Loading...
1993/11/02City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Hunter, Pickler, Simpson, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich REDEVELOPMENT/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Richard Bruckner CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 1:50 p.m. on October 29, 1993 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: a. To confer with its Attorney regarding 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; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74. b. To meet with the City's Real Property Negotiator concerning acquisition or disposition of certain real property interests for property located generally a~ Douglass Road, owned by Herb Douglass and Ted Douglass. c. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. d. To consider and take possible action'upon personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. e. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1) . f. To 0on~id~r and tak~ Do~ibl~ action uD0n ~uch other matt~ as are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager, or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any of the matters will not be considered in closed session. MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act - adding two additional items to Closed Session. Council' Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. g. City of Anaheim v. Chiken, et al., O.C.S.C.C. No. 55-78-79. 778 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. h. To meet with the City's real property negotiator concerning the possible acquisition or disposition of real property interests concerning property owned by the Simon and Gloria Fluor Family Trust and located at 1300-1382 East Auto Center Drive. By general Consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:00 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:12 p.m.). INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Fred Hunter led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING SPONSORS/PARTICIPANTS IN CALIFORNIA RIDESHAB_E WEEK: Mayor Daly noted that there were many corporate sponsors and participants who contributed to the success of this year's Rideshare Week program in Anaheim. He then read the list of the sponsors/participants and thanked them on behalf of the Council and the City noting also that the proceeds for the rideshare week events will be presented at a later date to the American Lung Association and the Anaheim Community Foundation. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Systems Specialist thanked the Mayor and Council for the recognition and also briefed all of the events that took place which were well attended and very successful. 119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION.- A Declaration of Recognition was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Maggie Carillo-Mejia, Savanna High School Principal for her outstanding work and for receiving the Milken Family Foundation National Education Award. Mrs. Carillo-Mejia is the first California educator to receive this year's award, one of only six in the State and one of 50 in the nation. Accompanying Mrs. Carillo-Mejia in the Chamber audience were Cynthia Grennan, Superintendent of the Anaheim Union High School District, her husband and son and a representative from Project SAY. Mayor Daly and Council Members congratulated and commended Maggie on receiving such a prestigious and outstanding award and thanked her for her dedication and commitment to the Anaheim Community. 119: THE FOLLOWING WERE RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME: Recognizing the week of November 1-12, 1993, as United WaF week in Anaheim. Recognizing November 16, 1993, as Dutch A~erican Heritage DaF Recognizing November 21-28, 1993, as National Bible Week in Anaheim FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,428,722.93 for the period ending October 29, 1993, in accordance with the 1993-94 Budget, were approved. 779 City Hall r Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2r 1993 - 5:00 P.M. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:22 p.m. ) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (5.'25 p.m. ) ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Lou Sheldon, 2737 W. Savoy Place, Anaheim. He raised his family in Anaheim and some of his children and grandchildren still reside in the City. As a resident, he does not want any form of legalized gambling in Anaheim. Amongst other problems, follow-home robberies have been reported throughout those communities that do have card clubs and other kinds of gambling facilities. Gang and drug addicts follow home the big winners and commit violent armed robberies right at the front door. He is asking that they be aware of the serious menace any kind of gambling is for the City. Robyn Nordell, 223 Fountain Place, Fullerton, Social Concerns Liaison to the Southern California North American Baptist Church. As churches, they deal with broken people all the time. Inviting gambling into a City invites social problems as well. With gambling establishments, a variety of other types of crimes come into the area. Those currently not criminals become criminals as they become involved in gambling. When card clubs~were considered in Stanton and Cypress, their church spoke out publicly against them and it was not in their area. Anaheim is close to home. They believe gambling is wrong and bad to bring into the community. They will become actively involved in fighting legalized gambling because they are the ones who subsequently have to deal with the victims. Candy Nunnow, 2655 Keys Lane, Anaheim. She opposes any form of legalized gambling or card casinos. It results in an increase in domestic violence and crime. The City leadership should do everything possible to decrease crime. Barbara Holden, 704 S. Cinda, Anaheim. She loves the City and does not want to see legal gambling come to Anaheim. It will promote domestic violence at a time when there is already a stressful economic situation. Viola Bowdoin, (formerly VanHorbach whose husband was long time coach @ Anaheim High School). She would hate to see legalized gambling come into the community. As a mother and grandmother, she is thinking of her children and grandchildren. She does not want to see a legalized gambling casino in Anaheim. Mary Servello, 728 S. Verona, Anaheim. She has been a resident of the City for over 35 years. Anaheim is a family-oriented City. She is present to vo£¢e her strung ~pposlt£~n ~ a cas£n~ in Anaheim. With the terrlble influences the City's young people have to fight, she believes it would be most irresponsible to bring such an atmosphere into the City. A casino is an open invitation to bring crime, robberies and murders right to their doors. Orlando Servello. He has raised his children in Anaheim and now grandchildren. They plan to remain residents and do not want to see gambling come to Anaheim. Homer Bowdoin, 821 Gretchen Way, Anaheim. This is a wonderful and good City and he would hate to see gambling come to it. Jerry Jackson, 9922 Harvest Lane, Anaheim. Gambling always brings a criminal element with it along with other negative aspects. He would exhort the Council to vote this down and keep their City clean. It is a family type 780 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIN~FTES - NOVEMB_ER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. City. They have a lot of things that bring in revenue. Gambling is one thing they do not need. He urged that they keep gambling in Las Vegas. Evelyn Bradley, Principal of a private school in Anaheim at 4101E. Nohl Ranch Road (Trinity Lutheran Christian School). Gambling is a sin and form of stealing. People who steal cause the City &nd community problems. They try to build character into children and families. Gambling casinos are designed to take from the innocent and gullible and make a profit for their owners which will damage the character of the community and the children. Lynn Horn, 6982 Country Club Lane, Anaheim. She is the mother of seven children and now seven grandchildren and has lived in Anaheim for the past 30 years. She supports many community organizations (Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, church groups, etc.). Tonight she came to the meeting with a Boy Scout Troop so they could see their leaders in action. She did not plan to speak but since the issue of gambling has come up, she was compelled to do so. Gambling does bring crime into the community. She urged that they not allow their children to come under the influence of gambling. Mayor Daly. For those who have come to speak on gambling and proposed card clubs, there is nothing on the Council agenda this evening and to the best of his knowledge, no formal proposal has been received by City Government. He asked the City Manager if anything has been received formally in the way of a proposal. City Manager James Ruth. Answered no and, answering Council Member Feldhaus, stated that he has no idea what brought the matter forward this evening. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Public input received on Item A9 (see discussion under that item). MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of November 2, 1993. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 93R-216 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Al. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meetings ~e~u s/~/9~, 6/~/9~, ?/~/~, anu 8/s/~. A2. 123: Approving an Agreement with Odet£c8, Incorl~orated, to field test a video traffic detection systemf a project approved for funding by the Federal Highway Administration. A3. 170~ Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 14071, and the Subdivision Agreement with Baldwin Building Contractors, and Offsite Easement Agreement with The Baldwin Company, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreements. Tract 14071 is located at The Summit of Anaheim Hills on Weir Canyon Road and Oak Canyon Drive, and is filed in connection with Specific Plan No. 88-2. A4. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 14353 and the Subdivision Agreement with San Raphael/Anaheim Hills Partners, L.P., and authorizing the 781 City Hall, Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2r 1993 - 5:00 P.M. Mayor and City Clerk execute said Agreement. Tract No. 14353 is located on the east side of Anaheim Hills Road, south of the centerline of Santa Aha Canyon Road, and is filed in connection with Reclassification No. 90-91-02. A5. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 93R-216: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. A6. 123: To consider approving an Owner Participation Agreement between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, the City of Anaheim and Universal Alloy Corporation, in connection with a business retention and expansion project for Universal Alloy's facility at 2971 La Palma Avenue; and authorizing the Executive Director and Public Utilities General Manager to sign any documents necessary to implement this project. (Continued from the meeting of 10/26/93 Al7. ) City Manager Ruth. Staff is requesting another weeks continuance on this item. At the conclusion of the Consent Calendar, the Council continued this item one week to November 9, 1993. A7. 123: To consider a ground lease between Herb Douglass and Ted Douglass and the City of Anaheim for public parking facilities adjacent to the Anaheim Arena. 149: To consider the construction, maintenance and operation of a public parking facility on the County of Orange Katella Maintenance Yard, located on the south side of Katella Avenue (Site 2). 149: To consider the construction, maintenance and operation of a public parking facility on property located north of the former County Transfer Station, and west of Douglass Road (Site 3). 149: To consider the construction of certain street improvements: Cerritos Avenue from Sunkist to Douglass Road; and on Douglass Road from Cerritos Avenue to north of Katella Avenue. (Continued from 9-14-93, 9/21/93, 9/28/93 and 10/5/93. ) City Manager Ruth. He asked that the item be removed from the agenda at this time. Mayor Daly. He understands the item will not return to the agenda unless Manager Ruth. It will not be brought back unless or until there is some resolution of the negotiations with the principals. This item was removed from the agenda at this time. AS. 114: Approving minutes of the City Council meeting held October 12, 1993. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 93R-216 for adoption8 AYES: , NOES: ABSENT .' COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Hunter, Pickler, Simpson, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 782 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 93R-216 duly passed and adopted. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. A9. 107: PUBLIC HEARING - OPERATOR' S PERMITS - VENDOR'S PERMITS - APPEAL FEES: To consider adoption of an ordinance amending Section 14.32.310 of Chapter 14.32 of Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the sale of goods or merchandise by vehicle; and to also consider a resolution amending the established permit application and appeal fees pursuant to Section 14.32.310 of Chapter 14.32 of Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (operator's permits, vendor's permits, and appeal fees). ORDINANCE NO. 5403 - ADOPTION: Amending Section 14.32.310 of Chapter 14.32 of Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to sale of goods or merchandise by vehicle. (Introduced at the meeting of October 26, 1993. ) RESOLUTION NO. 93R-211: Amending permit application and appeal fees pursuant to Section 14.32.310 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (Continued from the meeting of October 26, 1993, to be adopted in conjunction with the above ordinance. ) Previously submitted was report dated October 14, 1993 from the Planning Department/Code Enforcement Division recommending that the subject proposed ordinance be adopted and that permit application and appeal fees be amended as proposed. Pastor Carlos Quinonez, Coordinator Facilitator Mediator - Anaheim Street Vendor Association. (He gave the following comments at the beginning of the meeting under Public Comments on Agenda Items. ) He submitted his comments in writing - see, presentation of Pastor Carlos Quinonez - a three-page document - made a part of the record. He briefed his written statement which covered the background of the vendor matter, the ongoi, ng problems and concerns of both members of the community and the street vendors, the goals of the Anaheim street vendors and the requests of the street vendors. Pastor Quinonez explained that he has been a part of a small committee of concerned citizens who have had and continue to have ongoing dialogue with the vendors and other concerned parties where they have met with street vendors both individually and as a group as well as members of the City Council and numerous City staff members. The request of the vendors are that there be, (1) a moratorium on issuing new street vendor licenses (barring those Which are being renewed), (2) reconsider the timing and fee issue as proposed in the new ordinance and, (3) to institute an ongoing committee comprised of four citizens at large, four vendors at large, two City Council members and one Code Enforcement representative. Their intention is to start anew on the road to uncompromising unity. Mayor Daly asked to hear from staff. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He met with Mr. Quinonez on Friday and at that time thought they had more of an agreement than indicated. Mr. Quinonez has a very difficult job. The Council has staff report dated October 14, 1993 which recommends two actions - that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the sale of goods or merchandise by vehicle and by resolution amend the established permit application and appeal fees relating to same. He thereupon briefed the October 14, 1993 staff report specifically the changes being proposed from the current ordinance. (See pages one and two of the report.) He concluded 783 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. stating this is a very difficult problem and they have listened to all sides and feel this is the best solution. When he last talked to Mr. Quinonez, it was his understanding the only dispute was relative to the 10 minutes proposed vs. 60 minutes in the current code. Staff believes the only way to maintain the integrity and quality of life for those residential neighborhoods is to make these businesses operate as mobile vendors, and staying more than 10 minutes will just deteriorate the neighborhoods. Before proceeding, Mayor Daly asked if there were any questions of Council; Council Member Simpson noted that the vendors are requesting a moratorium on new licenses being issued. He asked if the City could legally do that. City Attorney White. Tonight that subject matter is not on the agenda. The most the Council could do this evening is to agendize the subject for discussion at a future meeting. At the moment, he does not have a legal opinion as to the legality of imposing a moratorium. It is nothing that could be acted upon tonight. Mayor Daly. He agrees with Council Member Simpson that the Council focus on the proposal before them this evening and any new issues that arise the Council should have a report back at a future date. Mayor Daly noted that the public hearing is open and invited anyone who wished to speak to do so at this time and subsequently Mr. Quinonez will have another opportunity to speak. Lynn Spivak, President of Jeffrey Lynne Property Owners Association. According to recent newspaper articles, Council Members Feldhaus and Simpson have been negotiating with the vendor organization or leadership to reach a more palatable position for all concerned. It is, therefore, assumed that this ordinance is an outgrowth of those diligent negotiations. Last year the Council supported an outright ban on all vending vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately, a judge made the analogy that the vendors operating in one location for 12 hours at a time were the same as a pizza delivery service. The court in not allowing the City to control its streets did say the City can regulate and regulate they must. The Ordinance is a compromise and one that the Code Enforcement Department and the City Attorney feel is legal and workable with all elements intact. The property owners of Jeffrey Lynne and other blighted neighborhoods join in urging the Council to support the efforts of their fellow Councilmen, Code Enforcement Department and the City Attorney's Office and pass the ordinance as is. Sal Sarmiento, Attorney, 950 W. 17th Street, Suite A, Santa Aha. He has represented the street vendors for the las~ five years. This is a yearly visit to the Council addressing a new ordinance. It is his belief before the City acts, it should get together with all the parties and attempt to come up with some sort of compromise. His understanding is that has not happened to this date. Mr. Poole met with Mr. Quinonez for an hour on Friday. There was not a meeting of their minds or a compromise. He would like to see staff meet with the vendors and the people from NOVA to see what can come about. The 10 minute time limit is unworkable for the street vendors. If they enact an ordinance with the 10 minute time limit, they are again going to wind up in court. The City has given them a distance of 100 yards vs. 200 yards and allowing vending up to 8:00 p.m. It is not giving them anything and those are not major issues. The major issue is the time limitation which is unworkable. They do not have to act on the ordinance tonight. He urged a meeting of the parties, allowing 30 or 60 days to get input and then action taken as he has recommended in the past. 784 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. Mr. Pedro Vasquez, 415 Claudina, Anaheim. Speaking through an interpreter (Pastor Quinonez). A great deal of time has been expended on this issue. The process was begun back in 1984. To date the vendors have not been able to work comfortably under the direction of Mr. John Poole, the City's Code Enforcement Manager. He is hoping there is some way the leadership could be changed in order for them to arrive at a mutual accord that could work for all concerned. They have to be reasonable in the time limit and the good relations with one another. They are ready to adhere to whatever the Council is willing to dish out but they still have to support their families and take care of their needs. The drivers of the vehicles are continually complaining about the numerous citations being given every day and also the way they are treated. He has been in the office with Mr. Poole on numerous occasions and has never been able to resolve any of the issues because their is abusiveness on the part of some of the Code Enforcement officials. They do not do things in a humble, meek manner but do it harshly. They are trying to reach accord regarding this issue. If Code Enforcement is on their backs now with a one hour limitation, how much more with a 10 minute limit. They are not going to be able to make a living nor pay all the exorbitant fines. It would be greatly appreciated if there could be an intermediary between the Council and City staff and for the Code Enforcement Department to mediate in this issue of ongoing problems regarding the vendors. Rich Flambrose, Apartment Association of Orange County. He is urging adoption of the proposed ordinance. Their Association does not wish to engage in the extraneous arguments involved. The heart of the matter is the integrity of the residential neighborhoods. While the issue has been languishing, the vendors have been operating in literal permanency on the streets of Anaheim the same as the corner store or AM/PM markets. The ordinance speaks to that issue and that issue only. It asks for a 10 minute limit which is enforceable. A one hour limit is not. It is a provision they support and in no way speaks to putting the vendors out of business in Anaheim. It sets up rules under which they can operate and at the same time be a good neighbor in the neighborhoods they are serving. The Apartment Association urges adoption of-the ordinance. Pastor Quinonez. He did meet with Mr. Pools for 1~ hours and the only thing they did not reach an agreement on was the time limit. They were even ready to reach a compromise at 45 minutes but even that was not feasible to Mr. Poole and to the staff. In light of that, the vendors have no other resolve but to ask that the current time limit (60 minutes) be kept intact. Most of the people who live in the areas need the services and they are not complaining. Mayor Daly. To summarize the input, it appears that the sole issue with the proposed ordinance is the time limit issue and that there are other issues they would like to be considered but as discussed previously those issues are not on the table this evening. Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5403 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5403 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 14.32.310 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SALE OF GOODS OR MERCHANDISE BY VEHICLE. 785 City Hallr Anaheim, Californi& - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5.'00 P.M. Before further action was taken, Council Member Hunter stated he feels the 10 minute restriction proposed in the ordinance is overburdensome. It is restrictive and he believes if it was back before the Fourth Apellate Court where-there were three judges very well respected in the community who made the decision, to go from one hour down to 10 minutes is going to be viewed by those same justices as a quasi ban. Instea~ of getting involved in litigation again before the same justices, and it will not take much to figure out the outcome. By the time the vendor parks and opens up for business and then having to move in 10 minutes will be very difficult. Rather than getting involved in another major battle, he feels they ought to compromise on the time issue. He does not have a problem with the rest of the ordinance but he does have one with 10 minutes. Mayor Daly. In terms of experience the City has had in regulating and monitoring the whole situation especially in terms of whether parking tickets are more appropriate than criminal violations and the actual mechanics of regulating this situation citywide, he defers to the expertise of the people who have been in the Code Enforcement Division for a long time. Code Enforcement and Planning have brought forth a compromise. He is concerned if they continue to acquiesce to every need that may exist on either side, they will never move forward. Any regulations they adopt must involve quite a bit of self-regulation. The City does not have the manpower to monitor each and every truck all day long. As pointed out, the ten minute maximum does allow for regulation. One hour takes a lot longer to monitor and supervise. Council Member Simpson. He will support the ordinance with reservations and that is the time. He is not an expert and does not know what is a good time - probably somewhere between 10 minutes and 60 minutes. He does believe there is a majority of the Council that wants to move forward with the ordinance. He feels they should and it will be tested once again. Mr. Sarmiento feels they will immediately be in court. He feels they should give it a fair chance. Compromise is not a dirty word. If there is no agreement, there is no solution. They tried to get both parties to the table but that did not work. They have tried to work out a solution and apparently have not pleased everybody but at least it is a starting point. He urges everyone to try it and try it in good faith. He feels it is a good ordinance although the time may need adjusting at some point. He will support it on that basis with reservations about the time limitation. Council Member Pickler. He concurs with Council Member Simpson. It seems they have been going around in circles for many years. He personally feels having vendors in residential areas is bad, has said it right along and will continue to say it. The Council can always revisit the ordinance again and make some corrections. He feels picking on staff is not warranted and is sure if the vendors call Mr. Pools, he will sit down with them. The City has rules and regulations and when they are violated, the Code Enforcement team has to get stern occasionally. John Poole, answering Mayor Daly, stated that as it stands now, the City is probably spending somewhere between $25,000 and $30,000 a year to monitor the situation. With the new fees, the City will still not recover all the costs they are incurring. They plan to use the additional money to have part time people work evenings and weekends when a lot of the violations occur. Mayor Daly. He notes staff is recommending operating hours of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days a week. He asked about those times when it becomes dark at 5:00 p.m. in the winter months. 786 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. John Poole. They looked at that at one time. As far as he knows, there have been no accidents or incidents. They recommended cutting back the hours to 8.-00 which means the activity is down by 8:30. Now it is about 9:30 with a 9:00 limit. Council Member Feldhaus. In the spirit of compromise, he does not believe the vendors are going to find the ordinance as restrictive as they feel it will be moving 100 feet every 10 minutes. He feels it will be more difficult to enforce rather than easier. He supports the ordinance because he knows it can be modified as necessary. A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5403 for adoption~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Simpson, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5403 duly passed and adopted. Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 93R-211 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 93R-211: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING PERMIT APPLICATION AND APPEAL FEES PURSUANT TO SECTION 14.32.310 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 93R-211 for adoption~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Simpson, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 93R-211 duly passed and adopted. ITEMS BI - B2 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1993: DECISION DATE~ OCTOBER 21, 1993 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS NOVEMBER 5, 1993: Bi. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4235 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Whittle Investors-State College, A Limited Partnership, ATTN: ALEX WHITTLE, 234 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite. 200, Pasadena, CA 91101-2282 AGENT: Gary L. Bastien, c/o Bastien & Associates, Inc., 8 Corporate Park, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION~ 2050 South State College Boulevard. Pr0per~y is approximately S.13 acres, with frontage of approximately 463 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 484 feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue. To establish a general services and materials management facility for U.C.I. Medical Center, with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Variance No. 4235 APPROVED (ZA Decision No. 93-57). Approved Negative Declaration. B2. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4236 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: 787 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. OWNER: Frederick & Ruth Sacher, P.O. Box 2672, Grass Valley, CA 92945 AGENT: Universal Alloy, Attn: John Ball, 2871 La Mesa Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92816 LOCATION: 2871 La Mesa Avenue. Property is approximately 7.96 acres, having approximate frontages of 676 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 520 feet on the north side of La Mesa Avenue. To construct a 32,200 square foot expansion to an existing industrial building complex with waiver of required number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Variance No. 4236 APPROVED with amended conditions (ZA Decision No. 93-58). Approved Negative Declaration. Council Member Feldhaus. He feels this item should probably be deferred until resolution of Item A6 on today's agenda has been settled. (See Item A6 which also involves Universal Alloy. ) That item was continued for one week. Richard Bruckner, Redevelopment/Economic Development Manager. These items are somewhat independent. The financial arrangement is not a problem with their relationship with the user of the site, but the relationship between the user who is about to purchase the site and the seller. His recommendation is that the Council move forward with the land use action at this time. City Attorney White. Unless the Council is concerned about the variance aspect of this item, it is not necessary to pull this and defer it or set it for a hearing simply because of the continuance of Item A6. He believes, as Mr. Bruckner, that they are independent and need not be linked. Discussion and questioning by Council Members followed. Questions were also posed to staff which were answered by Mr. Bruckner, the Planning Director, Joel Fick and Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti. In concluding the discussion, Mayor Daly stated that they must send a positive signal to Universal Alloy since they are about to support their operation with Redevelopment funds. It would be good business at this time to let the Zoning Administrator's judgement stand on this item unless there are two Council Members who wish to set it for a public hearing. There was no further action taken by the Council on Item B2 and, therefore, the decision of the Zoning Administrator stands. END OF B3/B4. l?gs ORDINANCZ NOS. §404 AND 5405 FOR ADOPTIONs ORDINANCE NO. 5404: Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 87-88-57 located at 212 South Beach Boulevard from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the CL zone. (Introduced at the meeting of October 26, 1993. ) ORDINANCE NO. 5405: Adding a definition to Section 18.01.130 of Chapter 18.01.130 of Chapter 18.01 and amending and deleting certain Subsections of various Sections of Chapters 18.42, 18.44, 18.45 and 18.45 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to liquor stores. (Introduced at the meeting of October 26, 1993.) Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 5404 and 5405 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 788 C£t¥ H&11, /mahe£m, Cal£forn£& - COUNCIl, MINU'I~.~ - NOVBMBBR 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 5404: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Reclassification No. 87-88-57 located at 212 South Beach Boulevard from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the CL zone. ) ORDINANCE NO. 5405: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING A DEFINITION TO SECTION 18.01.130 OF CHAPTER 18.01 AND AMENDING AND DELETING CERTAIN SUBSECTIONS OF VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTERS 18.42, 18.44, 18.45 AND 18.45 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LIQUOR STORES. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5404 and 5405, both inclusive, for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Hunter, Pickler, Simpson, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5404 and 5405, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Mayor Daly. He thanked staff for the fine work done with regard to Ordinance No. 5405, relating to liquor stores which will now require a special CUP for any future liquor stores previously allowed by a more routine permit. He thanked the Planning staff, the Police and the City Attorney. Cl. 107: POOL ROOM PERMIT APPLICATION - GAMES PLUS: Application requested by Maria C. Trozzi, 3242 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. The business is located at 3242 West Lincoln Avenue. The petitioner is requesting a pool room permit to operate 17 tables, and a change in hours of operation. At the meeting of June 29, 1993, the City Council approved 16 tables at the establishment. Submitted was report dated October 20, 1993 from the Planning Department/Code Enforcement Division recommending approval of the subject permit subject to the following conditions: (a) That the total number of billiard tables shall not exceed seventeen ( 17 ). (b) That there shall not be any coin-operated video or arcade-type games on the premises. (c) That the hours of operation shall be: Sunday through Thursday, 11:00 a.m. to 12 midnight Friday and Saturday, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Joel Fick, Planning Director, answering the Mayor stated tha~ the permit would be for one year from today's date and there is still no alcohol sold at the business. MOTION.:. Council Member Simpson moved to approve the application for a pool room permit for Games Plus at 3242 W. Lincoln Avenue as recommended in Memorandum dated October 20, 1993 from the Planning Department/Code Enforcement Division subject to the limitations contained therein, Items a, b and c. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. 789 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. Before further action was taken, Council Member Pickler stated he has a problem with pool room establishments. Looking at the west end of Anaheim, he feels such businesses are not in the best interest of the City. Mayor Daly. He shares the same concern but this is a permit for one year and at the end of that time, the applicant and owner will have to apply for renewal. The Police Department will be closely monitoring the business. Further, no alcohol will be sold on the premises and the Council previously approved 16 tables which is proposed to be increased by 1. Council Member Pickler. His concern is the police monitoring. There are not enough police to have to keep monitoring these businesses. Maria Trozzi. She is the owner and her parents were the previous owners. She has a great concern for keeping the area clean and safe. There are no longer any arcade machines in the establishment. This created a void and that is why she is requesting an additional table. Council Member Pickler. He asked if the present hours of operation could be maintained and questioned why they are being changed. Joel Fick. The change was requested by the applicant. They did review similar hours of operation and have received no Code Enforcement complaints. Because of that, the recommendation was favorable. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to approve the pool room permit application as recommended by the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department and also the Police Department including the three conditions as listed on the first page of the October 20, 1993 staff report and including the one year permit limitation from today's date. Council Member Pickler voted no. MOTION CARRIED. C2. 107: ORDINANCE NO. 5406 - AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING: Adding new Chapter 7.30 to title 7 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to aggressive panhandling. (Introduced at the meeting of October 26, 1993. ) Previously submitted were reports dated September 2, 1993 and October 20, 1993 from the City Attorney. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5406 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5406: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 7.30 TO TITLe. 7 OF TME ANA~.IM MUNICIPAL COD~. R~LATING TO AGGR~SSIV~ PANHANDLING. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White explained this item is before the Council at their request. The ordinance is not meant to prohibit panhandling altogether but only to address certain aggressive, threatening or intimidating acts that could be engaged in by panhandlers in an attempt to elicit contributions by the public. Mayor Daly. He intends to support the ordinance because it will address the sometimes intimidating side of panhandling. It is a constitutional right but not intimidating persons into donating. Council Member Feldhaus. He is pleased to see it as well. 790 City Hallf Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2r 1993 - 5:00 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5406 for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Simpson, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter ' COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5406 duly passed and adopted. C3. 107: ORDINANCE NO. 5407 - SOLICITATION OF VEHICLE OCCUPANTS: Adding Chapter 14.30 to Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to solicitation of vehicle occupants. (Introduced at the meeting of October 26, 1993, Item C2.) Previously submitted was report dated October 20, 1993 from the City Attorney. City Attorney White. The ordinance is before the Council at their request. The thrust is that it would prohibit persons from standing within the improved roadway area of a City street and soliciting either business or contributions or work from vehicles that are in transient upon the public streets. He then briefed the discussion portion of his October 20 report and answered questions posed by the Mayor. Council Member Hunter. Basically on both this proposed ordinance and the prior ordinance, (see Item C2) he is concerned that the police now having to deal with these two new ordinances may be deferred from covering serious crimes to answer panhandling calls. It is overregulation and it is overburdensome. It all sounds nice but he questions who is going to enforce such laws. There are not enough police officers now and they are passing more laws that they can't enforce. At the conclusion of further discussion and debate, Mayor Daly stated they will leave it to the Police Chief to determine priorities. He feels it is well within reason to pass a very well researched new ordinance. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5407 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5407: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 14.30 TO TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SOLICITATION OF VEHICLE OCCUPANTS. Rol1 Ca!l Vote on Ordinance No. 5407 for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS~ Simpson and Hunter COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5407 duly passed and adopted. SWEAR-IN OF THOSE TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS: The City Attorney announced that it is appropriate at this time for all those intending to testify at any or all of the public hearings including staff be sworn in at this time. Those testifying were requested to stand by the City Clerk and asked to raise their right hand. The oath was then given. 791 City Hallr Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NO _VEMB_ ER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. D1. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENTa CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3630 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Julia R. Amaral, P.O. Box 9415, San Rafael, CA 95912 AGENT: Michael Cho, 160 Centennial Way, Ste. 8, Tustin, CA 92680 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1168 S. State College Boulevard and is approximately 1.3 acres located at the southeast corner of Almont Avenue and State College Boulevard. The request is to permit a 15,744-square foot public dance hall with the on-premise sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3630 GRANTED (PC93-101) (6 yes votes, I absent). Waiver of code requirement Approved. Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Members Pickler and Daly at the meeting of September 28, 1993 and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - October 21, 1993 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 19, 1993 Posting of property - October 22, 1993 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 8, 1993. Mayor Daly. He has two concerns. The first is police enforcement of traffic and parking. When he drove by a few nights ago, there was a police vehicle parked in observation of the dance hall. There was a line waiting to get in and cars were parking quite a distance from the dance hall. It concerns him that the Police Department has to monitor the situation. He proposes a condition of approval where the owner must reimburse the City for the cost of policing whatever issues arise from the operation of the dance hall. His second concern is parking in a shopping center with a variety of ownerships. There is not enough parking on site on the restaurant parcel itself to accommodate the proposal. Parking will spill over onto other properties. He did not see anything in the package which stated that the neighboring parcels were supportive or a parking arrangement worked out. There are residential dwellings across the street from the proposed dance hall. council Member Pickler. He understands the dance hall is in operation already and asked how that came about. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She stated they have been operating as a restaurant but not as a dance hall. They are operating under code right now as a restaurant. Investigator Jim Gandy. He reported that they have, in fact, been operating as a dance hall charging persons $10 to $20. He ran a calls-for-service check and there has been a couple of disturbances. Assault in battery are the only calls for service they have had. He has heard from patrol officers that they are packing them in. There are a lot of occupants in the building. He has not been out there at night and that is when they are operating. Council Member Feldhaus. He assured it is posted that there are only a limited number of people allowed. It seems it would be a requirement in the resolution that there not be anymore than what the number happens to be which 792 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMB_ER 2, 1993 - 5.'00 P.M. would eliminate a lot of the parking problems. If they are in violation, the fire marshal would then have jurisdiction. Mayor Daly. He asked if it is assumed that the building has a maximum occupancy or does it need to be addressed in the conditions. City Attorney White. Regardless of whether it is included as an expressed condition, there is a maximum occupancy limit and if it is exceeded, it would be a violation of the code and could be cited irrespective of whether or not it is a condition. Council Member Pickler. He has a problem with just sending notices to the owner. There are apartments across the street and those people do not get notification. This is a change of use and is something completely different than what was there and something he feels is a detriment. They do not have enough police to monitor these situations. Annika Santalahti. Staff did find a copy of the declaration of restrictions which includes a parking easement across the entire shopping center. It is outlined in orange on the map posted on the Chamber wall. However, the center extends further to the east which makes the overall size five times as big and all of that property is under a common parking and access vehicular and pedestrian easement. Council Member Pickler. He asked if the business knew they were not supposed to start as a dance hall until they went through the process~ Annika Santalahti. She does not know and the agent for the applicant will have to answer. Barry Curtis, 160 Centennial Way, Suite A, Tustin. The applicants have reopened a restaurant on the site and in conjunction with that received a permit for dinner dancing which allowed dancing for the patrons which they did up until after the Planning Commission hearing. He believes the applicants may have misunderstood that they did not have a permit in place. They did not realize an appeal was filed based on the letter they received. The business is a family-oriented Mexican seafood style restaurant. In the upstairs areas in the evenings, they have a public dance hall with Ranchera or country-style music. There is a reciprocal parking agreement over the entire center. The restaurant is required to have 126 spaces and they have 111. In the evening when the dance hall is operational, the majority of the other uses in the center are closed. This~ is an intensification of use. In anticipation of concerns, the applicants volunteered to have four security guards on site - two inside and two in the parking area. At the time of the Planning Commission hearing, they suggested several short review periods. The Planning commission ultimately gave a one-year review, but the applicants at that time were agreeable to two to three months. Sound studies that have been done and and because the upstairs of the building has no windows or doors, that the sound is not an adverse impact. The only other concerns are from the applicants. They have expended close to $100,000 getting the restaurant opened. They realize anytime within the next year or subsequent to that, that conditions could be changed to reflect on concerns of the residents and they are willing to abide by those conditions. They are aware of the maximum occupancy load, are abiding by that and will continue to do so. The occupancy does not necessarily need to be a condition of the CUP. The applicants are aware it is a violation of the law to exceed that and they do control the amount of people going in and out. They will make sure they are aware of that. 793 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. Mike Cho, representing the applicants and landowner. The amount of daytime use of the restaurant is very slow at this time. Right now they are in a very aggressive advertising mode to increase their lunch business. The parking lot is very crowded in the evening. To mitigate the front area, the property owners would be amenable to signs directing people to additional parking to the rest of the shopping center. That would alleviate problems of on-street and neighborhood parking. There are over 450 spaces. The main tenants are closed at 5:00 p.m. The school is closed at 3:00 p.m. There is adequate parking to handle the restaurant and dance hall use on weekends. There have been no complaints taken by the operators or landowner. They are trying to be good neighbors. Whatever additional conditions that Investigator Gandy thinks necessary, they would be happy to comply. They do not feel this is an adverse use but an added advantage for an authentic style Mexican food restaurant. Mr. Cho then answered questions posed by Council Members. The restaurant continues to operate. Some pay just to go dancing. There is a buffet provided while people are dancing. It is part of the fee. They are able to order food and it can be taken upstairs. People are able to get into the restaurant for free and if they eat at the restaurant and have a dinner, they can enter the dance hall free. City Attorney White. The Conditional Use Permit has two parts - one is the parking waiver and the other is a CUP is required for a dinner dance place or dance hall when admission is charged in order to engage in dancing. The permit is actually because they will be charging admission for engaging in dancing on the premises. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN FAVOR z None PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN OPPOSITION ~ Phil Kynpstra, 2520 Gelid, Anaheim. He opposes the project because he lives in the vicinity. What happens at that intersection does impact what happens in their area which is the State College, Sunkist, Ball area. State College was a beautiful part of town when he was an Anaheim patrolman. He has stayed in the area because of its stability but every year he sees a deterioration of the neighborhood. The subject business has degraded every year from what it was and this use will deteriorate it even more. If his neighbors knew about this, he could mobilize a major effort to get it denied. The City does not need one more dance hall. The Council should vote no. They must draw the line somewhere. SUMMATION BY APPL! CANT ~ Barry Curtis. A good reason a lot of the neighbors did not know about this is because the use has not bothered anyone. The applicants have made certain that it is not an adverse affect on the neighborhood. There will be security guards - it is a very family-oriented business. It is first a restaurant and secondly a family-oriented dance hall. The areas where there is dancing, there are parents, grandparents and young babies and children. It 794 City Hall f Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. is Mexican, Country-style music. The applicants are trying to operate a family-oriented restaurant. As to why they had begun the dance hall prior to the hearing, the applicants applied for a dinner dance place permit which is just a City Business License that allows dancing after meals. The applicants abided by that until after the Planning Commission meeting. They were hired by the applicants to represent them for the Planning Commission hearings. After the hearing, they indicated to them there was a 10-day appeal period and if no appeals were filed, they could have a dance hall. They did not realize that any appeals were filed. Subsequently, they received a letter from the City expressing the concerns. They hope the Council will look at the consideration of the Planning Commission and the conditions they put in place. They are agreeable to additional conditions as well as shorter review periods if the Council feels there could be an adverse effect. They are requesting approval of the use. Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. Council Member Pickler. He has been in that restaurant many times. If it is family oriented, why the need for four security guards. He has no problem with a restaurant and that is what it should be. He feels they are infringing on the people in the area. If notices had been sent to the residents, he feels the Chamber would be full. This is going to cause more problems for the police. They dO not need anymore places like this where they are going to need more police. He wants to keep it as a restaurant and they can rent out the top floor whenever they want for dancing but as a dance hall, he has problems with that. Mayor Daly. He agrees. The building was constructed as a restaurant. A restaurant use is an excellent one in this shopping center but a public dance hall this large is different. He cannot support a public dance hall at this location. Council Member Feldhaus. He feels they need more places like this for people to go. As far as the need for uniformed guards, it is something that society has dictated wherever people congregate. It is a place of entertainment and people like to go to these places to dance. There is a one-year review which is important and critical to his decision. City Attorney White. He confirmed the one-year period will began today and expire this date in 1994. The ~ermit holder will be required to seek an extension of that period if they desire to continue the oDeration beyond that date. They will have to file an application to amend the current condition, delete the one year, or be granted additional time. It would go back to the Planning Commission for another public hearing with a right of appeal to the City Council. It would require another public hearing for an extension of time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. 795 City Hall t Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 93R-217 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3630 subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 93R-217: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.' 3630. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 93R-217 for adoption.- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Hunter, Simpson COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 93R-217 duly passed and adopted. D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3623 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Frank and Sarah Minissale, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808. LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 111 South Mohler Drive and is approximately 1.2 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Mohler Drive. To permit a 94-bed convalescent facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3623 GRANTED, IN PART, (subject facility shall be limited to a maximum of eighty beds (PC93-99) (4 yes votes, 2 no votes, I absent). Waiver of code requirement DENIED (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Approved Negative Declaration (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Informational item at the meeting of September 28, 1993, Item B2. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by the owner, Frank Minissale and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - October 21, 1993 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 19, 1993 Posting of property - October 22, 1993 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 8, 1993. STATEMENT: Frank Minissale, 111S. Mohler Drive, Anaheim. The request has been approved for an 80-bed facility but with the denial of the parking waiver, there could be no more than 52 beds and the project would no longer be feasible. He went to the Traffic Engineer and for 89 beds, he said he would approve 54 or 55 spaces. All the other facilities in the area have far less parking than that. He then briefed the results of a survey he had done on four other such facilities relative to parking ratio - beds to number of spaces, the highest being 100 beds with 61 parking spaces or .6 cars per bed. He is requesting .7 cars per bed but was denied. For 10 more spaces, he would only need an 796 City Hall t Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NO _V~MR~ ER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. area for 10 more cars but also an area to turn around and get into them. He also addressed the issue of setbacks and concluded that he has considerable more area per bed than any facility in Orange County. He has been trying to develop his property for 10 years and he is urging the Council to grant the waivers because he does not feel they are extreme. There also seems to be concern in the neighborhood that the structure would not be attractive enough. The rendering of the facility was thereupon posted on the Chamber wall. He had help in designing the facility and feels it is far more attractive than most structures in Santa Aha Canyon. Mayor Daly. It is an unusual situation. The Planning Commission approved a proposal for 80 beds but denied the request for a parking waiver. He knows that one of the reasons is because of the importance of the site. It is at a residential intersection. Parking is very important because nobody wants any spill over. If the City's parking requirement for convalescent hospitals is not reasonable, they need to know. If it is, then it is fair. Frank Minissale. It is far more than reasonable. The Planning Commission has his traffic report that he did personally. They will not even fill 70% of those spaces at any one time. There is a bigger problem with the school spill over. Mayor Daly opened the public hearing. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN FAVOR s None PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN OPPOSITION: Larry Thomas, 220 S. Old Bridge Road, four houses away. The street has a major headache. E1 Rancho Junior High School causes quite a traffic jam. They cannot have any additional parking on those streets. They are very concerned that this development will bring parking onto the street. They hope the City Council can maintain the required number of spaces. He confirmed for the Mayor that parking is the major problem. People park on every street in the neighborhood. Fire trucks cannot get down streets in that neighborhood. The junior high school does not have sufficient parking. Rod Agajanian, 120 S. Mohler, Anaheim. He lives directly across the street. He has circulated a petition in the immediate area. Host of the people do not even know about this. He also has a letter which was supposedly fax'd to the Council from Frank Doti which he submitted opposing the 80 bed facility listing the several reasons why the Del Giorgio/Stone Creek Area residents are opposed. He then explained his views. When he moved to the area five years ago and checked with City Hall relative to what was proposed on the property next to him on the south east portion of Mohler and Santa Ana Canyon, he was assured that this property was in the scenic corridor and designated for Iow-density residential and he should not have a concern. A couple of years after he moved in, he has had to come to the City to try to protect what he has built. One of his concerns is that the Council is going to 797 City Hall r Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2r 1993 - 5:00 P.M. allow a change and a commercial venture to move in across the street from him. He is also concerned about the other piece of property. The traffic on Santa Aha Canyon Road and Mohler is horrendous especially with kids walking to school and their parents driving their children to school. (He also submitted a copy of the petition.) Phil Joujon-Roche, 450 Via Vista, Anaheim. He drives by the area twice a day. This has been a real historical site because there have been numerous proposals for it in the last few years. The overall big picture is that a commercial development is not appropriate in a residential area. He is present representing Sacpoa (Santa Aha Canyon Property Owners Association) founded in 1970 to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Mohler Drive area. They were assured in 1971 when they were annexed that the low-density residential character would be maintained. Their concerns focus on traffic. Emergency vehicles must frequently come to convalescent hospitals. If that should occur during a morning or afternoon traffic jam, they could not get through. It would jeopardize the lives of the people in the convalescent hospital as well as the school children. After briefing other aspects relating to traffic, he concluded by urging that the Council deny the request. Approval of this commercial project in a residential area will set a precedent. There are homes on three sides and a school on another. The adjacent Miller property which Mr. Agajanian referred to could then be a candidate for commercial development. The property is already zoned RH22000. They would like to see it maintained hillside estate iow-density residential. With that density, three homes could be built on the site. Jeanie Averell, 171 Canyon Crest Drive, Anaheim. She is representing the nine homeowners on her street who are opposed for the same reasons as previously stated. It is a very poor location for a convalescent home. She theh elaborated on the noises that are generated from the high school - band practice, after school and weekend sports, school bells, etc., which would be a disturbance to the convalescent home probably resulting in complaints. She asked that they not permit a convalescent facility at that site. SUm(ATXON/REnUT~AL BY APPL!CANT: Frank Minissale. The school is there to stay and several hundred car8 a day come in and out. He took a survey of the traffic at convalescent homes. At the 100 bed facility, there were only 8 cars in the hours of high'school traffic, 7:15 to 8:15. With 80 bede, it would only be 5 or 6. Cars going up Mohler will immediately turn into the facility and not leave because they are employees. Relative to parking on Mohler, there is no parking on Mohler Drive. If there is a big spill over, it is their problem and not his problem. He made a thorough investigation at four different facilities as he previously reported and they do not fill up the parking lot at any time. The school's problem is also not his. He needs a break on the parking which he does not think is excessive. He still has 40% more parking than other facilities in Orange County. 798 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMB_ER 2f 1993 - 5:00 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to deny the CEQA Negative Declaration finding. Before further action was taken, Council Member Hunter asked the City Attorney if they can approve the CEQA Finding and still deny the permit. City Attorney White. They could do so. The purpose of CEQA is to determine if the project could have an adverse effect on the environment. If so, it would be inappropriate to approve a negative declaration. Even if they approve the negative declaration, they may find that although the project may not adversely affect the environment but is still inappropriate in the area, they could deny the resolution. It is not wholly inconsistent. If one of the grounds for denying the CUP is that the project could adversely affect the environment, it would be consistent to deny both. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion to deny the negative declaration CEQA finding. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Pickler, Daly NOES: Feldhaus, Hunter, Simpson ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Council Members Pickler and Daly voted no. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Daly offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3623. Before further action was taken, Council Member Hunter asked for clarification that the Planning Commission approved an 80-bed facility; Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She answered that was correct but they denied the parking waiver. Council Member Hunter. What Mr. Minissale is saying, he cannot build an 80-bed facility without the parking waiver. Council Member Feldhaus. Eighty beds at .8 spaces per bed requires 64 spaces. The Traffic Engineer has done a parking study and approved it with a 15% waiver and because of the investigation that they did on other convalescent homes felt the code was too restrictive at .8 with a 15% difference which brought it down to 54 spaces. Mr. Minissale has to come up with those spaces acc0rdin~ to the Traffic Engineer. They can still h01d him to 64 and h~ would not have a waiver because he would be meeting the code with 80 beds. Annika Santalahti. Since the Commission approved it with such a reduction and change rather than approve the exhibits as posted on the Chamber wall, they approved it with a requirement that prior to the issuance of any permits, that final drawings be submitted in connection with a public hearing. The resolution also included a 25 foot structural setback along Santa Ana Canyon Road and that is a point Mr. Minissale also objected to today. Mayor Daly. He is opposed to the project as proposed but if there is a way to resolve the differences between Mr. Minissale and the neighbors, he would 799 City Hall, Anaheim, C&lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVENa_ER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. encourage that process to take place. He is well on his way to a quality project but as proposed, he cannot support it. He then explained that due to a prior commitment, he has to leave the Council meeting. He thereupon turned the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem Simpson. Mayor Daly left the Council Chamber. (7:55 p.m. ) Council Member Hunter. He asked if the Council could send the project back to the Planning Commission at this stage. City Attorney White. Jurisdiction at present lies with the City Council. The Council is required to make the final decision on the project. The Council could refer the project to the Planning Commission for another report and recommendation but it would ultimately still have to return to the Council for a final decision. Council Member Hunter. Miss Santalahti is saying no matter what the Council does, there is going to have to be another public hearing at some point. Annika Santalahti. If the Council concurs with the fashion in which the Planning Commission approved the project, that is correct. It would have to go back to the Commission for consideration of the revised plans because the changes they approved are drastic enough that they could not visualize easily what it would look like on the property or how the neighbors would respond. Mayor Pro Tem Simpson. If they uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission, Mr. Minissale is saying an 80-bed facility is not feasible but it would be down to 50 or 52 units; Annika Santalahti. That is what she understands. Mayor Pro Tem Simpson. He is asking that this be continued one or two weeks in order to allow the applicant to meet with the people present who did not have any input before. He hears two concerns - traffic and parking and also the commercial nature of the business. There is commercial within one-half mile. He is not sure what could be done with the property absent that. It is a problem lot. He could probably get three houses on the property but he cannot see them being commercially or economically feasible in today's market. MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved for a one-week continuance asking Mr. Minissale how much time he would need to meet with the neighbors to see if he can resolve the issues. Before further action was taken, Mr. Minissale stated he did not know if it was possible to do that. The traffic that would be generated is so low and the building is attractive. He is certain they just do not want the project there. They claim it is not commercial property but they have to take into consideration that the school is right next to him and within the same block as Fairmont with two shopping centers. He is the only residential property on the entire block. He feels it is spot zoning. Mayor Pro Tern Simpson then noted that a resolution to deny was made by the Mayor who is no longer present. City Attorney White. The Mayor offered the resolution and not being present cannot vote by proxy. The Council is entitled to vote on the resolution as it now stands or they can introduce a motion to continue or some other action that supersedes or takes a precedent over the main action. 8OO City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NO _VEMB__ER 2r 1993 - 5:00 P.M. Council Member Hunter thereupon seconded Council Member Simpson's motion to continue the matter; Council Member Simpson. He is going to amend his motion to two weeks. Council Member Feldhaus. Proposals on the property have been coming to the City in various forms during his five years'on the Planning Commission and now on the Council. Mr. Minissale keeps getting turned down. This project had City staff approval as well as the Planning Commission. Mr. Minissale needs to talk to the neighbors and if he needs to revise his plans to meet the code, that is what he has to do. If he does not want to do that and wants a vote tonight, he will probably lose the project. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to continue the matter for two weeks. Council Member Daly was absent. MOTION CARRIED. C4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: 114: APPOINTMENT TO THE SOUTH COAST AIR OUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: Mayor Pro Tem Simpson. An item has arisen since the meeting agenda was posted that requires action to be taken prior to the League of Cities meeting of November 4, 1993. It will, therefore, require waiving the Brown Act. City Attorney White. The City Council upon finding that the need to make a recommendation to the League of Cities arose since the agenda was posted last Friday, the Council by motion can waive the Brown Act requirement by an unanimous vote of the four remaining Council Members. MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act finding that the need to make a recommendation to the League of Cities at their meeting of November 4, 1993 arose since the agenda was posted last Friday. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. Council Member Daly was absent.' MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved that the Council recommend to the voting delegate of the City Selection Committee that they appoint Peter Buffa as a member of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. Council Member Daly was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 114: I-5 WIDENING AT WEST STREET: Council Member Feldhaus. Regarding the acquisition of properties by Caltrans for the I-5 widening coming through West Street, there are a lot of houses that were bought and boarded up and then have sat there. They started getting broken into. There are a couple of residents living right across the street and one along the street who began to have concerns for their own safety and their homes. They called the Police Department and the Police said they had no authority to go there because it was the responsibility of the California Highway Patrol now. Even when the Police were told that the perpetrators could be seen breaking in, the Police said they were not going to respond because there is no jurisdiction. There should be some mechanism by which there is an agreement with Caltrans that the City can send units out and if they do so, that Caltrans reimburse the City for those services. Those people still need to have some kind of protection along that area. City Manager Ruth. He will be happy to follow up on that. He heard there was a problem just the other day and will pursue the matter with the Police Chief and also Public Works. 801 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1993 - 5:00 P.M. 114: MAP WITH AGENDA ITEMS.- Council Member Feldhaus. On agenda items, he feels it would be helpful to have a blowup or a map of the particular area involved. Many times he gets an item but does not know where it is without having to refer to a Thomas Guide - not only public hearing items, but some others. A map would be helpful for reference purposes. Mayor Pro Tem Simpson asked that the City Manager check into the matter. ADJOURNMENT: By general consent the Council meeting was adjourned. (8.- 15 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 8O2