Loading...
1991/07/23City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle, Hunter COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 4:45 p.m. on July 19, 1991 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Hunter called the Workshop portion of the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m., all Council Members being present with the exception of Council Member Daly. CITY BUILDING STACKING PLAN: City Manager James Ruth. Council at its last meeting asked staff to further review the Stacking Plan for City Hall and the new building across the street. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development will report on staff's recommendations. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She first submitted sheets showing the existing arrangement in the Civic Center, ground floor to the seventh floor and the departments/divisions utilizing those floors, a listing of off-site locations presently housing other departments/divisions and a sheet showing the departments moving to the new City building and those remaining in the Civic Center. Another sheet was submitted prepared by Jim Armstrong, the Assistant City Manager stating that staff recommends no change to the existing Stacking Program at the new City building and listing four factors as the basis for the recommendation. She briefed each of the factors (made a part of the record) and further elaborated on the reasoning behind the recommendation. At the conclusion of her presentation, Mrs. Stipkovich clarified questions posed by Council Member Pickler. City Manager Ruth then stated that staff is looking for direction today in order to move forward; otherwise, the building will be delayed. He reiterated that the Council and City Manager's office could fit into the new building but it could be dysfunctional. The Civic Center building is perceived by residents as City Hall. It would be a difficult transition. Most of the City Manager's office deals with Planning and Engineering and all of the support services. From a functional standpoint, the preference would be to stay in the Civic Center 461 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. building. If Council is in accord, that direction needs to be established today. The original arrangement for the new City building will also require very little change in design. Lisa Stipkovich. If staff gets direction to put Parks, Recreation and Community Services in the new building, that Department would occupy the third floor currently shown on Plan 9 as being predominantly vacant. City Manager Ruth. Another thing he is considering, depending on the Marketing Center and how that evolves, it is conceivable that in the future PIO (Public Information Office) could be located in the Marketing Center. The only concern there, PIO presently handles a lot of public inquiries as the public comes into the Civic Center and there is some benefit to having them where they are at present. He will be amenable to looking at that to see if some costs could be reduced and placing them into the Marketing Center when it is completed. Lisa Stipkovich. In planning the Marketing Center, there is some small conference room or office space that she could see as potentially being used by City Council Members if they want to hold meetings there, make telephone calls or arrange small meetings. She sees the Marketing Center as being a place where Council would have the available room to set up meetings and greet the public if they chose to do that almost as a secondary office space. MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to approve the Floor Stacking Diagram No. 9 (FSO-9) which was the original plan with the modification as explained by the staff relative to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department moving to the third floor of the new building. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. Council Member Daly was absent. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST - CLOSED SESSIONs City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a),to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74. b. To meet with 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 pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). e. 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. 462 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. f. Disposition and Development agreement with Koll Anaheim Center. Council Member Hunter moved to recess into Closed Session. Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Daly was absent. (3:20 p.m.) Council Member MOTION CARRIED. AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present and welcomed those in attendance to the Council Meeting. (5:30 p.m.) INVOCATION: Pastor Jim Ritch, Anaheim Foursquare Church, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Tom Daly led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: DECLARATION OF APPRECIATION : A Declaration of Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council expressing appreciation to the Central City Neighborhood Council and celebrating one year as the City's first adopt-a-block group. The Declaration also recognized the hundreds of hours contributed by the volunteers which have saved citizens thousands of dollars in graffiti removal costs. Mr. Keith Oleson accepted the Declaration on behalf of the group. Mayor Hunter and Council Members personally thanked Mr. Oleson and commended the groups for the excellent and caring work they performed. 119: DECLARATIONS OF RECOGNITIONs Declarations of Recognition were unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing individuals for their contributions and involvement in the Local Motive 9-1-1 Anti-Drug Program and in the development and production of the video which is an integral part of the program. The following people were presented with the Declarations Joanne Stanton, President, Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees; Carol Stuart, Special Programs Director, AUHSD; Cynthia Grennan, Superintendent, AUHSD; Sharon Sackett, Magnolia High School; Carolyn Sypkens, Walker Junior High School; Ron Milner, Ball Junior High School; Raymond Hughes and Gregory Bradford, camera work, editing and production of the video; Roy Firestone, professional expertise in production, and narration (unable to be present); Fernando Negrete, production, development of the Local Motive 9-1-1 program (unable to be present); Craig Castillo, Fire Department (unable to be present), Randy Gamble (Fire Department) (unable to be present). MINUTES= Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,681,521.35 for the week ending July 19, 1991, in accordance with the 1991/92 budget, were approved. RECESS: Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:45 p.m.) Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:52 p.m.) CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member 463 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 91R-233 through 91R-235, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS= The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 91R-233 through 91R-235, both inclusive) Council Men~er Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Council Member Simpson 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 Management: a. Claim submitted by Power Research Company for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 24, 1991. b. Claim submitted by Mr. Longarm, Inc. for indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 10, 1991. c. Claim submitted by Hector Perez for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 7, 1991. d. Claim submitted by Goldenwest Broadcasters dba California Angels for indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 23, 1991. e. Claim submitted by Rosemary Lightnet for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 23, 1991. f. Claim submitted by Donald Ray Chapman for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 7, 1991. g. Claim submitted by Monica Jones for bodily injury and property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 27, 1991. h. Claim submitted by Robert Kay for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 10, 1991. i. Claim submitted by Lorelei A. Gallagher for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 18, 1991. J. Claim submitted by Marilyn Slagle for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 17, 1990. k. Claim submitted by Barbara J. Portillo for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 13, 1991. 1. Claim submitted by Paul Perez for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 22, 1991. 464 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. m. Claim submitted by Pamela K. Jung for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 3, 1991. A2. 156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance Analysis for the month of June, 1991. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Park and Recreation Commission meeting held May 22, 1991. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting held June 13, 1991. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting held June 13, 1991. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission meeting held June 19, 1991. 114: Receiving and filing a copy of Resolution No. 7385-91 from the City of Garden Grove regarding an appropriation in the California Budget Act of 1991, "For support of Governor and Governor's Office". 173: Receiving and filing a Notice of Filing Application before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in the matter of Application No. 91-07-004 from Southern California Edison Company for a determination of the cost-effectiveness of continued operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1, authority to increase the authorized level of base rate revenue under the electric rate adjustment mechanism for service rendered beginning January 1, 1992, and related relief. 173: Receiving and filing a Notice of Filing Application before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in the matter of Application No. 91-07-005 from Southern California Edison Company for a determination of the reasonableness of Edison's Hazardous Waste Management program Expenses, authority to transfer the Hazardous Waste Management program Expenses recorded through December 31, 1990, and accrued interest, to the electric revenue adjustment account and authority to increase the electric revenue adjustment billing factor. 173: Receiving and filing a Notice of Public Hearing regarding Orange County Transportation Authority Fiscal Year 1991/92 Service Change Program. A3. 150: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Modjeska Park Picnic Shelter, by Sadegh Ghashghaie, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion. A4. 169: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of the Broadway Street and Storm Drain Improvements by Excel Paving Company, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion. A5. 169: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Harbor Boulevard Street Improvements by R.J. Noble Company, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion. 465 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. A6. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-233: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. A7. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-234: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. AS. 169: Approving a Negative Declaration, pursuant to CEQA findings, for the Federal Demonstration Project No. 3 - Changeable Message Signs. A contract was awarded to Steiny & Co., Inc., at the City Council meeting of June 25, 1991. A9.123: Approving a Third Amendment to Agreement with Weston Pringle & Associates and a Third Amendment to Agreement with Basmaciyan - Darnell, Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 ($75,000 each) to extend the agreement time for a period of 12 months, through June 30, 1992, for traffic signal design consulting services. Council Member Pickler. He notes there is an increase in one of the contracts in the coming 12 months. With the economy as it is, he feels there should be no increase but the level of service maintained at the price the City paid in the past. Council Member Pickler voted No. Al0. 123: Approving a Fifth Addendum to Agreement, in the amount of $312,000 and a Sixth Addendum to Agreement in the amount of $107,800 with Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum for design of the Anaheim Arena. Council Member Pickler voted No. All. 123: Accepting the low bid of Graffiti Removal, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $205,000 for graffiti removal for a period of one year with a one year option to renew, in accordance with Bid $4956. Al2. 123: Approving an amendment to an existing agreement with the Digital Equipment Corporation, in the amount of $7,379 per month from June 1, 1991 through July 31, 1991 for service on computer equipment, and authorizing the Library Director to execute said agreement. 123: Approving an agreement with the Digital Equipment Corporation, in the amount of $7,721 per month of August 1, 1991 through July 31, 1992 for service on computer equipment, and authorizing the Library Director to execute said agreement. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 West Palais expressed concern relative to the agreements for service on computer equipment, his feeling being that given the price of computers today, for the cost, those could be replaced several times over. City Manager Ruth emphasized that the Data Processing Department reviews all such contracts and agreements as well as a User Committee who thoroughly review such contracts to be certain they are coordinated throughout the City. Council Member Pickler voted No. A13. 106: Amending the FY 91/92 Resource Allocation Plan to increase revenues and expenditures in Program 242 by $23,852. (State Urban Forestry Grant.) 466 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Al4. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-235: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. Al5. 179: Approving a 90-day status update report reviewing the various studies in progress by the Planning Department relating to the Commercial Recreation Area. (Rescheduled from the meeting of June 11, 1991, Item A14.) A16. 123: Approving a Lease Agreement with URO Investments at a cost of $77,954 for approximately 3,700 square feet of office space in the Kraemer Building located at 76 S. Claudina for 18 months of time, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said lease. Al7. 140: Authorizing the Library Director to apply for receipt of funds through the Major Urban Resources Library (MURL) funding program. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 91R-233 through 91R-235, both inclusive. AYES: NOES: ABSENTs COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS; Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 91R-233 through 91R-235, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED. ITEMS B1 - B4 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 1. 1991: INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JULY 23. 1991 El. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3424 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH, 2530 W. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: DAVID A. KAECH, 23161 Mill Creek Dr., Ste. 270, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 2530 W. La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 2.5 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 665 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Ave. To permit a preschool in conjunction with an existing church and the construction of two 1,493 square foot (each) modular housing units for pastors' quarters with waiver of minimum required yard, minimum number of parking spaces and maximum structural height. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3424 GRANTED IN PART (PC91-95) (7 yes votes). (The two modular housing units were withdrawn by the petitioner.) Waiver of code requirement APPROVED (change parking from 115 spaces to 140 spaces). Approved Negative Declaration. B2. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3426 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Euclid Shopping Center, 2293 W. Ball Rd., Anaheim, CA 92804 467 City Hallf Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23f 1991~ 5=00 P.M. AGENT= SGPA/Architects & Planning, 2603 Main St., Ste. 810, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION= 1650-1696 West Katella Ave. Property is approximately 18.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street. To permit the expansion of an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION= CUP NO. 3426 GRANTED (PC91-96) (7 yes votes) Waiver of code requirement APPROVED. Approved Negative Declaration. B3. 179= CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT NO. 3413 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION= OWNER~ NORBERT WATERS, 12132 Morris Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92640 LOCATION= 2521 E. Ball Road. Property is approximately 1.89 acres located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street. Request for an amendment to conditions of approval. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION= CUP NO. 3413 GRANTED with amended conditions, for one year restaurant may serve liquor in their new addition (PC91-97) (7 yes votes). Approved Negative Declaration B4. 179= CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT NO. 3244 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION= OWNER= ENDOWMENT REALTY INVESTORS, INC., Attn.= Bettina Scholar, 17702 Cowan, Ste. 100, Irvine, CA 92714 AGENT= ROBERT GIFFIN, I Park Plaza, Ste. 1000, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION= 5550-5640 Santa Aha Canyon Road. Property is approximately 9.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Request for an amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to required street improvements. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION= CUP NO. 3244 GRANTED (PC91-98). Approved Negative Declaration. ITEM B5 FROM THE P~NNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 15~ 1991=INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JULY 25, 1991 s5. 170= TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13925 AND VARIANCE NO. 3934= REQUESTED BY= ELIAS D. OVIEDO LOCATION~ 227 N. Coffman Street. Petitioner requests an extension of time for Reclassification No. 89-90-50 and Variance No. 3934 and Tentative Tract Map No. 13925. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONs Request for extension of time on Tentative Tract Map No. 13925 APPROVED. End of the Planning Comission Items. 468 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. ITEM B6 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JULY 11, 1991 - DECISION DATE: JULY 18~ 1991 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 2. 1991 B6. 179= CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3433 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: ENDOWMENT REALTY INVESTORS, INC., c/o TCW Realty Advisors, 400 S. Hope Street $600, Los Angeles, CA 90071 AGENT: BETTINA SCHOLAR, Essex Realty Mgmt., Inc., 17702 Cowan Street $100, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: 5550 - 5640 Santa Aha Ca~yon Road. Property is approximately 9.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. To permit 4,060 square feet of enclosed restaurant in an existing commercial retail center with on-sale beer and wine with waivers of (a) minimum number of required parking spaces and (b) roof-mounted equipment. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: CUP NO. 3433 APPROVED, modified conditions, (ZA91-29). Approved Negative Declaration. End of the Zoning Administrator Items. B7. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5243- ADOPTION: Amending Sections 18.32.050, 18.34.050, 18.80.050 and 18.81.050 of Chapters 18.32, 18.34, 18.80 and 18.81, respectively, and adding new Chapter 18.97 to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Mixed Use Projects. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES: The title of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5243) Council Member Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5243 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5243: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS 18.32.050, 18.34.050, 18.80.050 AND 18.81.050 OF CHAPTERS 18.32, 18.34, 18.80 AND 18.91, RESPECTIVELY, AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 18.97 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MIXED USE PROJECTS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS= COUNCIL MEMBERS= Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5243 duly passed and adopted. B8. 170: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - TRACT SIGN - SYCAMORE CANYON DEVELOPMENT TRACT NOS. 12987 TO 12996 AND 15153 TO 13155: REQUESTED BY~ STEVE SWANSON, WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT, 17712 Mitchell North, Irvine, CA 92714 469 City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. LOCATIONs 7703 Santa Ana Canyon Road Petitioner requests a six month time extension, (retroactive to March 22, 1991, and to expire on March 22, 1992) for an off-site tract sign. Submitted was report dated July 16, 1991 from the Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti, recommending that the time extension be granted retroactive to March 22, 1991 to expire March 22, 1992. Council Member Pickler moved to approve the requested extension of time retroactive to March 22, 1991 to expire March 22, 1992 as recommended in report dated July 16, 1991 from the Zoning Administrator. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. B9. 179~ REOUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883 AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-22: REQUESTED BY: MARK CHEN, U.S. SOUTHEAST CORP., 1818 S. State College Blvd., ~200, Anaheim, Ca 92806 LOCATIONs Southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. Reclassification No. 86-87-22 is for a change in zone from ML to CL, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2883 is to construct a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. Submitted was report dated July 15, 1991 from the Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti recommending that the Council deny the requested two year time extension on both the Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit. Mark Chen, representing U.S. Southeast Corporation stated that the extension is necessary. The market is soft. As a consequence, he has not been able to secure the necessary tenants or financial commitment to make the project economically feasible. However, they are prepared to meet the condition of the dedication. He understands they cannot grant the extension for two years. He would appreciate a one year extension. Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff recommendation is to not approve the extension because of the time that has elapsed. With a four year period and a two year extension, there could be a six year period before commencement of building. Because of other developments that have been approved in the area, staff believes the project should be re-submitted and reconsidered. Council Member Hunter moved to deny the requested extension of time on Reclassification No. 86-87-22 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2883 as recommended in memorandum dated July 15, 1991 from the Zoning Administrator. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 171: UTILITY USER'S TAX - CITY BUDGET: Council Member William Ehrle. The last few weeks and several months have been the most difficult period the City has faced in the past ten years. After months of budget discussion both collectively as a Council and individually having shared time with the City Manager and staff, City Management has come forth with recommendations 470 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. resulting in the elimination of over 90 positions, freezing positions, etc. and still finding a budget shortfall. Among alternatives suggested have been revenue enhancements such as the Utility User's Tax, an Admissions Tax, Parking Authority Tax, Real Estate Transfer Fee and one or two others. After two public hearings with very little public input, a presentation/recommendation by the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Chamber of no new taxes but with very few alternatives in terms of revenue enhancement, the Council majority implemented the Utility User's Tax. During this period, Council heard from other groups and segments of the community wanting more Police, asking that libraries not be closed on Fridays, the expansion of Meals on Wheels and other community service programs. Most recently the Council had heard from another segment, after the fact, saying - no more taxes. The City is in the midst of a recession and, at last word, faced with a $14,000,000 shortfall. After numerous meetings and discussions again with staff and with the President of the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association (AMEA) Sharon Ericson and Joe Bryan, President of the Police Association and Ron Rothschild, Administrative Services Director, he has come to the decision that the proposed 4% User's Tax would only be a temporary bandage and will not solve the problems of a growing bureaucracy. He believes they have reached a point in time where it is necessary to look within and start making hard decisions. Specifically he is going to make a motion that the Council rescind the 4% Utility User's Tax, the consequences of which will be felt by all. To help, he is only proposing the followings that the Council for a period of one year reduce Council compensation by 30% and secondly to direct the City Manager to meet and confer with all department heads and administrators and contribute a salary reduction of 5% for a period of at least one year, that the City Manager meet with presidents of the Employee Associations to explore a 5% reduction in time, perhaps eight hours a week furlough program and to work out the details which will totally save close to $4,000,0000. He is suggesting that City Hall be closed every Friday at 3:00 p.m. or one day per month or every employee rotating a day off every month, that City Management look into a 'golden handshake' program for those employees close to retirement and what incentives can be offered to encourage them. The intent is not to reduce levels of service in the community and Police and Fire but streamline departments in the City and that there be only essential programs and services during this time of financial crisis. Council Member Ehrle clarified his motion to rescind the 4% Utility User's Tax that was to become effective September 1, 1991 and that Council compensation be reduced by 30%. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Council Member Daly stated regarding Council Member Ehrle's ideas for cuts, it is up to the City Manager to come up with a package of cuts and to balance the budget. He saluted Council Member Ehrle for his turnaround. City Attorney Jack White. As a clarification, he is asking that the motion include direction to the City Attorney to prepare two ordinances - one on the Utility User's Tax which was originally adopted by ordinance and, therefore, must be repealed by an ordinance, and the second relative to Councilmanic salaries which was also adopted by ordinance will take an 471 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. ordinance to amend that as well. The ordinances will be prepared and brought back at the next Council meeting scheduled to be August 6, 1991. Mayor Hunter. The Utility User's Tax would have cost each household about $6 a month. The City has an approximate $4,000,000 plus deficit. The General Fund Budget which the Council can control is about $130,000,000. 92 positions have already been cut b~ attrition. The Utility User's Tax would have generated about $12,000,000 a year. At one time the Council talked about cutting library hours and closing them every Friday. To get to $14,000,000 there will be probably be 100 people out the door along with tremendous cuts in service in the City. When he was an Anaheim Policeman in the 1960s, the force had about 300 officers. In 1991, there are 318 sworn Police Officers. The City has grown and crime has increased. He expressed a great concern over the consequences of rescinding the tax especially relative to Police and crime in the City. He believes that quality of life is the issue, whether the citizens want to enjoy the present quality of life in the community - parks, libraries, a fine Police Department. Previous discussions also revolved around taking Fire Battalion 26 out of service - that will be gone again. Rescinding the Utility User's Tax is going to cause quality of life in the City to diminish dramatically. He then addressed issues facing the State as well causing an increase in taxes mandated by the State. The City and State are continuing to grow from within. This action is saying, no more taxes, but maintain the same quality of life. If the citizens are saying they cannot afford $6 a month, they should be prepared for the consequences. Council Member Daly. Something the Council discussed a week ago, they need a fresh look at the current budget format. Comments from the Chaa~er and from some of the labor groups are that the City budget format needs to be revamped. He's proposing a permanent year round Budget Advisory Commission and that each Council Member appoint two people to the Commission and that the Commission operate like the Public Utilities Board and Planning Commission - advisory only. He feels it is necessary to involve citizens more in the process and one of the first things the Commission should do is consider a better, cleaner readable budget format. One of the problems he hears is relative to maintenance and lease charges. Council Member Daly thereupon moved to create a permanent Budget Advisory Committee with each Council Member to appoint two Members to that Committee. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White interjected and stated that there is already a motion on the floor and that should be disposed of first unless Council Member Daly's motion is an amendment. A vote was then taken on the motion offered by Council Member Ehrle, seconded by Council Member Daly as follows= (1) to rescind the Utility User's Tax (4%) that was to be effective September 1, 1991 and, (2) reduce Council salaries by 30% along with directing the City Attorney to prepare separate ordinances to accomplish same. 472 City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23t 1991~ 5=00 P.M. On the first part of the motion to rescind the Utility User's Tax, the vote was as follows: AYES~ Daly, Pickler, Ehrle. NOES: Simpson, Hunter. On the second part of the motion to reduce Council salaries, the vote was unanimous. Later in the meeting (10:55 p.m.) City Manager Ruth asked for clarification relative to Council Member Ehrle's motion. It was clarified by the Mayor and Council Member Ehrle that the motion as stated above and passed was the direction given and that the remainder of Council Member Ehrle's comments were suggestions/recommendations. City Manager Ruth then assured the Council that all options would be explored to accomplish major budget reductions. 106: Council Member Daly then moved to create a permanent year round ten Member Budget Advisory Commission to be purely advisory to the City Council on all fiscal matters. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Items of public interest addressed were relative to the action just taken by the Council. Sharon Ericson, President of the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association. She is shocked. She has spoken with four of the Council Members many times. Council Member Ehrle called her last Friday and discussed a furlough program should the Utility User's Tax be rescinded. She told him later on that day about another expense she found out about and told him there was no way she would go back to her members and ask them to take a cut when there were certain ways money was being spent. What the Mayor said about crime is true. She then relayed recent incidences which have occurred in Anaheim told her by her daughter who is a blood technician concluding that from her daughter's first hand experience, Anaheim is getting every bit as bad as Santa Aha. Police Dispatchers represented by AMEA are working double shifts and on their days off which makes for a very stressful situation. There are not enough policemen. The different employee groups have tried to work for the last five months on the budget and they did bring forth problems which they felt were in the budget but they always said they only knew enough to be dangerous. She would have appreciated a phone call today to inform her of what was going to be proposed after having discussed the matter over and over again. She will be present week after week to point out where there is waste in the City. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 West Palais. He supports Council Member Daly's comments that citizens need to be more involved relative to the City budget. Jeff Beard, 400 North Loara, Orange County Objectivists Association and Anaheim Citizens Against Tax (ACT). It is only $6 a month but there are also increases in State and Federal taxes. He feels there is no shortfall but over expenditure. 473 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. David Chavez, 4420 East La Palma. He suggested a volunteer tax with those people who are concerned about the City and who can afford to do so to donate whatever they could along with their utility bill. Mayor Hunter stated that the tax that was rescinded would have exempted any household making less than $20,000. Council Member Simpson. He would like to see the groundswell continue. There are problems at the County and State level that are going to be pushed down to the City level. His suggestion is for the citizens to take their concerns further with their elected officials at all levels. Citizens will be getting hit a lot harder at those levels. Even with a Utility User's Tax of 4%, Anaheim rates would still be 18% below Southern California Edison rates. D1. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3373 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ OWNER: MITTON JOHNSON et al, 1214 W. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT~ K. OSTOWARI, 6263 E. Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807. LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 521 South Manchester Avenue and is approximately 2.1 acres located on the southwest corner of Manchester Avenue and Santa Ana Street. The request is to permit an auto dismantling and auto storage yard and a temporary office trailer in conjunction with an existing auto repair facility with waivers of minimum structural setback and required improvement of parking area. ACTION TAKEN By THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3373 DENIED (PC91-72) Waiver of code requirement DENIED DENIED Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by the Agent, Ken Ostowari and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENT MET BY~ Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 11, 1991 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 9, 1991 Posting of property July 12, 1991 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See report to the Planning Commission dated June 3, 1991. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Mr. Tom Kieviet, Farano and Kieviet. He is present on behalf of Anaheim Motors, the underlying applicant for the Conditional Use Permit who is asking for a withdrawal of the appeal at this time 474 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. in view of the fact that they have additional information that they would like to submit in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit application to be heard once again by the Planning Commission. Mayor Hunter asked to hear from anyone who might be present to speak to the matter; there was no response. MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to approve the requested withdrawal of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 3373 and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Daly asked for clarification if the applicant was simply going to withdraw the application and file a new application with the Planning Commission; Mr. Kieviet answered that was correct. D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3318 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: PHAN NHUBUI, 14141 Riverton, Westminster, CA 92683. AGENT: TUE TONG, 14141 Riverton, Westminster, CA 92683. LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 203 West Ball Road and is approximately 0.21 acre located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue. The request is to amend conditions of approval pertaining to limitations of uses. To permit a real estate office in conjunction with a beauty salon. ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3318 APPROVED (PC91-78) Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Members Pickler and Daly at the meeting of June 25, 1991 and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in the Anaheim Bulletin July 11, 1991 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 9, 1991 Posting of property July 12, 1991 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 3, 1991. Mr. Tue Tong, 14141 Riverton, Westminster. He is requesting approval of the real estate office and beauty salon as was approved by the Planning Commission. 475 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Answering Council Member Pickler when the Conditional Use Permit was originally processed, the specific request was for a beauty salon only. It became one of the conditions so that the business would not be converted to something else. By converting the salon to office use, it is reducing parking demand. They do have sufficient parking with a space or two in excess. Council Member Pickler. He looked at the property over the past week and found there was ample parking. The requested use is something he would concur with at this time. Council Member Daly. He also visited the site. Based on what he saw at the site and the City staff report, the request is Justifiable. Any growth of the operation will require the use to expand into larger quarters. Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anybody who wished to speak; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ~NVI~ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Daly, 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 resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 91R-236) Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 91R-236 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3318 subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 91R-236~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3318 AS HERETOFORE APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. PC90-196. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter. None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-236 duly passed and adopted. 476 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. D3. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3631 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: KENSKI PROPERTIES, 3001Redhill Ave., Bldg. 5, Ste. 201, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2405-2415 West Lincoln Avenue and is approximately 1.1 acres located north and west of the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street. The request is for an amendment to the conditions of approval pertaining to fast-food facilities with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish an additional 1,056 square feet of fast food uses. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Variance No. 3631 DENIED (PC91-79) Approved Negative Declaration HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by the Owner, Kenski Properties, and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 11, 1991 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 9, 1991 Posting of property July 12, 1991 PLANNING STAFF INPUTs See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 3, 1991. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Linda Kenski, Kenski Properties, 3001 Redhill Avenue, Building 5, Suite 201, Costa Mesa, 92626. If approval of the subject variance is not granted, it will create a grave hardship not only on Art Cano who owns Arturo's (Cano) Restaurant but also on the other tenants and the owner of the retail center. Their center now is pretty well kept and denying the variance would make it harder to keep it that way. She then referred to and made comments on the information contained in the Planning Commission minutes of the Commission meeting held June 3, 1991. Mayor Hunter asked to hear from staff. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. When the center was originally approved for restaurant and retail uses, the total restaurant square footage was fixed at 4,712 square feet for fast food, sit down or whatever. Over time for whatever reasons, the center currently has 5,656 square feet of restaurant space which came to light when Code Enforcement received a complaint. Mrs. Kenski had referred to a beauty salon 477 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. which apparently is very popular. It is possible that any parking problem difficulties that may be occurring the beauty parlor is contributing to those problems even though it is a legal use in itself but perhaps requiring a greater number of spaces than statistically provided in the zoning code. That may be the contributor not so much that the restaurant use has exceeded code. The Traffic Division did not have a problem with the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant for the site and, therefore, the recommendation of approval by staff. There was opposition present at the Commission hearing and the Commission denied the variance request. Linda Kenski. Her contention is that there is no parking problem. She has letters she can submit from the other tenants that there is no parking problem, never has been, and there is none today. Council Member Pickler. He lives in the area and there is a parking problem especially in the mornings. The center itself is not an enhancement to the area. It has deteriorated and could stand some work and cleanup. There is also a piece of property in the front which perhaps could be used for enhancement of the center and it could provide the parking needed but he does not know who owns it. Linda Kenski. There is a house on the property with tenants and she manages it for the owner. They recently did a cleanup of the property but she has not been in the house lately. Council Member Pickler. He reiterated there is a parking problem in the center and if something could be done with the house in the front, that would alleviate the situation. They are adding too much to that corner in an already busy area. It is not a good environment and the variance should not be approved. Council Member Daly asked why the Commission voted so overwhelmingly for denial; Annika Santalahti. Their concerns were similar to Council Member Pickler's. The situation is too intense and too crowded to allow the additional restaurant use. Llnda Kenski. The front parcel is separate from the retail center. Original plans for the retail center call for development of that parcel in Phase II and would create two more stores. The parking developed 478 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. would be for the two stores and, therefore, it would not make any difference for the rest of the center. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Joanne Landregan Smith, 115 North Gilbert. She lives in the house on the property. The center is fine. The problem is coming from Savanna High School and the kids at Continuation School who congregate there. They got the property at 115 North Gilbert as a commercial business property but have not been able to run their business at that location because they were getting bothered so much by Anaheim. When they moved there the area was quite deteriorated. It is not the center that is the problem but the school. She is not in favor of the request. Don Kenski. He challenges Council Member Pickler saying it is not a center of good appearance. In the past month, the center has gotten a face lift. The lady was not talking about the subject restaurant but Russell's which is also in the shopping center. Art Cano. It is his restaurant where the tables are to be taken out. There are two Mexican restaurants in the center. His is fast food and the other is a bar and night club type from 8:00 on. He has been at that location for one and one half years and has not had one complaint on parking from any of his customers. His business is family run and they all drive to work together. He is the first one to be affected. He will have to close his doors. Seventy per cent of his business is take out and 30% of his customers eat in. He would like to provide that service for business people at lunch time. Bert Heckman, 2405 A and B West Lincoln. He is the original owner of the coin laundry in the center since 1987 and has three employees and his wife and himself. His employee who is there during the day does not have a car but there are seven businesses in the center. He has been on the property every day for the last four years at different times. During lunch time, dinner time and evening hours, there has been a parking problem. He thought that the problem was Arturo's Mexican Restaurant. His experience is that customers go to the restaurant and bring food back - good food at reasonable prices. It is a positive addition. He supports the request of his landlord and the property owner. He asked that the Council approve the variance so that Arturo's can stay in business. 479 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Steven Smith, 115 North Gilbert. They ate at Arturo's when they had their motorcycle business located in the center. Since they could not show any of their parts, they could not sell anything and had to leave. They are awakened every night because people from Russell's Restaurant back into their walls. Patrons fill the whole parking lot. It would be a waste for the City to lose Arturo's. The Mexican Bar should not be taking up that much space and letting people get inebriated. Relative to their house, it is now possible'to see all around it. It cost them a lot of money to improve the property. Russell Mangold, 3701 North Potrero Drive, Fullerton. He has a lease on units D and C in the center. When he appeared before the Planning Commission and got his Conditional Use Permit, he was assured he had adequate parking for the restaurant. That has not happened from almost day one. He has before him the code for parking but no place where it pertains to a beauty shop. If a CUP is required, he does not think one was acquired for the beauty shop. The beauty shop takes up more parking per person than any of the rest of the stores in the center. There are 21 stations in the beauty shop. The traffic report as submitted shows there should be 106 or 107 spaces to handle the operation. No place in the report does it say three of the stores are closed. Linda Kenski mentions a hardship. He is the one who has suffered the hardship. He was in there only a few days when they added to the beauty shop. There were 11 stalls to start with and then that shop took over another store and added 11 more stalls. From 9:00 a.m. to 2=00 p.m., it is not possible to get into the place. He informed Mrs. Kenski before she leased to the business that she was in violation of the code. He informed Code Enforcement and it was subsequently determined that they were in violation. There is a great need for more parking and there is not enough room to add the additional square footage for restaurant use. Mayor Hunter left the Council Chamber temporarily. (7~16 p.m.) Jerry Reimer, Long Beach. There is no parking available for lunch time patrons. Jerry Rose. There is no parking. Many times he has left because he could not park to get into the restaurant. 480 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Linda Kenski. She asked if she could submit the letter from her tenants. They do not have a parking problem. COUNCIL ACTION: There being no further persons who wished to speak Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Council Member Pickler. The original development proposal stated that there was to be only 4,712 square feet of restaurant space but added another 1,056 square feet. He gets the impression that Kenski Properties feels they can do what they want and get away with it. They should be allowed only the 4,712 square feet approved originally. There is a parking problem and one of the restaurants on the premises does not enhance the center. Granting the Variance will only aggravate the situation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Council Member Hunter was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (91R-237) Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 91R-237 for adoption, denying Variance No. 3631. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 91R-237~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN VARIANCE NO. 3631 AS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. PC87-24. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler and Ehrle None Hunter Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle declared Resolution No. 91R-237 duly passed and adopted. 481 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. D4. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 91R-164 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-25} AND RESOLUTION NO. 91R-165 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400} AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: REQUESTED BY: DAE WOONG GROUP INC., 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim 92805 (Anaheim Discount Department Store) LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. The property is approximately 14.74 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. REQUEST: Reclassification No. 90-91-25 is for a change in zone from ML to CL. Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 is to permit a commercial retail center (Anaheim Discount Department Store). PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 11, 1991 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 9, 1991 Posting of property July 12, 1991 Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The applicant requested amendment to 10 or 11 conditions, some in the Reclassification and some in the Conditional Use Permit. Some have to do with street improvements, on-site improvements, payment of fees and one with a plan providing information about a van pool and other ways of cutting traffic. Staff could not concur with all of the changes. Staff recommendation is that the request be approved in part and as specifically listed on page one and the top of page two of the staff report of July 16, 1991. It would be an amendment to five of the conditions and two additional conditions which are cleaning up how the other five are acted on. Essentially the conditions staff can concur with have to do with certain types of improvements being delayed for a period of time up to a maximum of one year from the date of the original approval of the action but not a delay in payment of any fees or anything like that. Bryan Carmichael representing the developer, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. (Also see minutes of the public hearing before the City Council when the Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit were originally approved - June 4, 1991.) The Council is familiar with the project. Due to the length of the General Plan Amendment process and working with staff relative to street improvements, they are looking for an extension of time instead of hinging those on obtaining a building permit or final inspection. They are looking for a period of time to complete those improvements which will allow them to commence 482 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. construction and open the doors for business before completion. The main issue is to make the project financially feasible. Construction has to start and the doors open to generate income and that is the primary issue. The anticipated revenue is approximately $3,000,000 a year after operations start. The improvements and the cost is not an issue, it is the timing issue. Mayor Hunter entered the Council Chamber. (7:30 p.m.) Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She clarified for Council Member Pickler that the developer would be posting bonds to assure that the improvements would occur; Mr. Carmichael stated that is what they are looking for. Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Council Member Pickler moved to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code on the basis that the proposal, with the Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and the expanded initial study that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 91R-238 and 91R-239) Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 91R-238 for adoption approving amendments to conditions of approval of Reclassification No. 90-91-25 and Resolution No. 91R-239 for adoption granting amendments to conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 including the conditions outlined by staff in their report of July 16, 1991 and as articulated by the Zoning Administrator. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 91R-238: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-25 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 91R-164. RESOLUTION NO. 91R-239: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 91R-165. 483 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 91R-238 and 91R-239: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter Daly None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 91R-238 and 91R-239 duly passed and adopted. Council Member Daly explained that he is voting No in this instance because he also voted No on the original request for Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit. D5. 130= CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - EMPIRE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TRANSFER TO JONES SPACELINK: To consider the transfer of the cable television franchise granted to Empire Cable Television, Inc., pursuant to Ordinance No. 5057 to Jones Spacelink Acquisition Corporation. At their meeting of June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91R-213 declaring the intent to declare the transfer of a cable television franchise form Empire Cable Television to Jones Spacelink, Ltd., and continued from the meeting of July 16, 1991 to this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 3, 1991 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 9, 1991, from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer Kristine Thalman recommending that the Council adopt an ordinance approving the transfer of the cable television franchise granted to Empire Cable Television Inc., pursuant to Ordinance No. 5057 to Jones Spacelink Acquisition Corporation. Kristine Thalman, Intergovernmental Relations Officer. Staff is recommending approval of the franchise transfer ordinance. She gave the background on the matter. Answering Council Member Ehrle, she explained that one of the conditions of approval addresses the interconnect issue. Jones Spacelink will be providing $75,000 in capital equipment credit which will address the video equipment and programming issues for the Anaheim Hills subscribers. She also answered additional questions posed relative to the $75,000 capital equipment credit and what will be done with the equipment. Mr. John Risk, Communications Support Group (CSG), the City's contracted cable television consultants, 484 CSty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. explained that the initial study is to examine the way in which the camera equipment could be permanently mounted on the walls in the Chamber so that crew members would not have to utilize tripods and cables due to the liability issue with that type of setup. Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response he closed the public hearing. City Attorney White stated that the ordinance would again appear on the Council's next regular meeting agenda for adoption at that time. Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5244 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5244: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE GRANTED TO EMPIRE CABLE TELEVISION, INC. ("EMPIRE') PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 5057 (THE "FRANCHISE") TO JONES SPACELINK ACQUISITION CORPORATION. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (7:37 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The mayor called the meeting to order all Council Members being present. (7:45 p.m.) D6. 155= PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 302, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 318, AND MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-4 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE (INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN}: OWNER/DEVELOPER: FOOTHILL COMMUNITY BUILDERS, A DIVISION OF THE IRVINE COMPANY, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach. LOCATION= Subject property, which is described as the 3,179-acre Gypsum Canyon property, is unincorporated land located within the County of Orange in the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence, and generally bordered on the north by the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) and the Gypsum Canyon Road interchange, on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills and Sycamore Canyon developments in the City of Anaheim, on the south by unincorporated property within the County of Orange in the City of Orange's sphere-of-influence, and on the east by unincorporated property within the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence. REQUESTs Subject request is for an amendment to the Land Use, Environmental Resource and Management and Circulation Elements of the Anaheim General Plan and adoption of the Mountain Park Specific Plan to serve as preannexation zoning and subsequently regulate the development of the site. A Fiscal Impact Report has also been submitted as part of the project application. 485 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 302) has been prepared for the project and circulated for public/responsible agency review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines. A Response to Comments document has been prepared to address the public/responsible agency comments on the Draft EIR. Several alternatives have been analyzed in the EIR, including a 'Design Alternative", which reflects modifications to the original project, largely in response to biological issues raised during the evaluation of the proposed project. The applicant is now requesting consideration and adoption of the 'Design Alternative' as reflected in the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan requests, and the Fiscal Impact Report on file with the City of Anaheim. The General Plan Amendment request includes, but is not limited to, proposals which would amend the existing Land Use Map to establish revised boundaries and acreages for Hillside Low-Medium and Medium Density Residential, school, park and open space land use designations, delete the Hillside Estate and Hillside Low Density Residential land use designations, increase residential densities to allow for a maximum of 7,966 dwelling units, and increase General Commercial acreage from 11 to 179 acres; amend the existing Circulation Map to establish revised alignments and road classifications for Gypsum Canyon Road, Weir Canyon Road/Jamboree Road, Oak Canyon Drive and Santa Aha Canyon Road, add new secondary and collector roadways, and delete Coal Canyon Road within the project area, amend existing bikeway and riding and hiking trail plans to establish revised alignments and classifications; and, amend the existing Environmental Resource and Management Map to establish revised boundaries for open space, sand and gravel operations and agricultural preserves. The proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan (including Zoning and Development Standards and a Public Facilities Plan) would provide for the development of up to 7,966 residential dwelling units, 179 acres of commercial uses, interim sand and gravel mineral extraction, three elementary schools, a middle school, a high school, a City maintenance yard and facility , a potential fire station site, a potential electrical sub-station site, three neighborhood parks, two community parks, a community center and open space. Related actions will include the Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO) consideration of an application to annex the project area to the City of Anaheim, requests to the County of Orange for consideration of amending the Master 486 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Plan of Arterial Highways and Master Plan of Bikeways components of the County of Orange's General Plan Transportation Element, cancellation of Agricultural Preserve Contracts, request for a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Foothill Community Builders (the project applicant), infrastructure financing programs, subdivision plans, grading permits, and other actions related to the proposed development of the Mountain Park Specific Plan community. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Impact Report No. 302 - Recommend City Council approval. General Plan Amendment No. 318 - Recommend City Council Approval. (PC91-92) APPROVED SP90-4 Designated Alternatives (PC91-93). APPROVED SP90-4 Zoning and Development Standards (PC91-94). PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 11, 1991. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 3, 1991. Posting of property July 11, 1991. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See 113 page staff report to the Planning Commission with attachments A through F dated June 3, 1991, staff report dated July 16, 1991 from the Planning Department with attachments recommending that the Council certify Environmental Impact Report No. 302 with a Statement of Overriding Considerations, by resolution adopt General Plan Amendment No. 318 which would become effective 30 days following the adoption date and subsequently to continue the decision on Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 to the City Council meeting date following the effective date of General Plan Amendment No. 318 and at that time take additional actions. Also see addendum to the July staff report dated July 23, 1991 listing refined conditions of approval of the Mountain Park Project. Among the additional documentation submitted are the following: Mountain Park Specific Plan, Mountain Park Draft EIR No. 302 including Volumes II, III, IVA, IVB. Also see minutes of the Planning Commission hearings of May 20, 1991, June 3, 1991 and June 24, 1991. City Clerk Lee Sohl. She called to Council's attention that they have in addition received this date letters from the City of Santa Aha, Friends of Tecate Cypress, as well as comments by fax on the EIR from the City of Orange. City Attorney White. The documents received and referred to by the City Clerk will be included in the record. 487 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5~00 P.M. Planning Director Joel Fick. He gave an overview of the Mountain Park Project proposed for the Gypsum Canyon area within Anaheim's sphere-of-influence. (See the extensive documentation listed above.) The project submitted to the Council today represents many months of coordination between various department staff and Irvine Company as well as approximately 12 hours of consideration and deliberation at three separate Planning Commission meetings. The proposal before the Council tonight was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its June 24, 1991 meeting and includes the amendment of the General Plan elements, adoption of the Specific Plan which includes Zoning and Development Standards, a Public Facilities Plan that identifies the backbone infrastructure necessary to provide service to the project site. He then explained what the Specific Plan Project would provide over and above the 7,966 homes. Staff reports to the Planning Commission have been forwarded to the Council including a description and analysis of the project along with the Planning Commission resolutions and findings. In accordance with the City Council Policy that new development pay its own way, a Fiscal Impact Report was also prepared and submitted by the applicant and appropriate conditions established which safeguard that the project overall will result in revenues sufficient to meet the cost of City services. As indicated in the staff report prepared for the Council, staff largely concurs with the Planning Commission actions. Staff does continue to recommend that the minimum lot and pad size for the project area be 4,500 square feet with no less than one half of the total number of single family lots within that zone to be 5,000 square feet in size. The Planning Commission while concurring with the majority of staff's recommended conditions did make changes which staff believes appropriate and enhances the project. Based upon further review by staff and The Irvine Company there have been additional refinements to further clarify the intent of some of the conditions and these are set forth in the staff report to the City Council and in an updated report submitted this evening. The refined conditions with the exception of only several conditions are acceptable to both staff and applicant. The intent of the refinements to conditions 225 and 226 is to provide the City's cable franchisees with a level playing field for the purposes of providing a cable service to the new 488 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. community. At this time, staff is still discussing the precise wording for the cable conditions with the applicant. Any changes to the precise wording to these specific conditions would be presented to the Council prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan. With regard to the Specific Plan Zoning and Standards, the applicant has submitted a revised proposal to staff relative to the recreation-leisure requirements for multiple family and shared homes in the RM-2400 zone. This revised proposal is also in tonight's handout and staff recommends approval of these revised standards. One nuance related to the Specific Plan, while staff recommends approval with the appropriate conditions, specific action on this item is recommended to be deferred until the effectivity of the General Plan itself. Representatives of each of the impacted departments as well as the City's EIR consultants are present to answer specific questions. The project applicant has a detailed project summary to present as well. Brad Olson, President, Foothill Community Builders, Division of The Irvine Company responsible for the Mountain Park Project. The project being presented represents the culmination of two years of intense effort in the coming to fruition of plans for a residential community in Gypsum Canyon. Before the Council tonight are applications for General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the new community of Mountain Park and in the future they will be back before the Council with applications for a Development Agreement and ultimately annexation to the City. Their development objectives are straightforward - to provide a comprehensively planned quality community an addition to Anaheim that contains a range and variety of housing opportunities. They intend Mountain Park to be a high quality, well planned carefully executed development. Mr. Olson then gave the historical overview of the plan started in 1989 to date explaining the many changes that evolved over time. Some of the groups they met with during this period were the Friends of the Tecate Cypress, The Sierra Club and the Sea and Sage Audubon Society which led to the inclusion of a design alternative in the EIR adding several key provisions which will be reviewed later this evening. That design alternative ended up being the one unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on June 24, 1991. The objectives tonight are to explain in summary form the community plan and the environmental issues. 489 City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Mr. Roger Sites, Vice President, The Irvine Company Urban Planning and Design. The plan for this new addition to Anaheim is comprehensive in its scope, thoroughly analyzed and visionary in its approach. The presentation will deal with the essential ideas behind the plan recognizing the Council has volumes of information on those details. Mr. Sites' presentation, supplemented by slides, showed what the project will look like, how best the plan responds to its unique environmental setting, the development strategy, land use, transportation, the phasing of the project, public facilities and design concepts. (Also see booklet entitled 'Mountain Park Position Document' which summarized positions and issues involved in the project submitted to the City Council as an assist to the Council during the course of the public hearing - made a part of the record.) Mr. Rick Cermak, The Irvine Company, addressed the environmental issues. His presentation was also supplemented by slides. The Irvine Company worked with environmental consultants and interested groups to find ways to make the plan more responsive to the environment. He briefed the process and changes to the plan and additions to the Mitigation Program resulting from the participation of Friends of Tecate Cypress, Sea and Sage Audubon Society and the Sierra Club. Agreements were reached and elements incorporated into the proposed Specific Plan. He briefed the original concept, modified concept, what is proposed for Weir Canyon, Coal Canyon and the open space greenbelt around the ultimate City boundary for habitat preservation and recreational use. They believe that a master plan such as Mountain Park which is developed as part of a comprehensive planning process provides more meaningful habitat and scenic protection on both a regional and local scale than traditional development. Brad Olson. In the presentations, he hopes that The Irvine Company has conveyed the depth and caring of the effort that has gone into development of Mountain Park. They feel very strongly that the Gypsum Canyon area is most appropriately used for development of the planned community of Mountain Park. They know that a jail and landfill would like to make Gypsum Canyon their home. The Irvine Company disagrees that those would be appropriate uses and feels that the Mountain Park Project offers many benefits as a well planned addition to Anaheim, benefits which would be lost with the jail and landfill alternative. He then outlined those benefits. 490 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. In concluding his presentation, Mr. Olson stated that they have reached such a state of understanding and agreement, the issues that remain can be dealt with promptly. They have reached agreement to continue discussions on the Cable TV conditions for the next 30 days. There are still questions on Condition No. 2 and at the conclusion of the hearing he would like to speak on four subjects - lot size and three conditions of approval that Condition 2, Financing Covenant - Condition 4, Arterial Highway Dedication, and Condition 203D, exaction of improvements along Santa Ana Canyon Road off site. Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak. The following people spoke either in favor, in opposition, expressed a neutral position or gave comments relative to the project. (Also see Volume IV - A - Responses To Comments On Environmental Impact Report For Mountain Park Specific Plan EIR No. 302 prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., Irvine.) Richard Cust, 55 Seaton Road, Irvine, Immediate Past President of Sea and Sage Audubon Society. For five months the Sea and Sage Audubon Society in cooperation with the Sierra Club and Friends of Tecate Cypress met with the management and planners for The Irvine Company regarding the development of Gypsum Canyon. The intent was to examine and comment on plans and to suggest adjustments and alternatives they felt would adequately mitigate and protect the environment and special wildlife areas near the development. The goal was to come to a fuller agreement indicating their acquiescence to the development and support for the points of mitigation offered. After duly considering the terms of the agreement, a large majority of the Board voted to approve participation in the agreement. A significant minority did not agree, raising issues of overall density and traffic volumes as well as regional issues looming in the background. Because the Sierra Club felt that they were unable to support the agreement, Sea and Sage did not feel they could proceed alone with a full agreement. He wanted to inform the Council how their efforts came to this conclusion. They appreciated the time spent and the generous plan agreed to by The Irvine Company. They acted fairly in every way and hopefully the good ideas to which they all agreed will be incorporated into the development. 491 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Kenneth Croker, Angelus Chapter, Sierra Club. He outlined the Sierra Club's stand and actions taken since the early to mid-1970s regarding the development of open natural spaces in the Santa Ana Mountains, long advocating that the several canyons of Orange County including Gypsum Canyon remain in their natural state. The Sierra Club has not gone on record in favor of any of the proposed uses of Gypsum Canyon. Their participation in the planning process was intended to come up with the best plan for the proposed 8,000 unit development in case that alternative was implemented. They are willing to help plan other alternatives as well. The only alternative the Sierra Club advocates is the natural state open space alternative. He then read the club's letter to the Mayor dated May 2, 1991 previously submitted and made a part of the record. Frank Remkowitz, Director of Planning, Research and Information Services for the Orange Unified School District. The Orange County Unified School District is also officially neutral. They were pleased to deal with such a talented staff from The Irvine Company in negotiating out a Memorandum of Understanding which will serve as the basis upon which they will be building their schools so that the children of Anaheim can be educated in exceptional facilities. Patrick Pepper, 6312 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Chairman, Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition. He is not speaking directly in favor. The Coalition is appreciative of The Irvine Company working with them during the last year. There were many concerns at the beginning. They worked out the recreational needs to the betterment of the community as a whole. Some concerns still remain relative to lot size. He agrees with staff that lot size should not go beyond RS-4500 and maintaining City standards with respect to RS-5000 with lot coverage being maintained at 35 per cent and not 45 per cent. Another remaining concern was relative to traffic conditions. Phase I and II require that the 91 Freeway be expanded with HOV lanes and along with that, modification to the 91/55 interchange. Traffic issues seem to stop just past Gypsum Canyon Road. A remaining concern is how the project will affect traffic existing in parts of Anaheim Hills. Condition 195 seems to address that concern. If service level D is exceeded because of the project, The Irvine Company would be responsible for additional mitigation measures but it does not specify what those measures are. He wants to reaffirm with 492 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. staff that the condition included that on Santa Ana Canyon Road between Gypsum Canyon and Weir Canyon requires that Santa Ana Canyon Road be widened and further that that happen and also to some of the other roads in the area both on the south and north side of the freeway. (See letter dated April 15, 1991 from the Coalition - comments to Draft EIR, which were responded to.) Jack L. Bath, 13232 Twelfth Street, Chino, Professor of Biological Science, Cal Poly Pomona and Biologist for Chino Hills State Park. (Also see six page letter of April 16, 1991, comments to Draft EIR, which were responded to.) He is asking that the EIR not be certified and sent back for re-work. The Draft does not fulfill State and case law requirements regarding biological corridors. Such corridors also include the movement of plant communities long term. The only movement study in the Draft solicited information from Dr. Paul Beier on the cougars at the southerly and ridge line portions and even that, in his opinion is not complete at this time. He then gave a detailed presentation relative to the issues at the conclusion of which he urged the Council not to certify the EIR. If he were to pick any alternative, he would ask that the Council deny the design alternative and pick the reduced grading alternative which without any other information would seem to be the least damaging to the wildlife and least blocking of movement to the animals. Kari Rigoni, Environmental Management Agency, County of Orange, Regional Coordination Office. She submitted letter dated July 23, 1991. She then briefed the Council on points stated in the six page letter (made a part of the record), issues that the Agency feels have not been adequately addressed by any of the environmental documents. Issues addressed were land form and topography, biological resources, land use (which proposed development 'will preclude implementation of an improved County jail facility and will preclude consideration of an alternative County landfill site in Gypsum Canyon', traffic/circulation, air quality, public services/utilities and alternatives. In concluding, the Agency asked, because of the unaddressed issues, that the Council postpone its decision on certification of EIR No. 302 until those issues have been fully addressed. (Also see letter of April 15, 1991 with 15 page attachment - comments to the EIR which were responded to.) 493 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Dominic Demaria, representing Anaheim Hills United Homeowners Association. (Also see ten page letter dated April 15, 1991 - comments to the EIR which were responded to.) He addressed concerns regarding impacts of the proposed development relating to density and inconsistency with the City's General Plan, air quality, water demand and traffic issues. In concluding, he asked the Council to adopt the following: detached single housing requirement of not less than 42 per cent of the development's proposed housing and 50 per cent decrease in the number of apartment units, over the time span and completion of the project, The Irvine Company offset any impacts to current resident's water usage, that a new study be performed including Canyon Rim, Imperial Highway, Fairmont Boulevard, Nohl Ranch Road and Serrano. Connie Spenger, Friends of Tecate Cypress Fullerton. Her organization is concerned about the impacts of the development to the Tecate Cypress. She then referred to the documentation package submitted earlier today which the Council confirmed was received (see eight page letter dated July 23, 1991 to Mayor Hunter and Council Members plus 12 additional documents listed as enclosures - made a part of the record. A majority of the documentation had previously been submitted to Planning staff or Planning Commission Members). Her presentation covered the issues submitted in the documentation during which she posed questions to Council Members. (City Attorney White explained that this portion of the public hearing is reserved for the public to testify and at the end of all comments, if questions need to be answered, those will be addressed after all the testimony is received.) The thrust of Me. Spenger's presentation was that the EIR should not be certified for the reasons summarized in her detailed letter. (Also see 20 page letter dated April 15, 1991 and nine page letter dated April 15, 1991 - comments on the EIR which were responded to, both letters from Friends of the Tecate Cypress, the first signed by Ms. Spenger and Cordon Ruser and the second by Paul Zedlin, Professor of Biology.) Steve Los, 33421 Avenue F, Yucaipa, Wildlife Biologist. (Also see dated April 13, 1991 - comments on the EIR which were responded to.) He is concerned that there has been and still is movement of animals through the area and the EIR does not discuss this anywhere near adequately. He has provided comments on the Draft EIR which have been largely ignored and 494 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. suggested some alternatives and mitigation measures that would maintain the corridor and those have not been incorporated. He urged the Council to postpone a decision on this project and instead work on an alternative with the proponent that would at least address what it would take to maintain wildlife movement to the Santa Ana River and to the Chino Hills and also to investigate mitigation measures should the development wipe out that movement. Failure of the City or staff to deal with issues broached by the public is a violation of CEQA. Douglas Padley, President, Southern California Chapter of the Wildlife Society, 675 Ebb Creek Drive, Apartment M, Corona. An issue that has not been mentioned relative to corridors relates to smaller reptiles, amphibians and small mammals that live in the bottom of Gypsum Canyon. Their habitat will be graded over and filled in without the opportunity of having them survive. He hopes the Council will postpone certification of the EIR until the current study by The Irvine Company and the consultants on sensitive species is made available. He then made four recommendations which he feels should take place in Gypsum Canyon and Weir Canyon immediately. Chuck Acradino, 6221 East Quartz Lane, Anaheim, representing himself as a home owner as well as a Board Member for his Association and representing his community. An important issue is quality of life of the current home owners and residents in Anaheim Hills. The Irvine Company has a right to develop their property but it should be developed in a responsible meaningful way that does not take away the rights of existing property owners. He urged the Council to consider existing home owners to maintain the quality of life as they know it today. Richard Arklin, Whittier, Conservationist. The difference between owning one sixth of the property of Orange County and a home owner is that it would be perfectly moral and right to take away and preserve the property for open space. There is no reason there should be any development in the Canyon. The vast majority do not want the property developed. Clyde Lowe, 1742 East Sycamore. He is concerned with traffic. The slides did not show the many heavily congested intersections. The project should be voted down. 495 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Gordon Ruser, Active Member, Sierra Club, 1221 South Sycamore, ~anta Aha. There is no neutrality - the Sierra Club is opposed to the development of Gypsum Canyon and to the annexation of Coal and Gypsum Canyons to the City of Anaheim. He then corrected dates that were in two letters previously submitted both dated July 18, 1991 signed by Ken Homer, Chair, Sierra Club, Angelus Chapter. Greg Ballmer, Tri County Conservation League, P. O. Box 51127, Riverside. He submitted letter dated July 23, 1991 to the City Council (made a part of the record). He also addressed other concerns/issues other than those pertaining to the environment in particular that the project is not a balanced housing community. He then briefed portions of his five page letter and what he considers inadequacies in response to the League's comments to the EIR. (Also see five page letter dated April 15, 1991 - comments on the EIR which were responded to.) Julie Schneider, 14800 Carnel Street, Whittier, Friends of Whittier Hills (approximately 200 members). She would like to go on record as opposing the project, one of the main reasons being she does not believe that it provides a good enough wildlife corridor for the Chino Hills or Whittier Hills area. David Kossack, 39 South La Senda, Laguna Beach, Sea and Sage Audubon Society. He referred to a letter addressed to the Mayor and City Council from Richard Oust stating the opportunity to provide input at the early stages of the planning process were appreciated. Nevertheless, there are many environmental issues and impacts not addressed in those discussions. Consequently they still have many concerns about Draft EIR No. 302. It fails to address issues critical to Orange County and the region with the thoroughness and objectivity that a development of this magnitude requires. He briefed those concerns. At the conclusion of public input, Mayor Hunter asked for a staff response and for the EIR consultant to respond to any new issues not included in the EIR. Carolyn Lobe1, Principal with LSA Associates, Inc. She has taken notes on all of the speakers and is prepared to go through each one individually if the Council prefers or she can just highlight some of the points she believes do need clarification. A number of the 496 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. comments are similar or the same as comments they have in writing and in the previous Planning Commission hearings. Mayor Hunter. He suggests that if there are any new issues that she highlight those since he knows that there were many hours of input at the Planning Commission level. Carolyn Lobel. Relative to the comments by the County of Orange on the Mountain Lion study and deer telemetry, on the Mountain Lion study they have received information from Paul Beier. It was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting and his report reviewed. It has not changed the conclusions in the document and response to comments. Regarding the deer telemetry study, they have contacted the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) and they have not released that study at this time. They discussed the issue in general with TCA staff and there was no information they had at that point that they wanted to have released prior to the release of the Draft EIR-EIS on the Eastern Transportation Corridor. They did not see anything that would significantly change the conclusions. Regarding comments from Connie Spenger, Friends of the Tecate Cypress, in addition to listening to her presentation this evening, she read over her letter and the majority of the comments are the same. There were a couple of new issues which fall in the category of being opinions on the project and not something that requires an EIR response. She is going to have Jay Pierce of The Irvine Company address the issue of the rocket site and ground water contamination. In looking over her notes, this testimony has not brought up any new issues. She is available to respond specifically since she is very familiar with all of the comments that were brought up and the responses prepared. Jay Pierce, The Irvine Company. They had a consultant early on in the EIR process to do a study of what was previously a rocket site in the Gypsum Canyon. There were no underground tanks at the site. They have studied possible contamination and have drilled wells. They have included mitigation measures in the EIR suggested by the Regional Water Quality Board. They feel they have addressed that issue significantly enough. 497 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23. 1991, 5:00 P.M. Joel Fick, Planning Director. He is available to answer any specific questions as well as Members of various City departments. Council Member Ehrle. Regarding lot size and specific areas such as Area One which adjoins the Garden Church, the 90 acres of open space, he asked if those are issues that will be addressed in the Specific Plan and if discussion should take place now or in the future. Joel Fick. The Specific Plan as proposed identifies the nature and character of land use and number of dwelling units that would be allowed. If there is some preference or guidelines the Council would like to provide, that could be done at this time. Mayor Hunter. He asked the City Attorney to clarify that there are only two actions before the Council tonight - (1) certification of the EIR and (2) approval of the General Plan with the Specific Plan to be considered by the Council in five weeks. City Attorney White. The Specific Plan Ordinance and Resolution will be brought back to the Council after the General Plan Amendment, if adopted, becomes effective. Since it is a legislative action, there is a 30 day period before it becomes effective. Tonight's hearing is on the GPA and the Specific Plan Zoning. Even though the Council will not be acting on the Specific Plan tonight, this is the hearing for that action. There will not be another public hearing five weeks from now or five weeks after the Council adopts the General Plan Amendment. The items before the Council tonight are certification of EIR No. 302 and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 318. If the Council acts favorably, in approximately five weeks, the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance and Resolution adopting zoning standards will be on the Council Agenda. There are still several conditions that need to be modified and worked out if the project is approved on the basis of the evidence and testimony received tonight together with additional information that is received through staff from The Irvine Company between now and the date the Council would act upon the Specific Plan. At this point, the Council has received response to comments made tonight concerning the EIR. Mr. Olson or other members present have asked for time in rebuttal and to present closing arguments. It would be appropriate at this time for the Council to close the hearing and to ask any questions of those who testified or of City staff after which the Council would be in a position to act upon the project. 498 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Brad Olson. He feels that the summation given at the conclusion of his opening comments is most appropriate. The effort was made to address the numerous issues the Council heard tonight in a professional and comprehensive way. Clearly there are people who have questions and who will always have questions. They are prepared to respond to any specific questions that may remain. There are outstanding issues that need to be dealt with. His proposal is to deal with the four points he raised in the beginning. Relative to lot size, this was an item of extensive discussion before the Planning Commission. He will summarize the key points of the difference and why in their proposal they have a somewhat smaller lot size than what staff is recommending. The Irvine Company is basically in agreement with the plan before the Council tonight as modified and approved by the Planning Commission. He then submitted to the Council documentation entitled - Provision for 4,000 Square Foot Lots - portions of which he briefed. What they are trying to accomplish is a market sensitive mix of market types and range of opportunity. It is important for them to have the ability to address a segment of the market place. (Also see sheet entitled, Mountain Park - City Council hearing - July 23, 1991 - which listed minimum lot size, number of dwelling units and percentages for the three exisiting ranches in Anaheim Hills - The Summit, The Highlands and Sycamore Canyon and also for proposed Mountain Park and a comparison with the staff recommendation - Mountain Park Proposal, smaller lot range - 4,500 square feet for 870 dwelling units - 4,000 square feet for 498 dwelling units. Staff recommendation - smaller lot range - 4,500 square feet for 1,164 dwelling units - none at 4,000 square feet. Mr. Olson then introduced Mr. Walt Richardson who he feels has more experience in this area than anyone else Walt Richardson, Richardson, Dodge, Martin Architects, Newport Beach. The staff report has identified six specific areas of concern relative to 4,000 square foot lots which he read from the report. He addressed those concerns visually through a slide presentation on why The Irvine Company is advocating 4,000 square foot lots. Relative to architecture, it is not a substandard form of detached housing. The concept is not new. Ail of the slides/architecture shown were various projects under 4,000 square foot lot size. The architecture is not intended to represent what will be 499 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. in Mountain Park but to illustrate the concept of the 4,000 square foot lots. In concluding his presentation, Mr. Richardson stated that there is no evidence that the small lot concept produces a substandard community. Brad Olson. The Irvine Company would like the Council to confirm the action taken by the Planning Commission - that is, to proceed with the 4,000 square foot lots, 498 at the maximum. The remaining issues revolve around questions of exaction - the conditions for improvement to Santa Ana Canyon Road off-site, the ability to attach debt to their property for improvements of roads not needed by development and finally, the up front offer of dedication and the condition they feel should be attached to the ability to accept those. They have furnished the information to staff and Council. His suggestion would be, in conjunction with what the City Attorney said, there is a period of time during which they can work together with staff on this issue and hopefully reach a resolution rather than taking up Council's time tonight. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Joel Fick, Planning Director. Relative to lot sizes, staff believes it should be one "notch' higher than the lowest level being proposed at 4,000 square feet. Staff also does not believe that the quality needs to be compromised merely because the lot size has decreased. Even though staff believes lot sizes should be 4500 minimum, they would still want to assure the streetscape and architecture presented even on the small lots. Mayor Hunter. He noted that the Planning Commission had worked something out with regard to driveways on the 4,000 square foot lots; Brad Olson. The Irvine company committed to front yard landscaping in all of those units, full length driveways and to a maximum number of units in that lot size. Mayor Hunter. The Planning Commission spent a great deal of time on the lot size issue and the totality of the mix on the project. His reaction is to go along with the Planning Commission recommendations; Council Member Daly. He agrees. He believes the Planning Commission struggled with the development and it is a 5OO City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. very reasonable compromise. It will add to the mix of housing styles and a potential of ranges of housing available to families in that area. Council Member Pickler. He concurs with staff that the minimum should be 4500 square foot lots because it is more realistic. Council Member Ehrle. As a compromise, he will go along with the Planning Commission as well. He is concerned about Area One. He would like to direct the owners of the property to negotiate with staff to preserve the 90 acres that adjoin that area in some open space fashion. The density itself is perhaps more than what one time they envisioned but as he looks at the posted map, it has not changed for years. The area has been in Anaheim's sphere-of-influence for years and he believes this is the time. He is supportive of the plan. Mayor Hunter. He concurred with regard to Area One that staff and the owners look at ridge line issues and the open space; Council Member Simpson. That is one of the issues he was going to mention. Also, he was leaning in the opposite direction relative to lot size but it appears he and Council Member Pickler are in the minority. He also has a question relative to the issue of dedication of roads and what is going to be done with Santa Ana Canyon Road west of the project. Brad Olson. There are three issues - the Santa Ana Canyon Road Condition, Condition two on the Financing Covenants, and third, up front dedication of roads not included in a tract and the conditions under which the City might accept that. Given some time, they can work- with staff to come to a resolution rather than deal with those issues at this late hour. Council Member Simpson. Another issue mentioned by Mr. Demaria was relative to the traffic impacts on some of the surrounding streets. He believes those are covered but asked to hear from staff. John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. Weir Canyon Road effectively represents the western most portion of the traffic analysis area. However, trips generated both existing and by new development within Yorba Linda and other areas of Anaheim and throughout the region are included in the traffic model to determine those impacts. 501 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Council Member Simpson. He asked if it was Mr. Lower's opinion that when the 91 Freeway expansion is complete from Riverside to Anaheim that bypass traffic in that area will diminish; John Lower. It will definitely diminish because by effectively doubling the capacity on regional State Route 91, that is where the regional traffic is going to go. Council Member Pickler. He reiterated his concern over 4,000 square foot lots. With a lot size of 4500 square feet perhaps they could do a little more with the area. Relative to dedication, it is something the City has done all along and he does not want to change that format. Everyone had made that dedication up front. He does not feel staff is willing to go the other way. Joel Fick. It is an issue where they had extensive discussion with The Irvine Company. The recommended conditions of approval before the Council today with respect to the offers of dedication represents staff's position. Originally staff recommended dedication be made on all arterial highways. The essence of staff's recommendation represents a position that reflects what really are the City's needs and what the City has achieved on other ranches in the area. Council Member Pickler. If the EIR is approved and if the smaller lot size is to be RS-4000, he suggests that the dedication be made up front and it be part of the total package. Jack White. The decision on all conditions will be made at the time the Council adopts the Specific Plan Zoning and that will not occur tonight. As indicated, based upon all the input that was received tonight including the City Council's direction, staff will continue to prepare and work out those conditions and work with The Irvine Company to resolve any outstanding issues. He explained the new legal requirement which in his opinion means that the Council should not be taking action on the Specific Plan at the same meeting the Council amends the General Plan but that the General Plan needs to have become effective which takes 30 days. This was not the case in the past. The earliest opportunity to get the dedication is in connection with Specific Plan Zoning and that will occur at least 30 days from now. At that time, the Council on their agenda will get the ordinance that will Specific Plan zone the entire property along with all the conditions that relate to that zoning and those conditions include the timing of the dedication. 502 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 302: Council Member Hunter moved to: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Adopt the environmental findings set forth in paragraphs A through E on pages 3 and 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC91-92, including, without limitation, the findings of fact set forth in all separate documents referenced and incorporated in such paragraphs; Incorporated the comments, and responses to comments, received by the City Council during the public review period and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council in Final EIR No. 302; Certify Final EIR No. 302 and find that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained therein; Adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project, which document accompanies the staff report dated July 16, 1991 and Planning Commission Resolution No. PC91-92; Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as set forth in paragraph E on page 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC91-92, and reflecting amendments made by the City Council as part of this July 23, 1991 meeting. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (91R-240) Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Hunter offered a resolution of the City Council of the City of Anaheim approving amendments to the Land Use, Circulation, and Environmental Resource and Management Elements of the Anaheim General Plan designated as General Plan No. 318. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 91R-240: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, CIRCULATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 318. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Daly thanked staff. It is a very carefully balanced plan with almost two thirds remaining in permanent open space. It amounts to the largest dedication of permanent open space in the history of Anaheim and perhaps the history of Orange County as well. It includes five schools, five parks, a beautiful community center, a wide range of housing opportunities and the neighborhoods planned will be a fine asset to the City. Mayor Hunter. Staff has direction with regard to lot size, Cable TV, direction relative to Area One and direction in regard to dedication. He thanked the Planning Commission, staff and all who were involved in this extensive process. 5O3 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Roll Call Votes AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-240 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT: Council Member Hunter moved to adjourn. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10.-59 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 504