michelson Drive, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 525 East South Street. Property is approximately 8.6 acres located at the northeast corner of South Street and Olive Street. To construct a 6-foot high wrought iron fence within the required setback area with waiver of maximum fence height. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Administrative Adjustment No. 138 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 98-09). 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4018 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: WATERS FAMILY TRUST, Attn: Norbert Waters, 12132 Mottie Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 2521 East Ball Road. Property is 1.89 acres located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 To permit the expansion of an existing restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: CUP NO. 4018 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 98-10). APPROVED Negative Declaration. Mayor Daly. He would like confirmation that the landscaping and other improvements to the center have been complied with by the owner of the shopping center. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She cannot confirm that they have been done at this time. She went by the location recently and saw that the landscaped strip along Ball Road was more meager than she expected. She will have to check on the prior conditions placed on the property to see if they are fully satisfied and, if not, that they are satisfied. If the Council is not satisfied, the matter can be set for a Public Hearing. Council Member Lopez. This is an area they have discussed in the past and perhaps it is time to beautify that corner; Mayor Daly. He agrees. The challenge is to make sure the existing conditions under which the CUP operates are adhered to. He wants to be sure they are getting what they were promised. The question is what device is best to assure that they do so. Ms. Santalahti. The strongest statement is for the Council to set the matter for a hearing. After further discussion, Council Member Lopez requested that the matter be set for a Public Hearing; Mayor Daly concurred and, therefore, a Public Hearing will be set at a later date. END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS. C1. 115: FLAGPOLE DISPLAYS - POW-MIA FLAG DISPLAY: Request from Council Member McCracken to discuss POW-MIA flag either on special occasions or year round, and to consider an ordinance adding new Section 11.08.040 to Chapter 11.08 of Title 11 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to flagpole displays at the Anaheim Civic Center. (Continued from the meetings of April 7, 1998, Item C1, April 28, 1998, Item C1, and May 5, 1998, Item C1 .) Council Member McCracken offered Ordinance No. 5631 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5361 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding new Section 11.08.040 to Chapter 11.08 of Title 11 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to flagpole displays at the Anaheim Civic Center. Before a vote was taken, Council Member McCracken clarified for Council Member Zemel that all the ordinance does is to allow the City to fly flags nationally recognized by the U.S. government. The next step is the proposed motion. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5631 for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5631 duly passed and adopted. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 Council Member McCracken. The City is currently working on a Veteran's Memorial next to the Anaheim Museum. She would consider it perhaps more appropriate to incorporate flying of the POW-MIA flag near that memorial. She would like a response from the City Manager and staff as to whether or not a flag pole or the museum flagpole would be incorporated as part of the memorial. If so, that would be an appropriate place to fly the flag. She understands the Redevelopment Commission is still working on the issue as well (Veteran's Memorial at the museum). Mayor Daly clarified that the request is to have an update in the future on the feasibility of incorporating the POW-MIA flag in the Veteran's Memorial project currently under conceptual design. No action was taken on the motion relative to display of the POW-MIA flag at this time. C2. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: There were no items to report from Closed Session. D1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING -ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 135 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1: OWNER: Independent Development Co., Inc., 1216 North Tustin Avenue, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Raymond Sharpe, 615 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054 LOCATION: 1701 - 1731 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 2.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Katella Avenue. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an automated teller machine kiosk. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: APPROVED Administrative Adjustment No. 135 (ZA DECISION NO. 98-07). Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision requested by Council Members Lopez and McCracken at the meeting of March 24, 1998, Item B4. Public hearing continued from the meeting of April 28, 1998, Item D1. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - April 30, 1998. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 30, 1998. Posting of property- May 1,1998. Council Member Lopez first posed questions to staff asking how many more such kiosks were there in the City; Annikia Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. There is one pending in an industrial area. If any others are pending, they will be subject to a CUP. She believes this is the first one. It is a recent development that the banks are looking to expand their ATM activities. They are trying to provide service to the employees in the industrial areas specifically. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the applicant or a representative. Mr. Raymond Sharpe, Sharpe and Associates, representing Wells Fargo Bank, 615 Mission Ave., Oceanside. He first presented exhibits showing the two different ATM units proposed for the site. (See Exhibits A, A1, B, B1, C and Cl, i.e., site plan, project map, partial site plan, plan details and plan views of the stand-alone ATM kiosk - made a part of the record). He first explained the process he went through ultimately leading to approval by the Zoning Administrator. Subsequently, a review of the decision was requested by Council Members Lopez and McCracken. After meeting with staff he went back and redesigned the kiosk away from the street and into the center as shown on Exhibit C which is the current one. Exhibit B shows the original location which was still within the setbacks and met all the requirements of the City but Wells Fargo wanted to take it another step and move it back into the center and abide by any future wishes the Council might have. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 Council Member McCracken. This is a high-crime area and she was concerned that a stand-alone ATM makes a real attractive nuisance located out in the middle of a parking lot. She asked if this was a new promotion tool. Mr. Sharpe stated that Wells Fargo is putting in many ATM's throughout the State. The original proposal, Exhibit B, is closer to the street. That was approved by the Zoning Administrator and the Traffic Engineer. In working with Planning Department staff, they suggested moving it back further. They had some concerns with that as a security issue and wanted it closer to the street and why it was proposed that way. Council Member Lopez. He is still an Anaheim Police Officer and feels the type of setup proposed is a crime waiting to happen. The location is the borderline between Anaheim and Garden Grove and right next to that is a County area. He does not know how he could approve the request with his past Police experience. He can even envision a truck pulling up and trying to haul it (ATM) away and also cannot imagine anyone utilizing that ATM after dark. He considers it a bad location for an ATM machine. Mayor Daly asked if the ATM machine could be installed as part of the other existing store fronts or if that had been considered; Ramyond Sharpe. The only other location was off of Katella (the building on the left which he pointed to from the site plan). He reiterated, they believe it would be more secure being near the street (as first proposed) as well as for traffic and lighting. Mayor Daly. He shares the concern of his colleagues that this may not be the best location for a free- standing kiosk style ATM. The Planning Department has laid out a number of points for their consideration including that they should probably be more careful in the future with such kiosks. One concern he has is with the free-standing kiosks that already exist in some of the shopping centers. They can be convenient, but they can also be eyesores and also interfere with traffic flow in parking lots and not appropriate in terms of modern design. If there is a safety concern, there are reasons to not approve this one this evening, develop a more comprehensive policy, ask the Planning Commission to come up with standards, and evaluate future requests with those new standards in mind. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by MayorDaly, seconded by Council Member Lopez, the City Council determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 1, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, Categorically Exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member McCracken offered Resolution No. 98R-96 for adoption denying Administrative Adjustment No. 135. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DISAPPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 135. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Tait asked if this was reviewed by the Police Department; Ms. Santalahti stated that the Police are taking a look. The basic response was regarding the interference of the traffic on the premises. When the ordinance goes to the Planning Commission, the Commission will have a little more information and thoughts on the subject. Council Member Tait. His concern is relative to security. It strikes him as a "breeding ground" for people to hang around and wait for someone to access the ATM. Ms. Santalahti. The Police tend to like it closer to the street because of increased visibility. Planning staff, on the other hand, is not "thrilled" with something like this in the front setback and traffic is a concern as well. They are hoping to come up with a cohesive approach. It may be centers will have to 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 be larger and different than this one which is fairly compact with a lot of driveways and entrances. She clarified for Council Member Zemel that the Police responded relative to traffic flow and if located near entrance driveways it can interfere with traffic. That was an initial response but not a departmental policy. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-86, for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Lopez, Daly MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-86 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Daly. Speaking to Mr. Sharpe, he explained the Planning staff will be developing new guidelines for installation of these types of ATM's. If there are other locations that are desired, he asked that he bring them to Planning staff and hopefully in the future, they can come to a better meeting of the minds. D2. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 352 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-09 WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4000 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15610 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Dow's Acreage, Attn.: Linda Kenski, P.O. Box 6295, Garden Grove, CA 92645-0252 AGENT: The Olson Company, Attn.: Anna-Lisa Hernandez, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, #400, Seal Beach, CA 90740 LOCATION: 112 - 218 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 6.25 acres located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, 216 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. General Plan Amendment No. 352: To redesignate this property from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-98-09: To reclassify this property from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4000: To construct a 68-1ot (including 8 lettered lots) 60-unit (advertised as 62-unit) detached RM-3000 condominium development with waivers of (a) minimum dimension of parking spaces, (b) minimum recreational-leisure areas, (c) minimum structural setback abutting one- family residential developments, and (d) minimum private street standards. Tentative Tract Map No. 15610: To establish a 68-1ot, (including 8 lettered lots and 60 residential lots (advertised as 62-units)) subdivision for a detached RM-3000 condominium development. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended GPA NO. 352 to City Council (PC98-52) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy). R97-98-09 GRANTED, UNCONDITIONALLY, (PC98-53). (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy). CUP 4000 GRANTED (PC98-54) (4 yes votes, 1 no vote, 1 absent and 1 vacancy). Approved, in part, waiver of code requirement waivers (a), (c) and (d) approved, and waiver (b) denied (4 yes votes, 1 no vote, 1 absent and 1 vacancy). Tentative Tract Map No. 15610 Approved. Approved Negative Declaration. Informational item submitted to Council from the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1998. Set for a public hearing due to the General Plan Amendment. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 Publication in North County News - April 30, 1998 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 30, 1998 Posting of property - May 1, 1998 Mr. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 13, 1998 which described the project. He also briefed the requested waivers under CUP 4000. In concluding, he stated if the Council approves the project, staff would like to suggest one additional condition as follows: "That hardscape shall not exceed 20% of each private yard area adjacent to the south property line so as to preserve a landscape buffer between this project and the existing single- family residences to the south." Following his presentation, questions were posed by Mayor Daly and Council Members relative to specifics of the project which were answered by Mr. Hastings. Mayor Daly then opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent Applicant's Statement: Mr. Kerry Choppin, The Olson Company, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Seal Beach. They have been involved in the proposed development for about nine months and have worked with the Redevelopment Agency, Planning staff and the neighborhood groups in west Anaheim. What is before the Council today is changed somewhat from their original plan. There were a number of waivers they initially asked to be approved but are now down to only several at this time as a result of the meetings they have had. This is a use they feel would be good for the City. They are asking for slightly higher density but because of the economics they have to go with this type of density to make it economically feasible. He clarified for Council Member Zemel at this point, that the economics is relative to the land price. It costs about $11/ft. to purchase land. The (commercial) center has been going along at about 50% vacancy and the Redevelopment Agency identified it as something to be developed residentially. They looked at about 10 different plans to finally come up with the proposed scheme. He then briefed some of the comments by opponents -- why not 7,000 sq. ft. lots. They are trying to provide housing to entry-level buyers in the City. The density is only 9.6. It is higher than the old style but they are putting a new product in 40 or 50 years leater. They have worked with Planning staff and the community changing this plan. They originally had quite a few more units. They are down to 60 sq. ft. lots with front and rear yards. The front yards are owned and maintained by each individual owner. This is a little higher density but they have developed these from South County, Los Angeles County and Orange County. They have been successful in keeping the homeowners groups together and have kept the maintenance up to a standard and a level Anaheim would like to see. Council Member Tait interjected and stated his concern is there will be a "hodgepodge" of different landscape designs and maintenance standards with the smaller lots; Mr. Choppin answered they are smaller lots but they are proposing about the same as the Kaufman & Broad project (in downtown). It is the same with maintenance on the house. These single-family homes range from $207,000 to $240,000 for individuals making $50,000 to $75,000. They believe they will be responsible owners, the same as any other neighborhood in Anaheim. Mayor Daly. He shares Council Member Tait's interest and concern relative to the front yards. He has looked at the Lynnhaven project where the front yards are so close, if one resident does not maintain the property, it ruins the whole streetscape; Council Member Tait. Aside from the maintenance issue, these are close quarters to have 50 different schemes going. Mr. Choppin. They would like to provide something satisfactory to the Council, perhaps include something in the CC&R's that if front yards are not maintained that the HOA will have the responsibility of taking care of front-yard maintenance. He continued that they originally started with five waivers and are now down to two. (1) Three of the parking driveways are only 18' deep, three out of 60; all garages have rollup doors. (2) The other waiver is something he would like to explain. Because the City does not have an ordinance for small lot single family, they are developing under the RM3,000 which is multi- family. The zoning ordinance looks at their project possibly as apartments. They are asking for that last 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 waiver going from 50' down to 21' for their two-story element. They are backing up to single family on the east and south and they feel the waiver is justified. The project has been identified by the Agency as something they feel should be developed in the City. Several of the commission members said this is something they would like to see throughout the community and mentioned several other sites, i.e., the Home Depot site that will become vacant when the store relocates, the ROP site on LaPalma, etc. Council Member Zemel. Relative to the economics driving the density, he has a difficult time buying into that concept that the City needs to entitle or to give approval for a more dense project. That is a process that has gotten the west end of the City in trouble. Mayor Daly. One of the questions is, does the applicant believe they are paying market value for the property and, if so, how is that derived. Mr. Choppin. They are actually today paying under market value. It was a commercial developer that offered $4 milion for the site and they are paying quite a bit less. Answering Council Member Zemel, he explained they are only purchasing part of the site. The commercial developer could not work out whatever they needed to with the Redevelopment Agency. They are not putting 60 units on the property to pay for the land, but because they feel it is proper zoning for the area. The only zoning they have to fall back to would be R1 which are 7,000 sq. ft. lots. Council Member Zemel. He believes there is something in between. There is a 7, 5 and a 3. He reiterated, they cannot let economics get into the process. Mr. Choppin. Of the neighbors to the south, no one has come out opposing. The City needs new housing and in today's marketplace, this is what they are developing in a number of other cities. Density is a very sore point with WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) They are trying to provide entry-level housing for families that would like to stay within the City. Mayor Daly. He asked Planning staff to comment on some points raised -- the appropriateness of the density and the alternative land uses. This entirely replans the property from commercial to residential. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The site is a change from commercial to residential. There are a number of such sites existing in west Anaheim where both the City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed difficulties and problems that some of these commercial sites have experienced. In some of the west Anaheim studies, staff is looking at General Plan amendments which the Council will be seeing in the future suggesting redesignating some of these sites for residential land uses. They believe this project is a quality project and the Planning Commission felt the same way. If the density should be something lower, that is a policy issue. Staff also concurs with some of the comments made such as front-yard landscaping should be uniform, etc. Mayor Daly asked to hear from those who wished to speak; the following people spoke in opposition to the project and their comments summarized: Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. The project currently sits in a Redevelopment area and has several going businesses which would have to be relocated, businesses which now supply sales tax to the City's General Fund. New construction that would be replacing it, since it is in a Redevelopment area, the tax increment derived from the property tax would go to fund Redevelopment. He asked if an analysis has been done to determine the effect on the General Fund on the loss of sales tax for the businesses that have to be relocated. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND. She is speaking on behalf of the group. They are interested in 7,000 sq. ft. lots. They know that is not realistic but they are not interested either in having single-family homes put on 3,000 sq. ft. lots. It was indicated that the Redevelopment Commission approved the development. Mr. Choppin came before members of their group, but they actually never saw the project up close. He said he was requesting two or three small variances but he did not tell them there were no sidewalks and 18 X 25' garages. They only found out about those at the Planning Commission meeting. 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 They are against having sidewalks only on one side, against the 11' setback because it needs to be 20'. They would like to see about six homes removed so the sidewalks can be installed and also side yards. The residents feel that homes in their area should be built to code with no variances or small variances. Property is being offered for higher than market value because they know the Planning Commission will give whatever variances they want. Properties are being overpriced and developers will pay that price because they can get their variances. They are interested in a stable community but now are a "pass- through" community. They are loaded with low-cost housing. More people would have been present tonight but they are working on the West Anaheim Barbecue Festival this coming weekend. Judith Ann Golette, 649 S. Roanne, Anaheim. She is a long-time resident of west Anaheim. She feels the Olson Company has been misleading the Planning Commission and west Anaheim residents. The residents expressed their concerns which include the density of the project, the play area for the children, and the traffic. If that is the only way in and out of 60 homes, that means 120 cars going in and out of that intersection (Brookhurst and Lincoln). The cars will be making a quick "U" turn to go north or south on Brookhurst. What they originally proposed to the developer was to see if they could reduce the project by six homes down to 54 and have a traffic area that would exit on to Broadway. All of the changes they have made have not been in the interest of west Anaheim or the buyer but to the advantage of The Olson Company. There is also a lack of parking in the whole complex. When they started out, there were no sidewalks in the project and now there will be a sidewalk only on one side. They were told children have plenty of areas to play, they can play in the street, and they will install speed bumps. She reiterated, there is not enough parking, green areas, there are traffic problems, and she is concerned about the resale value of houses. She also asked the Council to do a study along with the Planning Commission on what the impact of all the rectangular lots and parallel homes they are going to build on the small lots would do to the density of what is already a very dense area. After expressing additional concerns, she stated all they are asking is for builders to come in and build according to code. Answering questions posed by the Mayor, she confirmed that she would like to see six homes removed and is comfortable with the notion of doing a General Plan amendment to allow single-family homes on the property vs. condominiums. The basic design is unacceptable because of the density. She would like to see a larger play area, sidewalks and parking. Bob Carter, 513 S. Aaron, Anaheim. All they have asked for from the beginning is that the Planning Commission and City Council make developers build their project(s) to City code. The developer stated that these are not apartments. To him it is the same thing; it is overbuilding the property. This could also be made into a nice commercial corridor. He would like to see whatever it takes to bring the project to code. His basic concern is that there be no waivers. Susan Holmes, 2865 Skywood Circle, Anaheim. She thinks the plans are extremely attractive and is in favor of having homes, but does have questions about waivers. It is waivers that have gotten them into trouble in the past. She is concerned about parking and where visitors will park. She is also concerned about the children having areas to play where they are safe. She is in favor of having the homes built, but would like to see no waivers. Rebuttal by Applicant: Kerry Choppin. Density seems to be an issue. He would like to ask for a continuance but first wants to make a couple of points. The variances have been a problem all the way through. They have asked for the variances because they are under RM3,000. The setback to the south has been the major point all along. They are single family and are developing under a condominium plan and that is where the confusion comes in. They are true single family with setback requirements between the buildings in place to the south. It was a sensitive point. They are only asking for 20' and they are actually at 21' in the second floor. The first floor is a garage in the old style. They will try to make some adjustments. As far as the Redevelopment Agency, they are prompting them to do this. Topps Auto is probably the only taxpayer presently in the commercial center. The Agency has asked them to look at the site because commercial is not working. After listening to the other speakers, he believes residential is the appropriate use. He is asking for a continuance of the Public Hearing. Mayor Daly. He assumed it was the intent to sit down with citizens who represent the points of view raised; Mr. Choppin answered yes. 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 After a brief discussion relative to the length of time needed, Mayor Daly moved to continue the Public Hearing for three weeks to June 2, 1998. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Zemel referred to the statement made by Mr. Carter, the west end became known where variances and waivers were the norm. It is important that they send a message that waivers are not up for grabs any more. He does not think waivers and variances should have to be given so someone can meet the sales price of the seller. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to continue the Public Hearing for three weeks. MOTION CARRIED. D3. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3662, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT: OWNER: JGD Company, Inc., P.O. Box 18021, Anaheim, CA 92817-8021 INITIATED BY: City-initiated (Planning Commission), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 1.19 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. (A) City-initiated (Planning Commission) request to review a previously-approved private educational facility (pre-school to 3rd grade) and a church with waivers of (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone and (c) minimum structural setback abutting a Scenic Expressway to consider modification to the overall entitlement including the 3-story design of the building. (B) Property owner requests review and approval of the location of playground equipment for a previously-approved educational facility (this portion of the request was continued from the March 30 Commission meeting to allow portion (a) of this request to be advertised). ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Modified CUP NO. 3662 (PC98-56) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy). Approved playground plan submitted as revised at the meeting. Negative Declaration previously approved. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - April 30, 1998 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 30, 1998 Posting of property - May 1, 1998 Mayor Daly noted there is an extensive staff report on this issue. He asked the City Attorney to frame the item so that they can key in on the subject. City Attorney White. It is his understanding this item was originally in front of the Planning Commission to determine the location of the outdoor playground equipment as conforming to the previously approved plans by the Planning Commission. In conjunction with that, the Planning Commission on its own motion set and scheduled a hearing on possible modification or termination of the CUP for the project. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission imposed certain additional conditions on the CUP. They modified the conditions of the permit and subsequently the item was on the Council's informational calendar where it was set for a public hearing before the Council. Procedurally, this will be handled just as other such hearings. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, summarized the specifics of the request as outlined in staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 13, 1998 and the conditions subsequently imposed by the Commission. Since the Commission meeting, staff has had the opportunity to meet with several neighborhood residents and to inspect the property pertaining to the issues that have been raised. He reported on the findings. In addition to the new conditions imposed by the Commission (see minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 30, 1998, subsequently continued to April 13, 1998) staff is 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 recommending an additional eight conditions be imposed. He thereupon submitted those conditions to the Council (see CUP No. 3662 - Additional Conditions - made a part of the record). Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and asked to hear from the developer and proponents of the project. Mr. Scott Warren, Wellman and Warren, 4 Venture, Ste. 325, Irvine, Attorney for Mr. Doug Browne, the developer. He first referred to the May 7, 1998 report prepared by the Planning Department staff -- Subject: Montessori School Site, Conditional Use Permit 3662, 6270 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road - giving a chronology of events relative to the project starting March 21, 1994 to present (previously made a part of the record.) The report noted complaints made by the neighbors divided into four general categories: (1) appearance, (2) school use, (3) building code complaints and public safety and, (4) conformance of structures to approved plans. What the report says and what has been ignored is that the building is built in substantial conformance with every plan that was submitted. He also read portions of the minutes of the hearing before the City Council on July 8, 1997. Those combined with the May 7, 1998 report from Planning staff, says all the plans were in substantial conformance in July, 1997 and are still in substantial conformance in May, 1998. As they walked into the meeting tonight, they were handed additional conditions which are totally unacceptable to the builder, most of which apply to the school. Mr. Browne spent $2 million on the project and at the Planning Commission hearing of April 13, 1998, one of the things they talked about was putting in additional trees. Mr. Browne spent the money to do that and the conditions presented today say that he has to instead put in broad leaf trees which they feel is ludicrous. The cypress that were put in the day before and after the hearing, he believes staff has found to be in conformance. He also had a meeting with City Attorney White and Joel Fick, Planning Director. Condition #8 is surprising. As long as Mr. Browne complied with the original conditions of the CUP, they would not hold up the CUP. Now he sees that it will be held up when everything is in substantial conformity. This was approved by the Council and the Planning Commission, everything has been done, but everything gets continued and continued. Based on what happens tonight, they will have to determine what action to take. Mike Griffith, 8101 Kaiser Blvd., Member of the Canyon Church of Christ, Anaheim. (Also see extensive testimony given at the Planning Commission hearing of April 13, 1998). He first gave a history of the project noting that they are owners of the middle lot on which they closed escrow in December, 1996. Many of the homeowners thought Mr. Browne still owned the land. He clarified that they are the independent owners of the property and they then contracted with Mr. Browne to construct the church. They were supposed to be in the building in October-November, 1997 but many delays have occurred causing them great hardship which he explained. They bought the building under certain conditions of the CUP, they borrowed money for the construction loan based upon the CUP and their escrow instructions. They are asking that no additional conditions be placed on the project and that they are able to proceed in a timely manner. They are basically at the end and are ready to move in soon provided the building passes the building inspection. They are asking the Council to please not issue additional restrictions on them. Delays are costing them dearly and they cannot afford it. Answering questions posed by the Mayor and Council Member Zemel, Mr. Griffith stated he thought they were in compliance and in agreement with the neighbors. They agreed to work with them on the conditions regarding the appearance of the building. That is still their intent but they are asking that they not be delayed any longer. Relative to the third floor, they are not going to occupy the third floor and agreed to stipulate to that. He confirmed they do not need a third floor. All it is for is the air conditioning units. Council Member Zemel asked if they are not going to used the third floor, if some compromise could be worked out wherein if the roof was taken off that third floor and replaced with a pitched roof, would he agree; Mr. Griffith answered, no and explained why. Council Member Zemel asked if it could be done tomorrow, could he live with a pitched roof; Mr. Griffith answered, yes if as he (Zemel) said they could perform a miracle and they could be in the building tomorrow. He continued, there will be substantial problems legally with taking out the building. He reiterated, they agreed to a stipulation they would not use the third floor and also opaqueing the windows 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 on that floor. The Evangelical Christian Credit Union lent them $215,000 on a construction loan and they are six months past the deadline to convert the loan. Mayor Daly. If timing concerns can be dealt with, he surmises Mr. Griffith would be open-minded and there has been prior willingness to make modifications to the building; Mr. Griffith answered not modifications, but restrictions. He does not want to touch the outline of the building. Mr. Howard Biddna, 5120 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, Attorney for the Owners, Dr. Jayaratna and his wife who have owned and operated a Mentesseri Preschool in the Chine area since 1991. (Also see extensive testimony given by Mr. Biddna given at the April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.) His clients want to be good neighbors. They have been frustrated by the delays. He referred to the report by staff (see report dated 5/7/98) noting that it is a good summary and history of how they got to be where they are today. He then addressed some of the legalities noting that his clients are not the applicants but have property that is subject to an existing entitlement. They bought the property with the CUP in place which dates back to 1994 and which states that they can build, have, and operate a preschool through third grade on that property. His clients also have building permits issued by the City. The latest development was the Planning Commission meeting hearing of April 13, 1998 (see minutes that date) and the appearance of the building. In a judicious approach, the Commission asked the neighbors their concerns and asked the building owners acceptable solutions and compromises. Those found their way into the approval by the Planning Commission as additional conditions of approval (see Planning Commission resolution PC98-56 of 4/13/98) and that is what they need to focus on. Mr. Biddna then addressed conditions 18, 19, 20, 22 and then condition 21. (See conditions imposed in resolution P098-56 of 4/13/98.) He noted that condition 22 refers to the (third floor) attic area which houses the mechanical equipment. There was a concern addressed as to whether it would be used either for occupancy or storage. His clients and the other building owners were asked if they would agree to signing a covenant, recordable, that would run with the land saying it will not be used or occupied. They agreed. Relative to condition 21, there is an east and west playground. The west playground is closest to the neighbors and they want to try to minimize the noise and use moreso in the west playground than in the east playground. The playground equipment has been moved. It is only in the east playground at this point and that is where it is going to stay. The west playground has only a grassy area and sandbox. The east playground hours shall be the same as the school. The west playground will have slightly more restrictive hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. That was acceptable to his client. Other issues addressed -- how many children should be using the west playground at any given time. The practical solution is -- no more than one class at a time. Attic area -- they agreed to epaqueing the windows. General appearance of the building -- what could be done to make it more palatable. They agreed to submit a plan to paint some or all of the building. Mr. Biddna then expressed concern over the additional conditions that staff is suggesting for the project which was just received. He addressed the eight additional conditions, his main theme being that the proposed conditions do not make sense explaining his reasons why. he emphasized that common sense should prevail. In concluding, he stated the reality is that these kinds of restrictions do not allow the running of a school and providing a positive environment needed for the children. Relative to submitting a sound study, if noise is a problem, they are going to know that. The problem with such a condition is that it leaves the doors open and does not allow a healing process. He reiterated, his client would like to be a good neighbor. The school is a good use. They may be right it is not a great location physicaly for a school, but it is a location the City approved for a school and his client bought it for that use. The additional conditions imposed and particularly the ones proposed tonight, do not make sense and they are not practical. George Leighton, Certified Acoustical Consultant, County of Orange. It was his task at the last meeting (see minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1998) to challenge and discredit the acoustical report submitted by the homeowners. (See reports submitted to some individual homeowners from Celia Acoustical Consultants, Richard Celia, 177 Riverside Dr., #F, Newport Beach - letters of May 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 8, 1998 - previously made a part of the record). At four o'clock this afternoon, he was handed five more new reports. He did not have time to present the Council with a written report but will give an oral one at this time. He again challenged the five reports as being incorrect. Mr. Leighton thereupon began to address the calculations submitted; Mayor Daly interjected and asked how this is relevant to the subject and whether City staff has had a chance to see the reports he is commenting on that were prepared for citizens who live near the property. He asked for the City Attorney's comments. City Attorney White. He feels they may be ahead of the game. He understands the Planning Department received the reports yesterday. Because they have not been introduced into evidence, it is probably more appropriate for Mr. Leighton to defer his comments. If they are introduced and the consultant for the neighbors is present to testify, they could then give Mr. Leighton as part of the rebuttal an opportunity to respond as opposed to having him respond to something the Council hasn't heard yet. Mr. Leighton agreed to defer his comments noting that the reason he brought the issue up was staff referred to conflicting acoustic reports as if there were confusion. In his mind, there is no confusion. One is correct, and one is incorrect. His report is not successfully challenged. Mr. Jeff Farano, Attorney, 2300 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim. He has been retained by numerous residents surrounding the subject property. The primary issue is what to do and what problem have they had with the height of the building and number of floors as well as the problem of the playground size and noise and whether there is also an issue that the residents have received notice of some of these proceedings. (Also see Mr. Farano's extensive and detailed presentation at the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1998). There was testimony submitted during the Planning Commission hearing which they want to make sure is considered part of the record today (Planning Commission minutes of April 13, 1998 previously made a part of the record.) Relative to the noise studies referred to earlier which were delivered yesterday, the engineer who prepared those is not present today. He would like to have those reports made a part of the record. City Attorney White. For purposes of the record, all of the material submitted at the Planning Commission public hearing -- the evidence, testimony, documentary material and the minutes are deemed to be a part of the record of these proceedings. Anything in addition to that not presented in the form of documentary evidence needs to be referred to by the various parties to make sure those are made a part of the record of tonight's hearing. Even though the acoustical consultant is not present, because the hearing is not based on strict rules of evidence, they are deemed admissable. The Council is free to give weight to those even though he is not present. Mr. Farano then continued with his extensive presentation covering many aspects of the project amongst which were the following: The project as approved does not fit the area and was not built according to what was represented. In 1993 this was to be a 32' building with an air conditioner on top. Now it is a 35' building. The City has the right to modify a CUP. It is necessary to deal with the height and the (3rd) floor. If a story is built to be habitable, it is considered a story. This building has been designed as a three-story building. It could possibly be used and, if so, the parking standards would be much different. He asked that they reduce the third floor to a legitimate attic. The alternative would be to remove the walls from the third floor and create a sloped or gabled roof. Mr. Browne intends this as a three-story building. This is fraud. In order to protect the general welfare, changes have to be made before it is occupied. Noise -- Mr. Browne's study uses the municipal ordinance (60 decibels (db)). The neighbor's study uses the standard of the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. It is a planning element which should be used and considered in making the decision. The school hours are too early, there are too many kids proposed, and the parcel is too small. He then addressed the playground issue/area working from the posted diagrams. Plans approved on August 8, 1994 show the playground enlarged and located to the east end of the property. The playground today is located both to the east and west. The current location and size were never the subject of a noticed hearing. The size has a direct impact on the neighbors and should be considered and restricted for noise. 18 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 Sign issue -- the sign raising the most concern is the red sign on the Montessod building which has a great impact on the neighbors. It reflects off the second building in the middle and creates a bright red glow. He also addressed some building code violations specifically the engineering of the wall. Originally, it was 6' and and additional 2' has been added on. There is some doubt that the wall is structurally sound and they cannot rely on the builder to tell them that it is. In concluding, Mr. Farano stated that this is a building which even though it appears it looks like what was originally approved in 1994, what was actually built goes way beyond what was approved. It is a three-story building 35' tall. It is not two stories and the third story can easily be occupied without anyone knowing it. The Building Department should have caught it when it was built. Law suits have been threatened by both sides. If it means requiring them to take down the third floor, this is an area the Council has always taken extreme care to protect. The following people spoke in opposition and their concerns/issues/comments summarized: Carol Gerenson, 321 Oak Ridge Road, Anaheim. (Also see testimony given at the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1998.) She sells houses in Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda. The description of the building as a "monolith" is appropriate. The third story needs to be removed. Valid concerns were raised at the Planning Commission hearing that were not addressed. The project as it is will affect the values in that neighborhood. The City has to be kept the way it is on the General Plan and the scenic corridor. She urged that they protect the integrity of Anaheim Hills. Frank Lowry, 6273 Calle Jaime, Anaheim. He is opposing the "third-story disaster." Six years ago when Mr. Browne came to the neighborhood, he asked for their help. He needed waivers and variances and without their help, he could not build. The project would be a low-profile, two-story building with a red tile Spanish roof. With a wall and trees, they would never see it. He did not build what he said and people asked how that could happen since they received no notices for the next five years. The only one was a year ago when the City Engineer delivered a pamphlet there was going to be a hearing for a grading permit. They cannot trust the developer. To the last person, they thought they were still going to get a nice, two-story building. As to what can be done -- take off the third floor completely, take down the sign, repair or replace the walls, consider the decibel (sound) studies, and allow responsible numbers for occupancy. Jack Lano, 6275 Calle Jaime, Anaheim. He used to work for the City in the Audit Division. What concerned him is that he did not get notified. In 1992, Mr. Browne told them what he was going to do and that the two-story buildings were going to be great. The residents heard nothing again until 1997. He then gave his reasons why he felt they were not notified expressing concerns with the internal controls in the Planning Department which he felt were non-existent and offering suggestions to correct the problems he perceived. Ray Pontius, 6276 Calle Jaime, Anaheim. They have no objection to the church, the school or somebody having a set of office buildings. He does not see how the school is going to open. The decibel levels that were submitted from their man (acoustical engineer) show what is allowable -- 60 db's between a business and residential area. (Mayor Daly interjected and asked Mr. Pontius and all speakers to focus in as to what they wanted.) Mr. Pontius continued, what he would really like the Council to do is "implode" the building. They are grandfathering in a building. He wants to see the third story of the building removed, reduced, taken away, dropped. They would not be here if it were not for the fact that they were not notified about what was going on. Since 1994, they have never received any notices. Bart Allen, 6278 E. Calle Jaime, Anaheim. He is the closest resident and lives within 8" of the playground. This is an invasion of his privacy. It has decimated his property values. From his front door, there are ten windows of this three-story, 35' high building looking into his living room. Relative to the comment about being good neighbors, he has received a threatening letter from an attorney that he will be sued. He questioned how come his rights are not protected. The playground is now 7,500 ft. whereas it was 4,400 originally. The building does not fit in. He referred to the pictures he submitted showing how the development affects his property. He does not see how decibel studies are going to be 19 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 legal with 100 to 124 children 8" away from his property. He asked that they go back to the 4,400 ft. playground and seal off the playground near his house. Mr. Leighton did his study from his office in Carson. A 12 1/2 hour school day is too long. This is too much business on too small a space which encroaches too much on his home and his neighbors. The lighting is industrial lighting right next to a residential home. That lighting does not fit. Waivers were given at his expense. He wants the top floor taken down, the playground scaled back to the 4,400 capacity, occupancy of the school to be 30 max, the 35' Montessod sign to come down, a 15' easement that the laws of the City give to anybody else when a builder puts in a playground. He also wants his parking easement. As noted from the aerial picture, the parking lot comes right up against his wall. There is a 5' easement and there was supposed to be 15' especially considering that altogether there will be activity on the property Monday through Friday and on Sunday and Wednesday evenings with car doors slamming within only 5' of his property. He thanked the Council for listening. Carol Allen, 6278 Calle Jaime, Anaheim (wife of Bart Allen). Her extensive presentation covered the many issues with which they are confronted being the closest resident to the development and refuted much of what was said by the attorneys/representatives of the property owners and especially the findings of Mr. Leighton, the acoustical consultant. (She submitted data she compiled in this regard - re: Noise Impact to Surrounding Homeowners from School Playground of CUP#3662, 6270 Santa Ana Canyon Property - made a part of the record). She also referred to the posted aerial photograph they had taken and paid for showing the property under development and surrounding residential properties. (During her presentation, she also read excerpts from previous Planning Commission meetings on the issue as well as staff reports and submitted same. The Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of Anaheim was also submitted.) In essence, she asked that they lower the building, have the school open at 7:00 a.m. and close at 6:00 p.m. like other schools, remove the school's balcony that stares at her in her living room, or restrict it, have the east playground equipment lowered, rescind the variance given between zero setback to the playground to residential and give them their 15', make the west play area a "dead" zone, restrict the playground hours, limit the number of children, lower the occupancy of the school. There are too many children in too little space. She stated that she presented a lot of these points to the Planning Commission and they were not addressed. Peggy Meadows, 6275 E. Rio Grande, Anaheim (42 years). She moved from west Anaheim to the hills. She is located on the bluff. She was told the noise was not going to bother her. It is obvious that sound is going to carry up hill. She asked that they do the right thing because a mistake has been made in this case. Marc Nicols, 6283 Rio Grande, Anaheim. (Also see minutes of 5/13/98). He is impacted by sound decibels wich exceed those allowed by the City. From his perspective, it is illegal to do that. Also, something that he feels has not been properly addressed is the traffic and the effect the development is going to have on the traffic pattern. The only place to que up to pick up or drop off the children would be in the bicycle lane and that is illegal. This will add to the already existing traffic problem. Rosa Garcia, 6300 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim. She has a Mexican restaurant right behind the building (in the Hughes Center). She would like to see the third floor removed. Because of the building, her business has dropped over 30% due to lack of visibility. She now works longer hours with no business. Before she was visible 200' away. Now she is completely boxed in and people cannot see her restaurant from a distance traveling down Santa Ana Canyon Road. She reiterated, she would like to see the third story removed. Danh Phan, 6279 Rio Grande, Anaheim. It was only lately when his wife noticed there was a three-story building on the property. He told her the Mayor and Council would take care of that. Now he is under pressure to move somewhere else. He asked that they help him out so he does not have to move. Susan Sigmund, speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, P.O. Box 17578, Anaheim, CA 92807. She then briefed many of the concerns contained in the letter submitted and read at the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1998 (see minutes that date) strongly opposing the overall entitlement for CUP 3662 and also the CEQA Negative Declaration. She 2O ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 also gave additional testimony regarding the major concerns especially relative to the third story. In concluding, she stated that the appropriate action by the City at this time would be to step forward to initiate discussion on sharing the financial responsibility to modify the building so that the air conditioning equipment is concealed in a true attic of a true two-story building. This action could result in a pitched roof more in keeping with the area. They urge the Council to initiate action towards this end by denying the request for substantial conformance thus preventing occupancy of the building until a resolution can be obtained. Hamnet Kabede, 6279 Calle Jaime, Anaheim (next to the building). Her parents bought their house 15 years ago. She drives an hour to work every morning. She enjoys the neighborhood and it is to get away from difficulties that she comes home, not so she can have more difficulties with the proposed building. She asked that they please consider this and tear down the third floor so they can have their privacy and safety back. They are not opposed to a church or school next to them, but the invasion of their privacy is a problem. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim (present for and spoke earlier on Item D2.). He questioned if some people are getting too little protection and some not getting enough. This situation to him seems out of control. There are bigger questions relative to procedures that need to be addressed. Bob Florentino, 162 Canyon Woods, Anaheim, President of Pepper Tree Homeowners Association. Four of their homeowners have addressed the Council this evening. He wants to emphasize one simple fact made by one of the proponents (Mr. Biddna) relative to common sense. If the Council exercises common sense in this case, they know that the third floor of the building has to go. It does not fit into the community it was "slid" into and it can be "slid" out. Integrity and intent are two issues that cannot be overlooked. They deserve the Council's support and strong action to prevent the project from existing. He urged that they take appropriate steps to be sure it does not happen again. Mayor Daly. At this time, he asked that the property owner respond. Scott Warren. Relative to the Aliens, they moved to their property in 1996 after the subject project was already approved as it is built now. They came to the project and are now asking that it be modified extensively. Many of the tedious fine points have already been addressed over and over again at previous Planning Commission meetings, most recently, March 30 and April 13, 1998. The building has substantial conformance to the plans and built exactly as represented and planned. That is the way it was approved. Mr. Browne, the church and Dr. Jayaratna have expended incredible amounts of money and would like to move in and use the property for the people it was approved for. In the May 7, 1998 report from Planning staff, it states the building was approved as it was built. It is consistent with other projects throughout the area. They request that the Council approve the project once and for all and end the debate. Howard Biddna. The owner(s) of the school are not Mr. Browne. They bought a piece of property with an entitlement in place allowing them to operate a school and preschool to grade 3. He emphasized, they bought it with entitlements in place. Schools have playgrounds and playgrounds, especially preschool through grade 3, have playground equipment. The issue is whether there is a legal basis to modify or revoke a CUP in which his clients have vested rights. The answer is, no. It does not mean that the concerns of the neighbors are not valid, but there is no legal basis for modification or revocation. They went through a long discussion and hearing before the Planning Commission where they agreed to certain conditions which are reasonable and those should be the ones that stay in place. If Council is considering other conditions or considering revoking the CUP, his suggestion is that they be candid on the record as to why they are doing it. A lot of money was spent to build the building in conformance with entitlements and in accordance with approved plans and permits. If it should not have been approved in the first place, Mr. Browne snuck something over on someone. His client has already been delayed. The school should have been opened a couple of months ago. It is costing money on a daily basis. There is no reason for the delay to continue any longer. 21 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 Council Member Zemel asked if his client had received a deed yet; Mr. Biddna answered, yes. Mr. Browne was the seller of the land to them and then the contractor. There is no reason for the delay. Mike Griffith. They are the owners of the property. They closed escrow in December, 1996. They contracted with Mr. Browne to build the building. They are the responsible party for the structure on the property. They knew exactly what they bought. They did substantial due dilligence. They bought approved plans on the building and that is what they purchased. Council Member Zemel asked if Mr. Browne told them as a purchaser that he told the City it would be a two-story building with a sloped roof; Mr. Griffith. Answered no. He said he had approval per the building plans. He represented to them what the City approved. They went to the City and asked if the plans were approved and were told yes. They then entered in an escrow agreement and upon receiving a CUP and building plans final approval, they closed escrow. They had the approvals they needed. Being the owners of the property, Doug Browne's responsibility to them was to construct the building according to the plans. If they are asked to take off the third story attic, it is totally opposite of what they received approval for. They do not have the funds to pay for that. They have invested every penny they have as a church into the building. They cannot afford to pay the construction loan much longer. The bottom line is it is going to be their responsibility to pay for any additions or alterations to the building. If they impose a condition that they have to alter the face of the building, it will harm them financially. If it is modified or restricted, they will be harmed greatly. The school attic is 5 1/2' tall. Their air ducts are in the attic. They are not going to use the attic for any type of classrooms or anything like that. They need to be in the building as soon as possible. Mayor Daly asked to hear from Mr. Leighton at this time to summarize his findings. Mr. George Leighton. It remains essentially unchanged from what he said initially. Despite the fact that they would like to believe the numbers presented to them (by Colia Acoustical Consultants), the report is flawed and the numbers are incorrect. He then explained why. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Daly. He suggests that the Council recess into Closed Session for a discussion with the City Attorney. He anticipates it will be at least 15 minutes and possibly longer. City staff will remain. The Council will be returning into Open Session. City Attorney White. He recommended that the Council recess into Closed Session relating to potential litigation concerning the project under current review by the Council. MOTION - RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:30 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (11:05 p.m.) MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue this item (D3.) for one week and requested that all of the attorneys meet to attempt to come to an acceptable solution. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly clarified that the action is to continue the matter for seven days with a request that all of the attorneys meet to attempt to reach an acceptable resolution of the issues which have been presented. City Attorney White. The hearing has been closed so when the matter comes back, no further testimony will be taken. Secondly, he would like to meet with all the attorneys in side bar when this item is finished. Their meeting will have to take place on Monday and he would like to arrange something with them this evening. 22 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 12,1998 A vote was then taken on the motion to continue the matter to Tuesday, May 19, 1998. MOTION CARRIED. C3. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS: Mayor Daly. He would like to place on the agenda for discussion next week a discussion on the status of the Public Beneffis Program in the Utilities Department. (Mayor Daly's request was subsequently withdrawn in favor of receiving a written report on the Program.) ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of May 12, 1998 was adjourned. (11:08 P.M.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 23