Loading...
1992/07/21C:i. tv _w~_3.3., Anaheim,-m, Ca~.:L~ornia - COUNCil. M]I;NUTES - JU~'F 2:L, ~992 - SzOO P.N, o PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: .. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. .. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sob1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Eric Nicoll ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:40 p.m. on July 17, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Hunter 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. Smith vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 66-64-96. b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative regarding labor relations matters -Government Code Section 54957.6. c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation puz*~u~n&.. &..c~ ~voz*nmon~ ~do S~o~t. on ~)~.0(b)(1). e. To meet with its real property negotiator concerning (a) the acquisition or sale of certain property in the vicinity of 1313 South Harbor Boulevard, owned by the Walt Disney Co., and (b) the possible disposition of certain property to California Department of Transportation relating to the widening of the I-5 Freeway. f. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters 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. By general Consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:05 p.m. ) 481 CJ. tv Bail, xnahe~l.m, C4~]~t.£orn£& -COUNCXL MXNU'X'g8 - 0'0X,y 21. 1992 - 5:00 P.N. AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:15 p.m.). ~NVOCAT~ON: Pastor Phil Aguilar, Set Free Church, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE; Council Member William Ehrle led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PRESENTATION: - Mayor Hunter read a resolution received from the City of Fullerton to the City of Anaheim declaring the following: " .... on behalf of the entire City Council of FulXerton declare our support of the comprehensive efforts of the Walt Disney Company and the City (Anaheim) in creating the new Disney resort in which all California will benefit ..." FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE. CITY in the amount of $6,650,874.90 for the period ending July 17, 1992, in accordance with the 1992-93 Budget, were approved. Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:23 p.m.) · Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:24 p.m.) PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: City Clerk Sohl announced that those present to speak on Item Cl would be heard under that portion of the agenda. ;TEMS OF ~UBL~C INTEREST: Pastor Phil Aguilar, Set Free Church. A consensus has been reached between Mr. Taormina, himself and others on a new project they have been working on in converting the former Elks Building at 920 N. Anaheim Boulevard to a community center/youth center. They are submitting the paperwork tomorrow for a CUP for the Set Free Community Center. It will be run by volunteers from the church and opened to all people. After sitting on the Gang and Drug Task Force for several months and seeing the needs, they will put together a special program to address the needs/problems. It will not cost the City any money. They plan on recreating the outward appearance of the building as it was originally. The inside will be basic and used to help all kinds of people in all different ways in the community. Michael Redy, 1062 Windy Ridge Court, Anaheim. He first submitted material to the Council entitled, "Information Sheet for OUSD's Proposed Elimination of the Canyon Rim School Site" attached to which was additional data including newspaper articles on the issue. He represents approximately 2,000 homeowners in the area. At present, the OUSD is proposing to eliminate the elementary school that was to be built. Three developers are involved - Presley, Woodcrest and Baldwin. The park is already in. He lives at the end of the cul-de-sac where the school was supposed to be built. They are residents of Anaheim. The OUSD is going to merge two Mello-Roos Districts - CFD89-1 and CFD89-2. They are saying the residents do not have any say in the matter because they do not pay into those districts. Their developer donated the 482 ~:Ltv Hall. ~_.ahe~. ~al:Lforn:l.a - CO~CZL XXNOTBS - JULY 21. 1992 - St00 P.M. ,. land for the school and passed that cost onto the home buyers. ~wo thousand (2,000) homeowners bought into the a~ea in good faith expecting an elementary school. It has been planned for two to three years and now the school district is pulling the ~ug out from underneath them. City Attorney White answering Council Member Pickler, explained that the Council does not have Jurisdiction over the school districts. Mr. Redy is undoubtedly already pursuing the issue with the OUSD. He does not know if the two Mello-Roos Districts are Anaheim districts or created outside of the City. Michael Redy. The City helped in the formation of the two Mello-Roos Districts as well as 1989-1 and 1989-2. They are proposing to modify the City Mello-Roos Districts and that is why he is asking the City to get involved. The are playing with Mello-Roos Districts the City developed in 1989. Mayor Hunter. He asked for a staff report on the issue from the Planning Director or Planning staff giving some history on the matter. The-site chosen is an excellent site and that is what it ought to be. He recalled that it was in all the agreements that there was going to be an elementary school next to the park. He also read with dismay that the OUSD is talking about not building the school at that location. City Manager Ruth. Staff has had extensive meetings on the issue and Chris Jarvi is very much involved. Staff will be happy to provide a report. Council Member Daly. It would be well to clarify whether the Con~nunity Facilities District (CFD) is a subject between the property owners and the school district. Mr. Redy indicated the school district is trying to modify the Mello-Roos Districts which the City set up. City Attorney White. The CFD was set up between the property owner and the City. It did not directly involve the school district at the time it was created. They are not a party to the documents. They can establish separate CFDs · . Joel Fick, Planning Director. The Public Works/Engineering Department is involved in setting up the City's Mello-Roos Districts. His understanding is both districts were formed entirely by the school district. He would be interested in looking at the information submitted to the Council tonight. There are four districts - two City districts and two Orange Unified School Districts. Council Member Daly aske~ if it is true that the school district is trying to modify one of the City's districts; Mr. Flck answered that is not correct. Council Member Daly. He assumed that the staff report will address that issue as well. Paul Weimer. He was before the Council about three years ago and asked if they would correct the situation he considered inequitable relative to the City's business license fee. The change made in the fee lumped barbers, beauticians and babysitters With business professionals. His is a two-chair barber shop and he is paying the same fee as an attorney such as Mayor Hunter pays. There is no comparison between what a barber makes and that of an 483 C;i.'ty Hall,., Anaheim. California - Colmc~., HINUTBS - JuLY 2:L, ~992 - S~00 P-M- ., attorney or doctor. He pays $242 a yea]:. The equitable thing to do is to open up the issue for discussion and find a solution to the inequity as it now stands. Mayor Hunter. The Council has previously asked the City Treasurer to revisit the matter and submit a report regarding, the issue Mr. Weimer has raised again. C~T~ MANAGER/D~PARTME~~ CONSENT CALENDARs On motion by Council Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Daly, 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 Nos. 92R-155 through 92R-157, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 92R-155 through 92R-157, both inclusive, for adoption. ) Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Al. 118~ The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Managements a. Claim submitted by Ronald Joseph Thackrah for indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 24, 1992. b. Claim submitted by Christopher De Greet c/o Patricia De Greet for bodily injury sustained purpo~edly due to actions of the City on or about May 5, 1992. c. Claim submitted by Pearl S. Olson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 7, 1992. d. Claim submitted by Eloisa Espinoza for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 4, 1992. e. Claim submitted by James W. Redfield for property damage sustained purpo~edly due to actions of the City on or about April 21, 1992. f. Claim submitted ~y Maria Tavoularis for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 5, 1992. g. Claim submitted by Nancy Straits for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 26, 1992. h. Claim submitted by Bernardine Fields and Jack Fields for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 17, 1992. i. Claim submitted by David Scott Jones for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 17, 1992. J. Claim submitted by Steven G. Cooley for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 1, 1992. 484 Cl.'by H4i11. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ,;ULY 21. 1992 - Ss00 P.M. k. Claim submitted by Yolanda & Olivia Jaramillo c/o Ronald S. Katz, Esq., for bodily injury and property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 25, 1992. 1. Claim submitted by Rosalie M. Ginther for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or...about January 3, 1992. m. Claim submitted by Stanley W. Keturaris for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 23, 1992. A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Park and Recreation Commission meeting held May 27, 1992. · 107: Receiving and filing the Statistical Report Summary ending May 31, 1992, as submitted by the Building Official. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meetings held May 14, 1992, and June 11, 1992. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meetings held May 14, 1992, and June 11, 1992. A3. 144: Approving an Agreement with the County of Orange for Arterial Highway Financing Program No. 1292 Project Administration (Agreement No. 1297 - Lincoln Avenue from Rio Vista Street to Sunkist Street); and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. A4. 134: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-155: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AFFIRMING THE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS. AS. 158: Authorizing the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to execute the Right-of-Way Certification for the 1992-93 Combined Road Program projects (14 projects at various locations). A6. 144: Approving and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Right-of-Way Certification for Arterial Highway Financing Program (AHFP) No. 1248, Anaheim Boulevard. A7. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-.~56= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS, AND SETTING A DATE TO CONSIDER ABANDONING THAT PORTION OF JACKSON STREE~ EAST OF ARMANDO STREET AND SOUTH OF FRONTERA STREET. (Abandonment No. 91--11A.) (Suggested public hearing date: August 18, 1992 at 6.'00 p.m.) ' A8. 123: Approving the First Amendment to Agreement with UMA Engineering, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for the Convention Way Alignment Study; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said First Amendment. A9. 1282 Receiving and filing the monthly Financial Analysis for eleven months ended May 31, 1992, as presented by the Director of Finance. Al0. 117= Approving the Investment Policy Statement, Strategy and Goals for 1992/1993, as submitted by the City Treasurer. 485 C:ttv HaX~, AnaheXm, c~X~LfornXa - c~~CXL Mx~s - JULY 21. 1992 - 5:00 P.M. ,. All. 123: Approving an Agreement with the Orange County Transportation .Authority (OCTA), in the amount of $31,225 to provide transportation services to senior citizens (to and from Feedback Foundations's TLC meal programs and the Anaheim Senior Day Center). A12. 177: Approving the submission of a letter of support for the Family Self-SuffiCiency Program to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development , and authorizing the Mayor to sign said letter. A~3, 12~: RESOLUTION NO, 92R-1~7; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT MASTER SUBGRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1992 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1993. 106= Amending the FY 92-93 Budget to increase revenues and expenditures in Program 395 by $18,553 each. A14. 123: Approving a Second Amendment to Agreement with PRC/Public Management Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for consulting services through June 30, 1993, in connection with the Police Automated Systems Development. A15. 123= Approving a Seventh Amendment to Agreement with Dr. Eric W. Gruver, Ph.D. for psychological evaluations for final entry-level police officer and Jailer candidates for a term expiring July 31, 1994. A16. 124: Approving the revised contract for providing utility services to tenants or exhibitors at the Anaheim Convention Center. A17. 123: Approving an Agreement with Disneyland, a division of Walt Disney Company, Inc., to allow payment for additional police services for unusually long events, on a year to year basis. Council Members Pickler and Simpson abstained from acting on this item due to a conflict of interest. A18. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held June 9, 1992. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-155 throuqh 92R-157f both inclusive, for ,,adoption s AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS~ Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-155 through 92R-157, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent CaXendar. MOTXONS CARRXED. A19. 107: ORDINANCE NOS, 5310 AND 5311: (Alternate A and Alternate B. ) ORDINANCE NO. 531O - ADOPTION - (ALTERNATE A): Adding a new Chapter 15.01 to Title 15 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to license requirements of contractors and subcontractors. 486 C,L~v ~&11. ~nah~e'lB. _c2_lJ. forn~a - COUNCZZ, MINU'L'BB - GULY 21. 1992 - 5:00 P.M. O~nTNANC~ NO. 5311 - ADOPTION - (ALTERNATE Bt: · Adding a new Chapter 15.01 to. Title 15 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to license requirements of contractors and subcontractors. This matter was continued from the meetings of May 12, June 2 and June 9, 1992 to this date. " · Mayor Hunter. He asked that the matter be continued for about thirty more days. He understands in discussions with City staff that there might be agreement on Alternative B. He suggested that the matter be removed from the agenda at this time and referred back to staff. City Attorney White. He asked for clarification whether the matter should be brought back automatically or removed from the agenda and brought back some time in the future when it is appropriate; Mayor Hunter agreed that the latter would be the best course of action. Council Member Hunter moved that the item be withdrawn from the agenda at this time and referred back to staff, Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS B1 - B9 FROM THE pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 29m 1992m ~NFORMAT~ON ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JULY 21. 1992~ B1. 179~ RECLASSIFICATION NOv 91-92-13. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543, WAIVER OF COD~ REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT NO~ 3494, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 146~1 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: Newport Pacific Realty & Investment, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard, Ste. 900, Newport Beach, CA 92660. LOCATIONs 2861-2863 West Lincoln Avenue (Bel Air Manor). Property is approximately 1.8 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 300 feet east of the centerline of Bel Air Street. For a change in zone from RM-1200 to RM-2400. To permit the conversion of an existing 65-unit 'deck-type" apartment complex to a 65-unit, 'affordable', 'deck-type', condominium complex with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and required elevators. To establish a 1-lot, 65-unit, RM-2400, air-space, condominium subdivision. ~CT~ON TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONs Reclassification No. 91-92-13 DENIED (PC92-77) (4 yes votes, 3 no votes). Waiver of code requirement DENIED. CUP NO. 3494 DENIED ~C92-78). Tentative Tract Map No. 14611 DENIED. Approved Negative Declaration. Letter b£ appeal submitted by the ownerst Newpor~ Pacific Realty & Investment. Set for public hearing July 21, 1992 (SEE ITEM D1 TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARiNgS ). See public hearing today under Item D1. B2. ~79~ CLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-~9 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: The Fluor Family Trust, 4521 Perham Road, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625. AGENTs CecAl C. Wright, 265 S. Anita Drive, Ste. 205, Orange, CA 92668. 487 Anaheim, California - COUNCZ~ NZNUTES - JULY 2~, 1992 - S~O0 . LOCATION: 1320-1382 Auto Center Drive. Property is approximately 7.98 acres located at the southwest corner of Auto Center Drive (formerly Taft Avenue) and Sanderson Avenue. For a change in zone from the ML to CL Zone, and to construct a 2-story, 50,000 square foot, medical office building. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PY~..~NING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 91-92-19 GRANTED (PC92-79) ($ yes votes, 2 no votes). Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Members Pickler and Simpson, and therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. ~3. ~.79; WAIVER OF CODE ~EQUIREMENT, CONDITIONA~ USE pERMIT NO. 3500 AND NEGATIVE D~CI2tRATION: OWNER: C. Darle Hale Revocable Trust,. 3910 E. Coronado Street, Unit B, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: Darle Hale, 3910 E. Coronado Street, Unit B, Anaheim, CA 92807. LOCATION: 4001 E. La Palms Avenue. Property is approximately 0.95 acre located at the northeast corner of La Palms Avenue and Van Buren Street. To permit an industrially related office building (including training seminars) with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. AcTioN TAKEN BY THE ~LANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3500 GRANTED, for one year (PC92-80) (6 yes votes, i absent). Waiver of code requirement APPROVED. Approved Negative Declaration. B4. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 330, AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHLANDS AT ..ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN, DENSITY TRANSFER REQUEST NO. 92-01 AND NEGATIV~ DECLARATION: OWNER: Presley Companies, 19 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660. LOCATION: Development Areas 6, 8 and 11 of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1). A General Plan amendment from the General Co__m~_ercial to Hillside Medium Density Residential and General Commercial designations in order to reduce the proposed commercial site from 8.0 acres to 2.2 acres and develop the remaining 5.8 acres with a 48-unit condominium complex as an extension of Develolxnent Area 6. To transfer 48-units from Development Area 11 to Development Area 6 to justify the proposed 48-unit condominium complex in Development Area 6. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: GPA NO. 330 recommended for approval (PC92-81) (6 yes votes, i absent). Recommended APPROVAL,to Amend Specific Plan, Highlands at Anaheim Hills (PC92-82). Dens£ty Transfer Request No, 92-01 APPROVED. This £toa w~s so~ for a Fubl£c hearing on July 28, 1992, due to approval of GPA No. 330. SS. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 9~-92-23, WAIVER OF CODE R~QUIR~NT. CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO. 3524 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION= OWNER: Judith Johnson, 805 N. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: Chinmaya Mission (west) C/O Paul Kott Realtors, Inc., 504 N. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806. LOCATION: 899 South West Street. Property is approximately 0.57 acre located on the west side of West Street and approximately 140 feet south of the centerline of Hampshire Avenue. 488 City Hall, Auahej. m, califor~a - Co~Nc~ X~~s - ~ULY 2~, 1992 ,. To reclassify from the CR (coanercial Recreation) Zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone. To permit a church with on-site pastoral (caretaker) unit with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum front yard setback. ~CT~ON TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 91-92-23 GRANTED (PC92-83) (7 yes votes). CUP NO. 3524 GRANTED (PC92-84) . Waiver of code requirement APPROVED. Approved Negative Declaration. Council Member Pickler had questions/concerns relative to parking - sixty-seven parking spaces required, twenty-eight proposed - with a maximum congregation of forty-five. He suggested that it be limited to forty-five. If the congregation grew to one hundred, it would create a parking problem. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. If the number is limited, it would require a public hearing. One of the Planning Commission conditions prohibits the church conducting two church meetings at the same time in two different places in the building. The Traffic Engineer did not have any great concerns. John Lower, Traffic & Transportation Manager. He confirmed that on the basis of the shared parking study submitted, staff felt comfortable with the proposal. Council Member Daly asked if there was a legal way to limit or to control future situations. City Attorney White. The Council can limit the CUP to a period of years, but cannot limit it to this particular church. They could at the end of that time to the extent that there are changes in the neighborhood, require a new application to determine whether it should be extended. That would require setting it for a hearing and imposing that additional condition. He also explained for Council Member Daly if parking became a problem to the extent it were being operated detrimental to the public welfare or to the neighborhood, this like any other CUP could be set for a hearing and either modified or repealed because of the parking problem. Paul Kott, 504 N. State College Blvd., Anaheim. He is the real estate agent handling the transaction for both parties. The group is looking for an area to conduct their worship service. After the service, the congregation goes upstairs to eat. There are not more people involved but the same number of people downstairs merely going upstairs. He does not know if the Council wants to restrict them t9 forty-five. They were amenable to a restriction; however, they do not solicit new membership. If their congregation grew to eighty-five or one hundred as Council Member Pickler suggested, there would not be any place to park. Annika Santalahti. No maximum limit was imposed except to the extent that maximum attendance at one time is basically one floor or the other of the 4,000 square foot building. If they did not have a second story, 32-spaces would be required. They have twenty-eight. The CUP indicates they shall not use both floors for assembly at the same time. Council Member Daly. He is satisfied that it is appropriate. Later if it becomes a hardship to the neighborhood, it will be dealt with accordingly. At the conclusion of discussion, no action was taken on this item. 489 CXty ~[aX].. Anaheim. CalX,oFnXa - (:X)~c~L x~~$ - J3JLY 21. 1992 - 5:00 B6. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3523. CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLAS~ ~ OWNER: Anaheim Country Inn, 856 S. Walnut Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: Salvation Army, 1300 S. Lewis Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: 856 South Walnut Street (Anaheim Country Inn ). Prol~erty is approximately 0.7 acre located at the northeast corner of Beacon Avenue and Walnut Street. To permit a women's residential center. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3523 GRANTED, for 18 months (PC92-85) (6 yes votes, I abstained). A review of the Plann£ng Commission's decision was requested by Council Members Simpson and Hunter, and therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. Council Member Simpson requested that the public hearing be set after August 17, 1992. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS B7, ~79~ ~RO~OSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE ACCESSORy ~P~TAIL SAL_~ OF TILE. FLOOR COVeRiNGS AND W~NDOW C0VER~NGS FOR pARCELS ZONED NL WHICH AR~ ON STATE COLLEG~ BOULEVARD BETWEEN BALL ROAD AND KATELLA AVENUE: ACT~0N TAKEN By THE pLANNING COMMISSION: Approved proposed code amendment. ORDINANCE NO, 532~ - (INTRODUCTION): Amending Suboection .060 and adding Subsection .065 of Section 18.61.030 of Chapter 18.61 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning. Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5321 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO, 5~2~; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .060 AND ADDING SUBSECTION .065 OF SECTION 18.61.030 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Council Member Pickler asked how this would affect the Platinium Triangle area. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The matter was discussed with the Planning Commission. On this stretch of State College Boulevard between Ball area. The Planning Commission felt it would not impede the growth of the area. B8. 179: p~oPOSED COD~ AMENDMENT P~RTAIN~NG TO spEcI_~F~N T~E ~MOVAL: ~CT~ON TAKEN ~¥ THE pLANN~N~ COMMISSION.- Approved proposed code amendment. ORDINANCE NO. 5322 FOR INTRODUCTION: Amending Subsections 18.84.030.040, 18.84.030.053 and 18.84.030.060 of Section 18.84.030 of Chapter 18.84 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Specimen Tree removal. Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5322 for first reading. 490 C&ty Hall. ~nahe~m, _california - COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 21. 1992 - 5~00 P.M. ORDINANC~ NO. 5322: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 18.84. 030. 040, 18.84. 030. 053 AND 18.84. 030. 060 OF SECTION 18.84. 030 OF CHAPTER 18.84 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL. 89. ],7~9: PROPOSED CODE AHEND~NT PERTAINING TO MINIMUM RECREATIONAL-LEISURE A~A FOR DECK-T~PE HOUSING PROJECTS: ACTION TAK~_N BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved proposed code amendment. O~DINANC~ NO. 5323 FOR ~NTRODUCTION.' Amending Subsection 18.96.033.040 of Section 18.96.033 of Chapter 18.96 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to minimum recreational-leisure area for deck-type housing projects. Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5323 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 5323: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION 18.96.033.040 OF SECTION 18.96.033 OF CHAPTER 18.96 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MINIMUM RECREATIONAL-LEISURE AREA FOR DECK-TYPE HOUSING PROJECTS. B10/B11. 179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5319 AND 5320 FOR ADOPTION= WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES: The titles of the following ordinances were read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance Nos. 5319 and 5320) Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5319 for adoption, amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 70-71-47(41) located at 2870 E. La Crests Avenue from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the ML zone; and offered Ordinance No. 5320 for adoption, amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 72-73-49(2) located at 6270 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road from the RS-A-43,000(SC) zone to the CL(SC) zone. Both ordinances were introduced at the meeting of July 14, 1992. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANC~ NO. 5319~ 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. 70-71-47(41) located at 2870 E. La Crests Avenue from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the ML zone. ) ORDINANCE NO. 5320: 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. 72-73-49(2) located at 6270 E. Santa Aha Canyon Road £rom the RS-A-43,000 ( SC ) zone ~o ~he CL ( ~O ) zone. ) Roll cal~ Vote on Ordinance Nos. ~9 and 5320 gor adoption: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5319 and 5320 duly passed and adopted. 491 (pity Hall, Anaheim, cal$~0rn:La - COUNCIl, MINOTES - jULY 2~, 1992 - 5:00 p.M. C~. 179: CONSIDeRATiON OF ~ROPOSED ORDINANCES ~ERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS: ALTERNATIVE A ~ ORDINANCE NO. 5317 (ADOPTION) Adding, amending and repealing various sections of various chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to billboards. ALTERNATIVE B= ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) Adding, amending and repealing various sections of various chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to billboards. (Freeway-oriented billboards. ) (C)~ ORDINANCE NO. ~18 (ADOPTION) Amending Section 4.08.020 and Subsection . 010 of Section 4.08.050 of, and adding new Section 4.08.100 to Chapter 4.08 of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to outdoor advertising signs and structures -- near freeways. This matter was continued from the meeting of June 23, 1992 to this date. At the meeting of June 9, 1992, Council Member Pickler requested that the City Attorney prepare an ordinance for Council consideration to allow freeway billboards in commercial or industrial zones by a CUP. At the meeting of June 23, 1992, two ordinances were introduced by Council Member Pickler and the matter continued from that meeting to this date with the request that an additional ordinance be prepared incorporating Items 2, 3 and 5 contained in the City Attorney report of June 17, 1992. Submitted for this meeting was report dated July 15, 1992 from the City Attorney. City Attorney White. He briefed the Council regarding the two ordinances previously introduced and also the new ordinance brought forward tonight (Alternative B) incorporating four changes, one more than the Council requested at their June 23, 1992 meeting (see minutes that date) as explained in his July 15, 1992 report. He also referred to the board to the right of the Council dais which graphically depicted what each of the proposed ordinances would allow relative to freeway billboards. The Council has the option of keeping the current billboard ordinance which does not allow freeway billboards, adopt ordinance Alternative A (5317) which could be done tonight, or Alternative B which is before the Council for the first time. This is the modified version which is more limited than A but would still allow freeway billboards. The latter ordinance could not be adopted tonight but only introduced and then adoptsd at the Council's next meeting. Ordinance 5318 described as 'C' is an amendment to Title 4 of the code which would be necessary if freeway billboards are to be allowed under any scenario, i.e., if Item Alterna~cive A or Alternative B is adopted. Council Member Pickler then posed a line of questioning to the City Attorney for purposes of clarification. Council Member Daly. The Council received a briefing from the City Attorney regarding the effectiveness of the CUP process regarding billboards or any other conditional uses. He asked the City Attorney to comment on the concept of a CUP and what limitations there are if the City denies a CUP. City Attorney White. He first explained the process relative to obtaining discretionary approval from the City or approval of a conditional use. The fact that it is a conditional use does not mean that the City has unbridled 492 City Hal:Lf ~-ahe~f cal£~orn£a - COUNCIL M:I:NIJTES - JULY 21r 1992 - 5z00 P,M. · discretion whether or not to grant or deny a CUP. Courts are clear on the -point. If the criteria are established by the applicant for the permit by presenting evidence at the public hearing on each of the criteria in the Zoning Code for conditional use permits and at the same time there is no substantial evidence presented in opposition as to why those criteria are not met, it is incumbent upon the City, either the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or Council to grant the CUP. There is not unlimited discretion. If the City chooses not to grant the permit and the applicant wishes to pursue the matter through litigation, there are instances where a Court will grant a writ of Mandate to demand the City not withstanding the Council's action to grant the permit because the court finds substantial evidence meeting the requirements under the code and not substantial evidence which reasonably could have led to the decision to deny. Council Member Daly. He surmised then if one of the ordinance is approved under the theory that no additional billboards will be built along freeways unless the City Council grants a CUP, the City Council may not be able to say no to an individual CUP application because it may not have the legal recourse to say no; City Attorney White confirmed that is correct. Council Member Pickler stated that in the years he has been on the Council, there perhaps has been one challenge relative to a CUP; City Attorney White. The City has had multiple challenges but one in which it did not prevail. There have been challenges to the City's denial of CUPs. In most instances, the City prevails. Mayor Hunter opened the hearing on the ordinances asking first to hear from anyone present in favor of the proposed ordinances which would allow freeway billboards. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN FAVOR s None Mayor Hunter then asked to hear from those opposed. The following people spoke in opposition to amending the code to allow freeway billboards. Their comments and concerns are summarized. Wally Craig, Real Estate Agent, 2421 E. Seville Avenue, Anaheim. Putting anything on the freeway which may further distract drivers would be a detriment. Ray Torres, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and long-term City resident. He first commended the City for the progress made in City beautification through a number of programs especially in cleaning up signage and graffiti. The proposed billboard ordinances raised several questions. He then asked five questions relating to billboards in the City at the current time, the revenue generated and the expected revenue if the code is amended. He also asked for clarification on five items relating to the proposed amendment to the code. He will put those questions and points of clarification in a letter to the Mayor/City Council and would like a reply. The current billboard ordinance should be retained as is. Sally White, 809 W. Broadway, Anaheim. Nineteen (19) Orange County Cities have had the good Judgement to ban the urban blight of billboards. The leadership of those cities reflects the wishes of the citizens. Billboards are an act of aggression on the American landscape. She asked if the 493 CJ. tv Hall, Anaheim, C',aXiforn£a - COUNCIL MXNUTg_5 - ..TULY 2~, 199~ - 5:00 p.M. Councilmen who vote for the change will legally, ethically or morally accept -Pcampaign donations from the effected billboard companies for use in the November elections. She urged the Council not to peddle their birth rights for the financial benefits of a few, but join neighboring cities and preserve the skyline and the horizon for the benefit of all. Frank Feldhaus, 1879 Lullaby Lane, Anaheim. He is saddened to see citizens before the Council again having to address billboards. He urged retention of the current ordinance - no billboards allowed on freeways. The City has spent a great deal of time and money on signing standards to cleanup the commercial recreation (C-R Area, the objective being to take a positive step toward a beautification program citywide. There is no real material benefit to the City in allowing billboards. The issue should first have gone to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation before coming directly to the Council. There ks no one in the large audience favoring billboards. Hertha McLaughlin, 219 E. North Street, Anaheim. Do not lift the ban on billboards. There is no benefit to the City. The City is spending millions to put utilities underground to beautify the City, yet three Councllmembers are asking that more billboards be allowed. Great numbers of voters give of their time to help beautify the City. She believes the only ones to benefit from expanding the billboard ordinance are those Councilmembers who receive campaign contributions from the billboard interests. Ned Snavely, General Manager, Marriott Hotel and Chairman of the Visitor and Convention Bureau Board of Directors. He and his colleagues are concerned that the issue of billboards continually comes to the forefront. They have spent a lot of time, effort and money in developing plans to change the landscape. They have not yet had the benefit of seeing the results of their efforts. As a hotelier he-hears from visitors that the visual blight in the City does not put Anaheim in good standing across the country. Billboards and signs contribute to that visual blight. For the City to alter the current ordinance does not make sense in trying to attract business to the area. Because the issue was brought forward rather quickly, they have not had time to get everybody together for an official vote but have gotten their consent in a unanimous forum over the phone to represent their total opposition to amending the current ordinance and plead that the City not make the amendment. Jack Lindquist, President, Disneyland. Disneyland, the City of Anaheim and City staff have been working together for over a year developing plans for what they hope is going to lead to one of the biggest projects in the decade and one which they believe will revitalize and be a catalyst to dramatically expand Anaheim's role an~position as the hub of the tourist industry for not only Orange County, but also all of Southern California. His dream ks that Anaheimwill become the number one urban destination resort in the World. Some signs along the freeway will not destroy that dream, but they are not g~£ng ~ help £~ e£~her. ~veryone's impression of the city does not begin and end in the CR area. It is incumbent upon the City to do everything they can to maintain and build and start that image as soon as people arrive in the area. Billboards do not add to the beautification or image of any area. Council's consideration of A, B, or any change, is a step backwards and Anaheim is a forward looking City. The ordinance should remain as is. Dick Clark. There is a grass-roots citizens organization in the Community, Disneyland 2000, whose sole goal is to enhance the ability of the Disneyland expansion project in the public eye. As Mr. Lindquist said, any attempt to amend the current ordinance will be a step backwards. He feels that somebody on the Council is confused about where this City is trying to go and how it 494 City Hall.. Anahe_~m_o Cal,.lorn:La - CO.UNC:i:L MINUTES - JULY :~. 1992 - 5,00 P.M. · ,, should be getting there. Adding billboard blight is not going to help. He .urged that they leave the existing ordinance in place and do not spend anchors t~me trying to do otherwise. Miriam Kaywood. She urged the Council to read their lips - "no freeway billboards.'.- She served on the Council for 16 years but it was before her time that previous Councils had the good sense to outlaw freeway boards in 1969. Supposedly, it was over and done with yet there have been seven more attempts from 1983 to 1992 to resurrect the issue of freeway billboards and there is no compelling reason to do so. If it is not possible to take campaign funds without a quid pro quo, do not take them, or give them back. People continue to call her with their concerns and did so especially on this issue because they do not feel they are being heard by their present Council. This is one of the most disastrous things that could happen. With the City's current budget situation, there is no room for fooling around or wasting staff time to repeatedly come back with this issue. Anaheim should not tolerate or even have to discuss the issue one more time. In Redevelopment, the number one consideration is blight and the number one cause of blight is billboards. It is sad to be sitting before the Council again today on this item and she hopes this will be the end. She has never met a single person in Anaheim who is not opposed to freeway billboards and that is the only issue she knows of where there is total agreement. Everyone hates billboards, nobody wants them. She urged the Council to represent the people on this issue. Andrea ~, 400 N. West Street, Anaheim. The issue is mostly about aesthetics. There are groups working hard to make the City attractive. The citizens, those in the audience, the voters, have also worked hard to make the City attractive. She urged a no vote. Rosa Tolgo, 760 Zeyn Street, Anaheim. She does not know how any person who has been elected and entrusted with the interest and beautification of Anaheim could possibly consider allowing billboards to be erected along the streets and highways of the City. The income is insignificant. She questioned if the reason could be contributions from the various billboard companies. Billboards deface and disfigure the landscape. The very reasoning by some members of the Council spells politics in her mind and is blatant evidence of who they should not consider for re-election. She urged reconsideration of the issue. Betty Ronconi, 1241 S. Walnut Street, Anaheim, Board Member of Anaheim HOME. The message is loud and clear people who currently have different perspectives are all agreeing on this issue. The homeowners want to maintain the current standards, improve upon ~hose and not go backwards. Keith Olesenv 321N. Ph£1adelph£a, Anaheim. He has been £nvolved in the Community and in a 10~ o£ beau~i£ica~ion efforts particularly in ~he down~own and west Anaheim areas. A point Mrs. Kaywood brought up, why are we here again on this same issue. Nobody in their right mind has ever brought to the Council a request for billboards. The only ones who have are very specific lobbyists and specific City Council Members who in his opinion are tied to these lobbyists. He would like to be able to eliminate all billboards in the City. There'needs to be a strong statement made by the Council now and not reversed again in two or three months. Every time the situation occurs, big crowds of people show up to protest the issue and then when there are about a half a dozen people at meetings the issue is brought up again. He urged the Council to stop the nonsense and ask Mr. Elfend to find a new scam. 495 Paul Kott, Real Estate Agent in Anaheim. He questioned if there was any doubt how the citizens of Anaheim felt about the issue. He does not think that any Council Member could possibly believe anyone present could be in favor of billboards. He is aware of the benefits of good signage, but also aware of what easy targets they are for graffiti and blight it creates. One trip up Interstate 5 to Los Angeles is living proof. He urged that the Council not let them down and vote in opposition. Kay Renneman, 935 S. Emerald, Anaheim. She moved to Anaheim in 1976. Her son was murdered in Anaheim. She does not know everything but knows about crime and graffiti. She does not want anything added that will give more opportunities for graffiti. They should be figuring out more ways to keep the City clean and how to do things in Parks and Recreation to keep children busy. She urged that they drop the issue. Elsie Reed, 914 Fairview, Anaheim. She had been on vacation and was surprised to learn the issue had come up again. She thought it was settled last year. There are groups in the City working hard, especially Anaheim Beautiful, trying to get the City cleaned up. Billboards will not add anything. She understands the billboard people have offered to help non-profit organizations. If so, they can donate money directly and put their name on every piece of paper and what they do and what they have donated. That would accomplish a lot more. Sarah Collins. She talked with some younger people in the City today and asked what they thought about billboards and they decided, billboards... (several youngsters in the audience stood up and shouted - NOT! ! ). Kathleen Egbert, 2871 Polk Avenue, Anaheim. She first read an article from a Los Angeles Times Editorial on the subject. It revolved around campaign contributions from the billboard industry to some Councilmembers. She then urged that they listen to those who want to beautify the City and uphold the freeway billboard ban once again. Manuel Ontiveros, 2274 W. Rhodes, Anaheim. At his intersection of Brookhurst and La Palma, there are four billboards. Every time he pulls out of his driveway and neighborhood, there is always graffiti on the boards. It would take 24 hour armed security to prevent graffiti on billboards. He urged that the Council vote no. Patrick Pepper, 6312 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 157, Anaheim. Speaking as Chairman of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coaliation, the coalition goes on record as opposing any chsnge in the existing billboard ordinance. The results of a survey in May with 105 responses, all were unanimously against billboards. A nun~er were in favor of totally eliminating billboards throughout the entire City. Another issue ~ointed out b~ Council Member D&lyw if a CUP for a billboard .is denied, the applicant can go to cou~ and have that overturned. The only people who benefit are the attorneys and agents who represent billboard companies. The ordinance needs to benefit the citizens and it does not. No billboards. Francis Nutto, 621 Jambalaya, Anaheim. Thirty (30) years ago billboards were removed from the freeways in Anaheim as a result of an agreement between the billboard companies and the City. The billboard companies promised to remove freeway billboards if they could have more permitted locations on the surface streets. The City let them have more locations and by some serious work by the Planning Department, it was successful in getting freeway billboards removed. Several years ago, billboard companies proposed freeway billboards 496 Ctt? Hall, but adamantly refused to share the revenue. He would hope that the Council is .composed of forward looking individuals. He urged that they not go back to the past and give the billboard companies something that they traded for a favor. Join most of the cities in the County and keep the billboard prohibition in place. , Ben Bay, 2148 W. Grayson, Anaheim. He was not going to speak but did not want to let the chance go by of agreeing with HOME on something. If there was a vote in the City on billboards on how many would like to see more, he believes it would be unanimous against them any where and not Just on freeways. The City already has more than its share. Having been on the Council, he knows of the enticements the Council gets because he has listened to them and when campaign time comes around everyone is looking for money. He is certain there are pretty fair offers made on political contributions if the Council goes along with billboards. It is obvious that none of the voters in the City want them on freeways or anywhere else. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. A few weeks ago, the Council unanimously revised the Planning and Zoning ordinance and part of the wording relative to block walls mandated the planting of vines to reduce the opportunity for graffiti. It is inconsistent to pass the proposed ordinance and create more opportunities for graffiti. Mayor Hunter closed the public input portion of the issue. Mayor Hunter. He is certain the audience is aware that he is opposed to the ordinances and will not be voting for any of them. Council Member Daly. He has been against them from the beginning and hopes the issue will not again appear on a Council Agenda. MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to deny proposed Ordinances 5317 and 5318 which were previously introduced and also that proposed ordinance Alternative B also be denied. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Simpson stated that certainly campaign contributions was not one of the things he had in mind. His position on that issue is clear. Not only is he not going to run, he would not run anybody else's campaign either. What he had in mind was trying to get rid of some of the blight in the inner city that he considers far worse than on the freeways. It turns out that trying to do so may not be legal or even constitutional. One of the ways to discourage inner-city boards is for some of the business people in the City to sto~using them. They speak out against billboards, but there are a lot of businesses in Anaheimthat advertise on them. Perhaps they should go back to the bue£nese community and if they want to clean up Anaheim, find other ways to advertise. He reiterated he had some kind of exchange in mind in order to eliminate inner-city boards. Council Member Ehrle. When the issue came up a few weeks ago, he seconded Council Member Pickler's motion for purposes of discussion and to take the issue to the public forum. His reason was not for campaign contributions. In the last three campaigns, he has raised close to $300,000 and outdoor advertising firms have donated only $7,000 of that amount. As with Council Member Simpson, he is also confused tonight because of the businesses who spoke, just today he saw three billboards advertising Disneyland summer events. What motivated him to bring the matter forward was to try to eliminate some inner-city boards. He showed pictures of some intersections in the inner-city containing many billboards. The majority of the people who are 497 .~£tv HaXX. _J%~_~ahe:J,m. CaX£fornXa - COUNCXL KXNUTBS - ,,TU'/.,Y' 21. 1992 - 5:00 P.N. ,, sick and tired of billboaxds are those who live in the inner-city. His view was to replace some of those boards with a few in specific areas of the City. He is a member of ~naheim Beautiful as well and if there is a cause that they can carry for the nex~ year, he would say it should be to find a way to remove inner-city billboards. He concluded stating he could not suppo~ a motion by Council Member Pickler if he was going to bring one, but will suppo~ Council Member Daly and Council Member Hunter in their denial. Council Member Daly. He believes in the last l0 to 20 years a number of inner-city boards have been removed because of redevelopment efforts or because of street widening. & couple of the boards that Council Member Ehrle referred to are in the ~naheim Plaza Redevelopment ~ea and will be removed and a couple at the corner of ~naheim Blvd., and La Palma will be removed as parc of the street widening. He asked staff if they had a number of how many boards have 'fallen' in the inner-city in the last 10 to 20 years. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The last time a survey was made was 1985-86 and there were approximately 139 boards at that time. Some have been removed and the ones he (Daly) mentioned are the ones that come to mind. There have not been a tremendous number that have been removed, but there have been some. He does not believe any have been added since that time. Council Member Pickler then asked if the motion on the floor by Council Member Daly is one that takes precedence over the three proposed ordinances. He feels the motion brought forward is not part of what is on the agenda and asked if that is something that could be offered. City Attorney White. His interpretation is the motion relates only to the three items on the agenda. The motion is that the three items under Cl be denied and not adopted. It did not relate in general to never bringing back a billboard item. This Council tonight cannot bind future Councils or even the Council next week. Council Member Daly clarified his motion is to deny all three ordinances. It was seconded by Council Member Hunter. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Pickler stated he feels there is a chance to eliminate other billboards. The proposal is not putting up billboards but giving people permission to apply. He feels the City could benefit. Traveling down the freeway, he sees some of the signs on private property that are worse than the billboards. Contrary to what some people said about causing accidents, billboards some times keep people awake and alert. It is all in the~nterpretation. The Council is denying a process everyone is entitled to, and are losing out. A vote was then taken on the motion to deny all three proposed ordinances and carried by the following vote - Ayes l Simpson, Ehrle, Daly and Hunter, No -Pickler. RECESS: By General Consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (7:06 p.m. ) AFTER RECESS.: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. ( 7:17 p.m. ) 498 City Hall, ;n&he~, Californ£a -. COTJ~CZL MXNUTES - JULY' :~]., 1992 - 5:00 P.M. ,, C2. 127: C~'l~ CHART_lJR TECHNIC~-L A~. ND~NTS PREViOUSlY RECOHHENDED BY THE -~98~ C~TER REVZ~ COI~ZTTEE: Submitted was report dated July 15, 1992 from the City Attorney listing five proposed City Charter technical a~endments previously recommended by the 1989 Charter Review Committee but never placed .on:the ballot for consideration by the electorate and also three proposed Charter Amendments that were previously placed on the ballot but rejected by the voters. City Attorney White. He explained that the first five proposed amendments relate to cleaning up language in the Charter to conform to provisions of State law or delete matters duplicative of State law provisions. The first two of the last three amendments that were previously rejected by the voters in 1990 relate to items technical in nature and the last item relates to procedures for granting franchises. They can be placed on the ballot any way the Council wishes. The last three were placed on the ballot all under one item and it became apparent from the public reaction it was difficult to get concurrence on all of them as one item. If the voter did not like one small part of one of the items, they voted no on the group since it was easier just to vote no. Council Member Simpson. There are some proposed amendments that would speed up the Council meetings considerably. He would like to see those on the ballot separate with an explanation. Council Member Daly. He agrees with Council Member Simpson - pick a couple of the most desirable by the staff in terms of cleaning up the Charter - ones that conform to State law and the ones that will speed up the Council meeting. City Attorney White. If the Council would like his input, the order he has given in terms of how legally these would benefit the City - the most beneficial down to the least - 4, 5, 7, 6, 1, 8 and 2 those are the most important in that order from legal stand point. Council Member Daly felt it would be a burden to the voters to include all of the items on the ballot. He suggested taking the top four or five as recommended by the City Attorney as priorities - 4, 5, 6, 7 and 1. There are also two or three other items that the Council has approved be placed on the ballot making a total of eight. Next week, the Council will have the opportunity to review the final list to be prepared for the ballot. MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare ballot wording for Counc~ consideration on technical amendment items 4, 5, 7, 6 and i (prioritized) as outlined in the City Attorney's report of July 15, 1992 and submit those to the Council on July 28, 1992 along with other ballot measures. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Council Member Daly asked if there was a way to label the five technical amendments which staff and Council refer to as housekeeping. City Attorney White. He will do that. Each of the items this time will contain a title and contain in the title the fact that they are technical amendments. The City Attorney's impartial analysis will indicate why the amendments are being proposed. All they are doing is conforming the City Charter to requirements that already exist in the law. If they do not change, they will still have to conform to the law on those points. 499 ¢:L'I:T Ha].],, Auahe~. California - COONCIL MINUTES - JULY 21. 1992 - 5:00 P.M. ,. C3. ~79~ pR0~os~p ORDINANC~ RELATING TO ZONING FoR MEDICAL, DENTAL AND OTHER · ~EALTH CARE OFF.~CES~ Adding and amending various sections and subsections of various chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning for medical, dental and other health care offices. Submitted was Joint report dated July 16, 1992 from-the Planning Director and the City Attorney recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance. City Attorney White. Last week, the City Council requested that the City Attorney and Planning Department bring back to the Council a report and recommendation concerning proper zoning uses that might be necessary for large medical dental or health care offices. In order to get the matter agendized, there was a 48 hour turn around time. After drafting the ordinance, there had been subsequent discussions with the Planning Department. He and the Planning Director concur that the current standards that exist for medical offices are sufficient to fill the City's need with regard to zoning those types .of offices. On that basis, their recommendation is the Council may not wish to adopt the ordinance at this time and simply withdraw it from the agenda. Council Member Daly moved that the proposed ordinance regarding medical, dental and other health care offices be removed from the agenda. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.- C4. 153: PRIVATIZATION STUDY: Mayor Hunter. Relative to the Privatization Study Task Force report which came out in April, 1992, he would like to have suspended any further privatization that involves City employee Jobs. He would like to know what effect there has been thus far relative to privatization. The City of Anaheim has been on the cutting edge of the issue. Up through April, there has been $126,000,000 in contracts in various departments in the City where privatization has taken place. About one-third of the budget is out to privatization. The City has done its homework doing what is possible to make sure the City is run economically and efficiently. He reiterated he would like to suspend further studies and implementation until an evaluation report is submitted to the Council and what effects privatization has had on the services of the City and whether or not standards of the City are being met. If it has to do with Data Processing or other avenues that do not affect City jobs, those items could go forward. He does not want the City in a position where they are laying off City employees only to hire an employee laid off some place else and, in essence, they get hired by a private contractor. In Los Angeles County, they got burned eer£ouely. By the time they found out certain areas should not be privatized, the Jobs were gone, equipment was ~one, etc. The County su~se~entl¥ had to hire and retrain personnel. Ho does not want to see a situation where all they have in the City is Police, Fire and Public Utilities. It is necessary to look at the City's standards and if those standards are being met. Council Member Pickler. He has no problem getting a report. He does not think they should stop with privatization, but continue with it and if privatization comes up on the agenda, it can always be continued. Council Member Ehrle. He suggested that the matter be agendized so that the Council can get a report. He would also like to look at the matter. Maybe they should take a look for a period of a couple of years to see if privatization is cost effective. City Manager Ruth. A couple of the privatization efforts are in the early stages. It would be very difficult to evaluate those at this time. The 500 c~v na~t~, Anahe~n, cnl~forn£a - COONCX. L MI~S - ~'o'LY 21. 1992 - Sz00 P-N. question is a good one in terms of maintaining standards in the City and to .assure that those are not diminished. He does not believe the Council wants to see those services diminished. Staff can provide an update. As an example, they went out to bid on the maintenance crafts operations in City Hall West, City Hall, Library and Police facilities. It involved about 15 city people and they bid against the private sector. They did a very good Job and are going to be extremely competitive. It is very unlikely that they will make a change in that regard. Management does not want to see City employees out in the streets either. MOTION: council Member Hunter moved that an evaluation report on privatization be submitted by staff to the Council at the August 11, 1992 Council meeting. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Hunter restated that he did not want to see further privatization take place unt&l the Council has had an op~ortunity to review the matter. City Manager Ruth. They will not be doing anything within the next three or four weeks. They will give the best evaluation of what they have done so far. Council Member Daly. A number of good points have been raised especially relative to quality of service. He does not know if it can be' put on paper, but there are some intangibles to consider. In maintaining libraries and parks with City employees, those employees become very helpful as the eyes and the ears for all City Government or have been responsible for coming up with solutions to a problem where they might not have had that same cooperation from a private contractor. If the City Manager could try to assess that as best as possible that will be helpful. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. ..SWEAR-IN OF THoS~ 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. D1. 1795 PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-13m WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3494~ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. ~461~ AND N~GATIV~ DECLARAT~ON~ OWNERS: Newport Pacific Realty & Investment, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard, ste. 900, Newpo~ Beach, CA 92660. LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2861-2863 West Lincoln Avenue (Bel Air Manor) and is approximately 1.8 acres located on the no~h side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 300 feet east of the centerline of Bel Air Street. The request is for a change in zone from RM-1200 to RM-2400. To permit the conversion of an existing 6S-unit "deck-type' apartment complex to a 65-unit, "affordable", "deck-type', condominium complex with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and required elevators. To establish a 1-lot, 65-unit, RM-2400, air-space, condominium subdivision. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 91-92-13 DENIED (PC92-77) (4 yes votes, 3 no votes). Waiver of code requirement DENIED. 501 ,City Hal~. Anaheim. CalAforn,ia - CO~C:[L MXNTJTES - ~2LY :21- 199:2 - S.00 P.M. · CUP NO. 3494 DENIED (PC92-78). Tentative Tract Map No. 14611 DENIED. Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by the owners, Newport Pacific Realty & Inves~aent and public hearing scheduled this date. ~UBLIC NOTICE REOUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 9, 1992 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 9, 1992 Posting of property- July 10, 1992 PLANNING STAFF INPUT= See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 29, 1992. APPLICANT' S STATEMENT Z A1 Marshall, Newport Pacific Realty & Investment. Newport Pacific built the subject apartments about 1~ years ago. They are now requesting an opportunity to create a 100% priced affordable project for condominiums for sale for homeownership. He then outlined some of the benefits. When the project was built, it was built to a mixture of codes. Deck housing was not clearly defined in the City per code at the time. They built it to the best of their ability. The proposal today will bring the project current to the deck housing code creating a lot of landscaping, terraces, trellises, entries, people areas and increase significantly the livability of the project. (Mr. Marshall's extensive presentation was supplemented by slides showing different portions of the project as it is now and comparing those with the project as it will be if the conversion is approved. ) They are proposing, as requested by staf f, to tie down the improvements in a way that they not Just see a pretty rendering and then end up with a stark project. It has all been detailed on the plans - identified, quantified and tied to conditions of approval so that it will be built as the Council sees it. What they are offering in an affordable sales program is a fixed rate under bond financing and some of the more flexible current financing that will allow affordable homeowners to fix their monthly cost for the life of their stay in the project. It will cost them less to own the property than to rent. Thirty-three (33) of the 65-units are dedicated to affordable housing under full restrictions. Seven are for very low income. That means the sale price will be somewhere in the $70,000 range according to the formula by Housing and fully restricted by Housing as to the selection of the owners of the property. He confirmed for Council Member Pickler that the owners of those 33-units cannot rent the units out. Eric Nicoll, Housing Development Manager. The 33-units to be sold under the Affordable Housing program would require an affordable housing agreement with the purchaser. The stipulation is that the unit must be owner-occupied and the term is for 30 years. The guarantee is 30 years on those units only. Extensive discussion followed between Council, staff and Mr. Marshall regarding government regulations relative to owner-occupancy, standards for affordable on a conversion, enforceability and sanctions, long-term viability of the Homeowners Association, etc. 502 C~tV lla&l, ~ahe~, C~lJ.£orn_~a - ¢OONC~L N:I:NOTI~$ - JULY 21, 1992 - 5~00 P.N. Mr. Marshall stated 'Fannie Mae' (Government Financing) will not allow anything but homeowners in the financing of the remaining units - 70% must be home ownership of the total project. It is in their loan documents that it is to be owner occupied only. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development, stated that is true on the initial sale only, the problem being on re-sale. She does not believe on "Fannie Mae', once they approve the project on the initial sale, that they have continuing requirements for a percentage to be owner-occupied. They are not concerned about the initial sale but the long-term viability as an owner-occupied project. That is. one of the biggest issues of concern. In terms of the affordable requirements, in this case they do not have a standard for affordable on conversions. There are 26-units at $115,000 which is close to market rate. The only truly affordable units would be the 7-units at the very low income level at $70,000. They would put into the affordable agreement a covenant that it be owner-occupied. Her concern is enforceability and what the sanctions would be if the agreement is violated. The second issue raised is what is the long-term viability of the Homeowners Association and the likelihood of 50% going to individual investors. After further discussion relative to the affordability aspect, Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak. PUBL:I:C DISC'dSS:iiON - IN FAVORz None PUBLZC DZSCUSSZON - IN OPPOSZTZONS Andrew May, 2867 W. Polk Avenue, Anaheim. His house is directly northwest of the subject property. When he bought his house four years ago, the agent said that there was no way that the Planning Commission or City Council would ever approve putting 65-un£ts where 6-houses once stood. The Planning Commission agreed, but the Council approved the project. He thereupon submitted pictures showing what he now looks at from his back yard. There is no buffer along the west side of the property and the view is directly into the residences back yard directly to the north. There is not enough landscaping on the west side of the property. If this project is approved, it will set a dangerous precedent for any other future conversions. He would say that most of the properties in the neighborhood have lost value because this is the pro,eot that they see from their back yards. Thece is vir~ually no room along the west wall for additional landscaping. Council Member Pickler. If the conversion is not approved, the project will stay as it is. What the developer is trying to do looks much better. He asked Mr. May if he would prefer to have the project remain the same. Andrew May. He is against the conversion because it sets a dangerous precedent. He agrees that homeownership is better than tenants. Landscaping and buffering are his main concern - setting a precedent is the second. 503 City I!a11~ Anaheim~ Cal£fornia - COUNC!L MXNtlT~S - JIYLY 21~ 1992 - St00 P.M. ,, Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He shares the concern about neighborhood preservation. The developer mentioned the rents are amongst the highest in the area and yet it has a 97% occupancy. Those tenants are something they would want to preserve in Anaheim. He asked what provision are being made to relocate them and to keep them in Anaheim~ Mayor Hunter stated that there was a relocation provision. Kathleen Egbert, 2871 Polk Avenue, Anaheim. She lives directly to the west of Mr. May. The project is too far below RM-2400 to consider condominium standards. She has been to Council on a number of occasions when developers want substantial building and zoning variances and in every instance the facts have been ignored and the developer gets what he wants. The Planning Commission denied the 65- unit project but the City Council did not. It is her opinion that developers get special privileges because of campaign contributions which she sees as a conflict of interest. If the Council grants these to become condominiums, anything can become condominiums. Many of the original improvements have not yet been carried out. She is concerned for the quality of life for the people that have to live there. The units should never have been constructed in the first place. She urged that they not approve the request. Mayor Hunter. He voted against the project in 1989. The question is if they have the opportunity to improve what is there with private ownership vs. apartments, might not that be better~ Kathleen Egbert. She feels it would be much easier for Code Enforcement to do their job if the complex remains as it is. Otherwise it would make it much more difficult for them to handle. She talked with Code Enforcement on Friday and they agreed. Miriam Kaywood. When she was a Councilwoman, she objected to the project just as the Mayor had done. She is concerned that only 1~ years later many problems exist and that this should even be a request for condominiums. The size would more than double the density. They are supposed to have 3,000 square feet and they are already down to 2,400. To talk about 1,000 and those less than that, there is no doubt in her mind this would be a slum that people point to. At the time of the original request, six very nice homes were located on the property with a frontage road and the comment by the developer was this was not a good living environment for homes and those people needed to get out. The developer got the whole frontage property, built the project and now are coming in to say lets go back to h0me0wnersh£D on ~inc01n without the setback and the units will be right on top of Lincoln, but yet this will be fine for homeownership. If it is not fully sold out, the units can be rented or they will stay vacant. There are absentee landlord problems throughout the City. She does not know how they can think of creating another new situation. The developer built it - he should be responsible for the management and maintenance and put in all the things promised when it was first built as an apartment and not further compound the problem and make it homeownership. REBUTTAL BY APPLICANT~ A1 Marshall. He addressed the concerns expressed by those who spoke in opposition either clarifying or rebutting some of the statements made. He emphasized that they are offering homeownership 504 City w_a11. Anahe$u, CalttOL'n:La - COUNCZL XZH171'ES - d'ULY 21, 1992 - 5~00 P.M. ,. oppoL~cun£ties and relocation benefits are being offered to the people who are staying as well as offering additional benefits. They would prefer that their people stay and are offering benefits for them if they can do so. If not, they are also offering relocation benefits. Ail they are doing is offering improvements. They know that there were mistakes made in the past since there was no deck ordinance when the project was built and they are correcting those mistakes today. Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Questions were then posed by Council Members which were answered by Mr. Marshall and staff members. Council Member Daly noted that the conditions require that the City's design consultant as well as staff sign off on the final plans before the units can be occupied. He asked if the design consultant had finished all his work. Eric Nicoll. Staff - Steve Raits reviewed the plans through the process in the conceptual planning stages. Staff felt more work needed to be done and reviewed when it enters into the more detailed construction drawing phase. They have not started on that part as yet. The conceptual plans still need to be worked out. Council Member Daly surmised that the plans they are seeing may not be the final plans; Mr. Nicoll answered if the developer came back with some design problems accommodating some of the improvements, modifications would have to be made. If they affected the overall project as proposed tonight, they would have to come back to the City Council. Mrs. Stipkovich also confirmed on the landscaping that they would have to get approval from the Planning Department and Housing Department. She continued that early on in the discussions with Steve Raits (the consultant) one of the big concerns was the density on the deck and whether there could be removal of some units because of the difficulty in trying to work with the existing site plan. If the Council is asking are they providing everything staff asked for, the answer is no, but there are a lot of things the consultant did ask for. In that respect, the developer has been attempting to modify the project to make it more attractive. Other suggestions with cost implications, the developer felt were unacceptable. In terms of her concerns, it is a very big step towards setting a precedent for conversions. They have no guidelines for conversions. They are trying to judge the project against what they would look at on affordability if this were a new project. She does not feel this is appropriate. In terms of what they have done relative to affordability, th£1 does not apply. On the affordable, she does not feel it is the appropriate calculation bu~ ia no~ ~~a~od ~onigh~ ~o oay wha~ ~ha~ would bo. ~ho would like some time to take a harder look at the issue of when apartments get converted to condominiums, what are the appropriate resale controls and/or prices. This was judged as a brand new project and what they would require. They have the potential big issue of the tenants that already exist. The developer is proposing to give some relocation payments. There is no state law requirement for it and by no means is there anything they would do under any displacement activities. It is basically one month's rent and moving costs. That is the relocation benefit. There are issues to be addressed in terms of relocation, appropriate affordability and what the resale controls are in the issue of owner-occupancy regarding this type of conversion. There has been no chance to establish guidelines. Council Member Simpson. There are two things he had a concern about and was going to ask Council to consider continuing the matter until some of the questions are answered - affordability is one and the other is 505 Anaheim° Cal:l. fornia - COUNCIL )fZNUTES - JULT 21- 1992 - 5z00 P~,M, ,, owner-occupancy. He wants to assure legally that owner-occupancy will be .there for more than a year and for the life of the project. Perhaps once those questions are answered, it might not be economically feasible to continue and if it is, will provide some guidelines if they consider doing this again in the future. Council Member Ehrle. He voted for the project a few years ago. If brought before the Council today under the City's new downzoning and codes, he would not have voted for it. This project is a 'lemon' and not what he envisioned in the project he voted for at the time. It is a bad project but it is there and he feels this is an opportunity to make it a better project. ~0TION: council Member Simpson moved to continue the public hearing to August 11, 1992. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Hunter stated that the issues are affordability and owner-occupancy; Council Member Simpson. Those are the issues, but he asked that the report not be limited to those issues. Council Member Daly stated he would like to see some of the design elements continue to be looked at with the architect who works for the City. Lisa Stipkovich suggested that another alternative is to do a rehab loan and provide some affordability as opposed to conversion; Mr. Marshall felt that suggestion was unreasonable. City Attorney White. Relative to the motion on the continuance, he asked whether the ap~licant is agreeable. There is a provision in the Map Act that relates to the timing of approval of subdivision maps. He would like an agreement by the applicant that he waives any time limits for that period. He asked if the applicant was agreeable to a three-week continuance. A1 Marshall. They are willing to continue the matter, but object to unreasonable requests. Asking why not improve it and make it affordable at their cost is typical of such a request. They will do whatever the City wants to the best of their ability but at some ~oint reality needs to come into play. Lisa Stipkovich. She needs some clarification. Speaking about her concern over affordability, she does not think the sale prices are truly affordable with the exception of the 7-unite at $70,000. The other unite are at market rate or close to market rate. The problem is they are reviewing it as a brand new project c0min0 in because they do not hays affordability. She feels they need to revisit the affordability issue. There are no guidelines for condominium conversions so they are reviewing it as a new project Which it is not. She does not think the affordability on the sale prices is appropriate for conversion. She is concerned about future projects which will be thrown up to her as a precedent that was set. She is specifically talking about the sales prices which 8he does not believe are appropriate. She is not prepared tonight to say what they should be. She needs to think through a policy that could be applied to future projects should there be future request. That ie her biggest concern. Answering Council Member Pickler, if it was a new project, they would be in line if built to the RM-3000 standards. The problem is setting sale prices for 890 square feet when typically they would be set for a unit that might be 1500 square feet. They have to be able to adjust sale prices somehow to unit size. 506 City Hall., P~nahe~lm, Califoru:i.a - COUNCXL M~~S - dULY 21. 1992 - 5z00 P,M, ,. Council Member Pickler. He does not believe in the concept that they will be .setting a precedent. There is a problem existing right now. He voted for the project but it is a mess. This will give the opportunity to do something about it. It will be a worthwhile venture to see what happens. He does not mind a continuance. Lisa Stipkovich. What she is going to be looking at, they need to think of a policy to set prices that are fair. They need to adjust for the unit size differential from the standard to what is currently there and what is fair market value and she does need to get estimates of fair market value. Staff would use their own analysis to determine whether they would agree or not. To call something affordable it should be below market. If it is at market, they are saying that is the market place in any case. For the developer to get a density bonus which in effect he is getting after the fact is what they are talking about - a density bonus with significant waivers after a project is built. Those are the issues that they have to address. She does not know another project they have allowed in Anaheim with this size unit for ownership. They need to figure it out, come up with a formula and an explanation, show it to the developer and see if he agrees. A vote was then taken on the motion for continuance to August 11, 1992. MOTION CARRIED. ~2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-18. WAIVER OF CODE ~QUI~R~_MENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3517. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14672. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ OWNER: Andrew Homes Inc., 4400 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 900, Newl~ort Beach 92660. LOCATION/REQUEST~ The property is located 842 South Knott Avenue and is approximately 1.08 acres located on the east side of Knott Avenue and approximately 350 feet south of the centerline of Rome Avenue. The request is for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400 to permit a 19-un£t condominium complex with waivers of~ a. maximum structural height (denied) b. minimum landscaped setback adjacent to single-family residential zones. (approved) c. maximum site coverage (denied) d. private street improvement (approved in part for 28 foot wide private street) To establish a 1-lot, 19-unit, RM-2400, air-space, condominium subdivision. ACT~0N TAKEN BY THE ~/J%NNING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 91-92-18 GRANTED (PC92-71) (6 yes votes, I absent). cup NO. 3517 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC92-72) waiver a) DENIED, waiver b) APPROVED, waiver c) DENIED, and waiver d) APPROVED, IN PART. Tentative Tract Map No. 14672 APPROVED. Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by Kathleen M. Glowniak, homeowner's representative and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REOUIREMENTS MET BY~ Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 9, 1992 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 9, 1992 Posting of property- July 10, 1992 507 Ctty Hs~L:L, Anaheim. California - COUNCX:~ MINUTES - ~ULY 21. 199:2 - Ss00 :p,M. P~XNG STAFF INPUT** · .See staff repo~-~ to the Planning Connission dated June 15, 1992. A~i~XC/LI~' S Ho Hohanna, Andrew Homes. He first briefed the project and subsequently noted that (1) all the waivers have been removed except for the private d=ivewa¥, (2) they eliminated completely any visual intrusion on to the east property line to the single-family homes, (3) they el~minated one unit reducing the total from 19 to 18, and as a result eliminated one of the waivers, the coverage waiver. By doing so, they were able to provide a tot lot with complete playground equipment and as a result relocated the pools/spa to a central location in the pro~ect more accessible to most of the units as well as placing the recreation area, tot lot, pool and spa directly across the playground axes of the day-care center directly to the south of the propez~y. Regarding the *L* shaped pa=cel, they have made several attempts to purchase it but the owner is not interested in selling. He gave a figure if he did sell that was beyond any reasonable market value. The project will be improving the neighborhood because the prOl~e=ty has had a history of Code Enforcement problems. They are providing 15-town homes - 3 bedrooms 2~ bath or three bath and three units that a=e 2 bedrooms right above their attached garages. The price range is $150,000 to $190,000 which will be an added value to the neighborhood. They understand the concern of the neighbors. He emphasized these a=e not apa=~cments and no where near the density of the developments to the no=th. They will be private ownership. The proposal will not create a negative impact. It is in confo=mance with the present general plan and meets code with the exception of the d=iveway waiver. At the June 15, 1992, Planning Commission hearing, the Co_m~__ission directed them to move the building at the southwest corner three feet into the setback. As far as the building to the southeast corner which will abut to the single-family, that is to remain untouched. The 20-foot landscape setback and 50-foot height restriction will be maintained but 3 feet shaved off the st=ucture in order to provide a total 28-foot driveway. Hayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those in favor of the proposal. PUBLIC DiSCUSSiON - XN FAVORs None Ho thon ankod to hoar from thono £n PUBLXC DXSCUSSZON - XN OPPOSiTiONs Dennis Glowniak, 845 Canoga, Anaheim. He first showed a diagram of the area in general and then deferred to the next speaker. Art Royer, 835 Canoga, Anaheim. He first explained why the residents felt they were treated unfairly at the Planning Commission hearing especially since there was no chance for rebuttal after the developer 508 C£tv Hall. _a_~ahe_~, Californ£a - COUNCZL MZNUTES - JULY 21. 1992 - 5:00 P,M, o gave his closing statement. He then read from a prepared statement summarized as follows: He and his neighbors have been opposed to the development since its inception. They had previously submitted a petition with 83 signatures of those in opposition. They are trying to maintain the integrity of their neighborhood. There is no reason why the property could not be developed into single-family residential housing. The "L" shaped property will remain vacant and inaccessible by Police and Fire. It will become a nightmare for residents who border it and visible only to them. It will be a haven for the homeless, drug trafficers and misfits. The .neighbors do not want the development. They urged denial and asked that consideration be given to the homeowners/residents of the area. If the project is approved, what will the City do to provide or enhance protection to the residents~ how will the residents be able to sell their homes if the view from their backyard is a two-story structure and a buffer zone. All the building in their area is continuing to push single-family people out. Do not take this piece of property and victimize those who live behind it. They do not want it there. They want to stop it. It cost them $350 to present their case to the Council to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. They urged denial by the Council. Lyle Hanson, 3431W. Glen Holly Drive, Anaheim. He was not aware of the changes on the relocation of some of the units - the change from 19 to 18 units and especially the pool. His back yard directly faces the units. It was supposed to be a pool and now it is an apartment. The so called buffer zone will be a detriment. He also feels the developer should be able to buy the 'L' shaped property. An offer was made. The project should not be approved. They should resubmit the project for residential homes and if they want to build they have to buy the 'L" shaped portion as well. Roy Hall, 832 Rome, Anaheim, since 1974. He backs up to the buffer zone. The Planning Commission did not treat them properly. They did everything possi~e to grant the developer what he wanted and then did not hear the residents afterwards. He asked those present on the issue to stand. Approximately twenty-five people were present. He suggested if they w~nt to develop that they do so at Ball Road and Knott Avenue and leave them alone. Bob Campbell, 825 Rome, Anaheim. He and his wife have lived there since 1960. This is a good area. Over the years apartment complex after apartment complex has been built on Knott and surrounding areas. As each complex is approved, the area has become crowded and problems have been created, such as an increase in traffic and graffiti. This is a single-family area and they want it kept that way. The development will cause an increase in crime especially in the 'L" shaped portion. He is retired and it would hurt them if they had to relocate. He urged the Council to vote against the project. 5O9 C:itv Ball. Auahe:Lm. ~l:L£orn:La - COUNC~ NZ~~ - 0~LY 21. 199~ - ~i~00 P,M, ,0 Chris Saldivar, 841 S. Canoga, Anaheim. They bought their home two years ago. She is concerned mostly because of property value. They are trying to refinance their home. It is already beyond the value they paid for it. They do not know what will happen when the development comes in. The developer has said it is economically not feasible to build single-family.. The residents and not the developer will suffer the consequences of the development. Ron Saldivar, 841 S. Canoga, Anaheim. There is no way they would have bought their house if the subject property was zoned differently than single-family. It is a beautiful neighborhood. A similar situation occurred in Lakewood where he grew up. Apartments were built behind a single-family cul-de-sac and in a matter of a couple of years everybody started moving out of the neighborhood which has since deteriorated. He believes the same will happen in this case. The Planning ~ission made a mistake in not giving the homeowners a fair chance at the hearing in June. They want to protect the quality of life that they share otherwise there will be lost of privacy, an increase in noise and traffic and a loss in property value. Jerry Zimmer, 848 S. Canoga, Anaheim. They are not opposed to something being built on the empty lot but they should be single- family homes even if they are smaller than the existing homes and they should have a yard. He urged that it be kept a single-family neighborhood. . At this point the following gentleman spoke in favor of the proposed project: Paul Kott. He is the real estate agent that was handling the transaction. At the Planning Commission hearing he was at, everyone got the same opportunity to speak and there was no out-cry of people that were not afforded that opportunity. Also every opportunity that could have been given to the purchaser of the property to purchase the neighboring property was made. It was an over market offer which was not accepted and an offer to sever the property so that only the back portion of the 'L' could be utilized in conjunction with the project. There was also a last ditch effort to have him Joint venture so the piece could be included in the project. It is unrealistic to think that a single-family residential project will go on Knott. The homeowners will be greatly benefited to have sales for condominiums in the price range proposed. The real estate market has declined for ~veryone - not just because of this project. The property is abou~an acre and if left alone, it would not mitigate the problems the residents are talking about. The 'L' shaped parcel will still exist even if the &d~&cent proper~y is bu~l~ 9~ with single-family homes. Eve=y effort was made to purchase that piece and to assemble it in conjunction with the subject property. Verna Swindel, 3447 Rome, Anaheim. There are more than enough apartments in West Anaheim. She questioned why they would want to grant a variance on a residential zone and why change single-family zoning that they all like and have depended upon for many years. 510 ¢~Y H4t].l, An~ahe~, Cel:l. forn:i.a - COUNCIL MINUTES - dULY 21, 1992 - $~00 P.M. .. Wands Campbell, 825 Rome, Anaheim. Theirs is a family residential area and they want to .keep it that way. They are almost an oddity being a single-family home area since Anaheim is becoming more inundated with apartments. She is asking the Council's help to keep the area a nice family residential area. _. Dennis Glowniak, 845 Canoga, Anaheim. His house is right behind the proposed project. He also got the impression that the Planning Commission did not allow the residents to speak. The homeowners felt the developer came back with his own impressions or opinions as opposed to facts. The developer is the only one who holds the opinion that it is an attractive project. There are two projects almost identical on Ball Road. One is scaled back and it resembles this project. From the street the project looks like it contains alley ways. The developers renderings show a lot of 'soft' improvements, i.e., landscaping. The landscaping around the developer's other two projects is almost non-existent. He then spoke to other issues - the 28 foot width road in the complex, people will be stepping out of doorways into traffic, emergency vehicle access, the asking price id the other projects for identical units is $20,000 less than the reported sale price of the proposed development, there are six single-family homes in the area which front on Knott which people live in and feel it is suitable for them. Referring to the graphic of the area submitted earlier in the hearing, the green area represents the single-family community and they are asking that the Council maintain that co~aunity. The property can be developed with single-family homes. He urged that the Council support the homeowners as opposed to the developer. ~EBUTT~L BY APPL!CANT t Mo Mohanna. He addressed the concerns expressed by those who spoke in opposition, clarified other points relative to the project, explained what had been done as a result of the Planning Commission's strict guidelines and noted the differences between the apartment projects in the area and the proposed project which is a completely different product type and price range. They have submitted a project under the guidelines of the Planning Commission, mitigated visual intrusion and accommodated code requirements. In regard to the south property line, they do not have any control over the future of the 'L' shaped parcel. Maintaining that property is an issue for Code Enforcement to address since ~hey can no~ Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Council Member Daly. The most difficult thing about the project is that a 'no-man's land' will be created with the 'L' shaped lot. He sympathizes with the developer because of the lack of cooperation from the owner of that parcel. It is not a good situation at present. A vacant lot on Knott does not serve any community benefit, and to create a very unusual small shaped parcel next to single-family homes with no progress on that parcel is not good land use. Mayor Hunter. He agrees. They will be creating the 'L' shaped parcel if it is approved. If denied, that might spur the negotiations to take the whole parcel. What the Council tries to do is assemble properties and create something more in the RS-5000 zone, single-family homes, which are being built 511 City llaXX, Apa~e:Lm. Cal:i.£ornA. a - COUNCIL MINUTES - ,3lY~Y :3~, 1992 - Ss00 p,M. ., in different par~s of the City. What they are doing £s creating a dead space 'L' shaped piece that could be there for a long period of time. That would be detrimental to the l~eople who live in the single-family homes. He is going to vote to deny the project which might force the landowner to get together and assemble the properties and if the pro~ect comes back again it ought to be at the RS-5000 zone, Council Member Ehrle. This is a land use issue and he is not sure this project is the best use for the land. In-fill pieces of property are difficult. It will create bigger problems if approved as proposed. He does not know if the property should be used for commercial or a medical building or nursing home but he does not think as it is proposed tonight it is the best use for that land. Council Member Pickler. By disapproving the project, it will force the owners to get together in order to do something with the property that will be beneficial. He concurs that they should give the applicant a chance to keep working on it and come back with something that will benefit the community. Mo Mohanna. He is requesting a continuance to make another attempt with the 'L' shaped parcel; the Council was not receptive to the request. ~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARAT~0N~ on motion by Council Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Pickler, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION= The title of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 92R-158 and 92R-159) Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-158 for adoption, denying Reclassification No. 91-92-18 and Resolution No. 92R-159 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3517. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 92R-158: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CI~ HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. RESOLUTION NO, 92R-~59~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3517. Roll Call vote on Reso~ution Nos. 92R-158 and 92R-159 for adopt$on~ AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter NOES ~ COUNCIL MEMBERS ~ None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-158 and 92R-159 duly passed and adopted. 512 ¢~tv Hall, ~-~Be!~, C-_lifornia - COU~C!L_ MINUTES - ~)LY 21. 1992 - SsO0 P.M. MOTION~ Council Member Hunter moved to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 14672 and .that the denial is pursuant to the provisions of Sections 66473, 66427 and 66411 of the ~overnment Code and Section 1802.044.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code on the grounds that the proposed map fails to meet the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code and that the property has not been approved for rezoning into the RM-2400 zone. Councll._Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. D3. 155~ PUBLIC _~_ARING - SPECIFIC P__LAN 90-01 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROV~__n FOR ~ ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVALs APPLICANTs Taubman Company, Attn. John Burroughs, 125 Chaparral Court $282, Anaheim, 92808. Petitioner requests Planning Commission review of proposed amendment to conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 6 and 13) for the Festival at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (sPg0-01). Condition No. 6 of Ordinance No. 5110 is relating to signals and turn lanes on Santa Ana Canyon Road, and an access road known as Festival Drive. Condition No. 13 of Ordinance No. 5110 is relating to traffic signal, striping, and an island at the intersection of Roosevelt Road and Monte Vista Road. ~TION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONs Recommended approval of the proposed amendment to conditions of approval for the Festival at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (sPg0-01). PUBLIC NOTlC~ REOUIREMENTS MET BY s Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 9, 1992 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 8, 1992 Posting of property- July 8, 1992 PLANNING STAFF INPUTs See staff repo=t to the Planning Commission dated June 15, 1992. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The Taubman Company has requested an amendment to two conditions to the Specific Plan both of which require more specific location and placement of the driveway location and traffic signals. Staff recommends approval. Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVlRO~NTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONs On motion by Council Member Hunter, seconded ~y Council Member Pickler, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration'together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF ~ADING - RESOLUTIONs The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-160) Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 513 Hall. Anaheim. Cal£foFn£a - COUNCZL MZNUTBS - JULY 21. 1992 - 5;00 ~M. · Council Member Hunter offered Resolution NO. 92R-160 for adoption, approving amendment to conditions of approval of Specific Plan 90-01, Anaheim Hills Festival. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 92R-160~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AN~J~EIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-01 AND THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING THERETO AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTIONS NO. 90R-86 AND 90R-87, RESPECTIVELY. Roll call vote on Resolutio4 Nos, 92R-160 foF adoptions AYES~ COUNCIL MEMBERS~ Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS ~ None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS ~ None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-160 duly passed and adopted. · 0RDINANC~ NO. 5324 - ¢INTRODUCTION)~ Amendment to Specific Plan 90-01. · Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5324 for first reading, amending the conditions of approval set forth in Ordinance No. 5110 relating to Specific Plan 90-01 zoning. ORDINANCE NO- 53~4~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE NO. 5110 RELATING TO SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 ZONING. 127~ TERM LIMITS - REOUEST TO SUBMIT ALTERNATE BALLOT ~GUAG~ Council Member Pickler. He asked relative to the measure that the Council determined was going to be placed on the ballot regarding term limits, he was under the impression if approved by the voters it was going to take affect at the beginning of the year. If it is going to be retroactive, he did not realize that. City Attorney White. The wording currently proposed, and it could be changed between now and next week, provides that members of the Council are limited to 8 years or two terms on the Council and that existing years of service of currently sitting Council Members are applied toward that limitation provided that no one's term is shortened as a result of the fact that the measure may be adopted in November. If a Council person has served 8 years or more than 8 years but is in the middle of a Council term, that person would be allowed to serve the remaining term and then be required to sit out one two-year period before running ag~n for the same seat. If a Council Member, that person could run for the newly created office of Mayor in 1994. The other way iS tO provide upon adoption of the Charter measure from that moment forward or two terms prospectively. Council Member Pickler. He was under the impression it was the latter. Most cities that have put the measure on the ballot consider it from the time it was approved. City Attorney White. The only thing the Council cannot do and where it would run into legal problems is to shorten someone's term that is in the middle of a term. If in a middle of a four-year term and the measure gets adopted in November, 1992, that person would not be off the Council since there would be two more years of that term. 514 Ci.'.t¥ Hall., ~ahe_i~, cal:j.~orni, a - couNcx~ l~XNu~l - 0't;LY 21. 1992 - $:00 P.M, ,0 City Attorney White. Answering Council Member Daiy stated that it would take .only a few minutes of his time to submit alternative ballot language. Council Member Daly. It is unfair in Council Member Pickler's case because the way it stands it means this is his last term if the measure passes. City Attorney White confirmed that if the languag® remains as is and eventually adopted by the voters, then Council Member Pickler would not be able to run for re-election in 1994. He could do so for Mayor, but not for Council. It is not a major wording change for him to make and he can submit it to the Council at their meeting next week when the Council makes its final decision on the ballot measures. Council Member Pickler. When the issue was discussed, he was under the impression that it was from the time the measure passed. If the majority wants to keep the wording as is, he has no problem. He may have voted against the issue if it was not as he had thought. If he does not have three votes, he feels there is no sense in directing the City Attorney to prepare alternative language. Mayor Hunter noted that it would apply to him as well; Council Member Pickler. The difference is he (Mayor Hunter) said he was not going to run again after the 1992 election and Council Member Simpson has said he was not going to run again in 1994. Council Member Daly. He will support the City Attorney drawing up alternative language for consideration; City Attorney White. He will submit the alternative wording at the next Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENTs By general consent the Council adjourned. (10:35 p.m. ) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 515