1990/07/17CStv Hall. Anaheim. CalifornSa - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PKESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
PRESENT: ClTY MANAGER:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY CLERK:
PLANNING DIRECTOR:
ZONING MANAGER:
SENIOR PLANNER:
ASSISTANT PLANNER:
CITY ENGINEER:
SENIOR REAL PROPERTY AGENT:
PRINCIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler, Hunter
None
James Ruth
Jack White
Leonora N. Sohl
Joel Ftck
Annika Santalahti
Lucy Yeager
Jonathan Borrego
Gary Johnson
Dick Santo
John Lower
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Gouncil was
posted at 4:30 p.m. on July 13, 1990 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION; City Attorney Jack ~htte requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
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.
To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters pursuant
to Government Code Section 54957.
To meet with its Negotiator regarding the possible lease or sale of
land located at 1566 South Douglass Road, Anaheim California, to
0§den Financial Services Inc. or other entity for a multipurpose
sports and entertainment arena.
To confer with its attorney re§ardin§ potential litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
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.
734
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5;30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:47
p.m.)
INVOCATION: Pastor Fred Btttner, First Christian Church, gave the invocation.
1~ Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
~19, pRESENTATION - RESIGNATION OF LEWIS HERBST FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Mayor Hunter and Council Members presented a plaque and a first-of-its-kind
gold plated watch to show the City's appreciation and recognizing and
commending Mr. Herbst for 25 years of dedicated service on the City's Planning
Commission. Each Council Member thanked Mr. Herbst on behalf of the citizens
and City of Anaheim. Mr. Herbst was accompanied by his wife.
119, DECLARATION IN HONOR OF DISNEYLAND'S 35TH ANNIVERSARY IN ANAHEIM: The
City Council unanimously adopted and ratified a Declaration
congratulating/celebrating Dlsneyland's 35th anniversary of Disneyland in
Anaheim. Mayor Hunter had presented the Declaration earlier in the day at the
ceremony celebrating this momentous birthday of the "happiest place on earth".
~t9, DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Bob Blythe,
Facility Maintenance Supervisor, upon his retirement from the City after 23
years of dedicated service. The Declaration extends sincere appreciation to
Mr. Blythe for his service on behalf of all the citizens of Anaheim and
wishing him a happy retirement.
~19, PRESENTATION - RECOGNITION OF ANAHEIM SUNRISE ROTARY CLUB: Mayor Hunter
and Council Members recognized and thanked the Anaheim Sunrise Rotary Club for
their donation of $3,000 to the Anaheim Police Department Canine Program to
purchase a police canine and for its maintenance and training. Mr. Frank
Kilborn, President of Sunshine Rotary, and another representative were present
and thanked personally by the Council. Lieutenant Satn of the Anaheim Police
Department accepted the generous donation on behalf of the City and Police
Canine Program.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned
regular meeting held June 19, 1990. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,090,054.85 for the week
ending July 13, 1990, in accordance with the 1990-91 budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinance were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos.
735
¢~ty Hal), Anaheim, Ca~iforn{a - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
90R-258 through 90R-260, both inclusive, for adoption and Ordinance No. 5153
for introduction.)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and
ordinance. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 90R-258 through 90R-260, both inclusive, for adoption and
Ordinance No. 5153 for introduction. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Books.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken
as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Larry Lucas Stewart for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 23, 1990.
b. Claim submitted by Tom and Monica Kistler for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 7, 1990.
c. Claim submitted by Marzouk Alshoubaki for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 5, 1989.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Course Advisory Commission
meeting held May 16, 1990.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting held May 23, 1990.
156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance
Analysis report for the month of June, 1990.
175: Receiving and filing a Notice of Voice Grade Private Line and Foreign
Exchange Service Rate Restructure filed with the California Public Utilities
Commission by AT&T.
A3. 164: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $16,624.51
in favor of Inland Contractors, (increasing the original contract to
$147,741.24) to improve the existing storm drain and street facili~ies on
Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street.
A4, 144; R~SOLUTION NO. 90R-258: A RESOI/T~ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AFFIRMING THE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF
THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL
HIGHWAYS.
A5. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to
American Seating Corporation for an additional amount of $4,424 (bringing the
736
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
revised purchase order total to $71,019.76) for 794 replacement seats at
Anaheim Stadium.
A6. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
negotiate and issue purchase orders as required, without advertising or
solicitation of sealed bids, in an amount not to exceed $204,000 for seventeen
used passenger vehicles for the Police Department and Code Enforcement.
A7. 160: Accepting the low bid of Nobest, Inc., in an amount not to exceed
$250,300 for residential sidewalk replacement in accordance with bid ~4858.
AS. 160: Accepting the low bid of Pavement Coatings Seal, in an amount not
to exceed $46,500 to apply approximately 528 tons of quickset emulsion
aggregate slurry to road surfaces, in accordance with bid #4856.
A9. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by
the Director of Finance for eleven months ended May 31, 1990.
Al0. 123/180: Approving the offer of the Robert F. Driver Company, City of
Anaheim Broker of Record, to place the City's order for blanket property
insurance coverage, underwritten through lead carriers Home Insurance and
National Union Fire Insurance, for the period July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991, at
an annual cost of $834,900 for all-risk coverage and including earthquake and
flood coverage.
All. 123/180: Approving the purchase, through Sedgwick James, Inc., of
excess liability insurance coverage, underwritten by Lexington Insurance
Company through a joint purchasing plan, to provide coverage for the period
July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991, at a cost of $116,223 for per-occurrence
coverage in excess of ACCEL's underlying coverage.
Al2. 123/180: Approving the offer of the Robert F. Driver' Company, City of
Anaheim Broker of Record, to place the City's order for aviation liability
insurance, underwritten through Southern Marine and Aviation, Inc., for the
period July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991, at an annual cost of $25,981.20 for
helicopter liability coverage, and $2,062 for heliport liability coverage.
Al3. 123/180: Approving the offer of Fred S. James and Company to place the
City's excess workers' compensation insurance coverage, underwritten by
National Union Insurance Company through a joint purchasing agreement, to
provide coverage for the period July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991, at an auditable
premium of $84,452 for per occurrence coverage in excess of self-insured
retention.
Al4. 123/180: Approving the offer of the Robert F. Driver Company, the City
of Anaheim Broker of Record, to place the City's order for faithful
performance blanket bond coverage, and dishonesty/disappearance/destruction
(crime) coverage, underwritten through the American International Group for
the period July 1, 1990 through July 1, 1991, at an annual cost of $15,170.20.
737
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
Al5. 177.174: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter of endorsement for
300 Housing Certificates under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Program.
Al6. 177.174: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter of endorsement for
300 Housing Vouchers under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program.
Al7. 123: Waiving Council Policy 401 and approving a three-year agreement
with Weldon and Associates, in the total amount of $6,850 for collection
agency services for recovery of library materials.
Al8. 123: Approving agreements with the Yorba Linda Public Library, and the
Placentia Library District for utilization of the City's Integrated Online
Library System.
Al9, 101/135/142. ORDINANCE NO. 5153 (INTRODUCTION): Amending Title 1 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to City Departments. (This ordinance will
change the name of the Stadium Department to the Stadium and Golf Department.)
A20, 144/114/123: RESOLUTION NO. 90R-259: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA
IN THE ORANGE COUNTY CITIES AIRPORT AUTHORITY.
A21. 123: Approving an agreement with URS Consultants in the amount of
$19,700 to perform an Earthquake Risk Reduction Study for the City of Anaheim
water facilities, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf
of the City.
A22. 175.123: Waiving Council Policy 401 and approving an agreement with
Mudge Rose Guthrte Alexander and Ferdon, and Rourke and Woodruff to provide
legal services in connection with electric and water system financings,
($9,000,000 1990 Series Water System Revenue Bonds) and authorizing the
Public Utilities General Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the
City.
City Manager Ruth announced that this item has been withdrawn by staff at this
time to be rescheduled at a later date.
A23, 158; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-260; 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.
A24. 150/142: ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION: Amending Chapter 13.12 of Title
13 of the Anaheim MUnicipal Code pertaining to street trees.
150/179: A resolution adopting the official tree specie list of trees which
may be planted in City Street rights-of-way.
These items were continued from the City Council meeting of June 26, 1990, and
withdrawn from the agenda by staff. They will be rescheduled at a later date.
738
City Hail. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
A25. 106/150: Approving the allotment of Community Services Agency Funding
of a total amount of $150,000 to those organizations so designated; and
approving allotment of the remaining $50,000 of Community Services Agency
Funding to meet senior citizens' transportation needs or other community
services needs as recommended by the Community Services Board.
This item was removed from the consent calendar for separate action.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 90R-158 through 90R-260, both inclusive:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-158 through 90R-260, both incluSive,
duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
A25, 106/150; COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCy FUNDING - FY 1990/91; Approving the
allotment of Community Services Agency Funding of a total amount of $150,000
to those organizations so designated; and approving allotment of the remaining
$50,000 of Community Services Agency Funding to meet senior citizens'
transportation needs or other community services needs as recommended by the
Community Services Board. Submitted was report dated June 28, 1990 from June
Lowry, ~hatrperson, Community Services Board recommending approval of the
$150,000 to those organizations so designated and approving allotment of the
remaining $50,000 to meet senior citizens' transportation needs or other
community service needs as recommended by the Community Services Board.
Rick Gasttl, Community Services Board Subcommittee on Funding. He is
presenting the subject report to the Council for June Lowry. The Board has
spent many hours clarifying _the needs, reviewing the applications, hearing
from each of the individual agencies and researching each of the agencies and
the services they perform. Every agency that came to the Board was extremely
worthy. As in the past they considered services to Anaheim residents and also
looked specifically at the area of human services needs as outlined in the
Needs Assessment which Assessment identified five priority areas of human
services needs - (1) adequate shelter, (2) senior transportation, (3) senior
in-home supported care, (4) access to health care and (5) youth crime
prevention. In analyzing the funding, the Board realized a sixth area should
be added - maintenance of on-going service needs which the Needs Assessment
did not take into account. If these on-going services failed to receive
funding, it would create a gap.
Mr. Gastil continued that an area left unmet is that of senior transportation
and in order to meet that need, a minimum amount of $50,000 is needed which
would provide door-to-door transportation for seniors not now being met by any
739
City Hal~, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
other senior services. The $2,000 increase in seed money this year would get
a service started for 20 to 30 seniors a day They added the $50,000 which
they hope to fund through an RFP process and there are several agencies who
would be able to provide that service. With the addition of the $50,000 for
senior transportation, they came up with a total of the $200,000 amount
budgeted by Council Chis year.
Councilman Daly. He notes that CTSA, a County Transportation Service picks up
people from a senior group home across from his house and it comes at the same
time every day.
Steve Swatm, Community Services Superintendent. There are two transportation
services provided, the OCTD Dial-A-Ride which is somewhat ineffective because
of the zone problem necessitating waits of up to one hour to get off one bus
and on to the next sometimes without a bus bench. The CTSA program is one
that provides services through a social service agency that pays for that
service for their clients. The City also uses that service to transport
seniors to and from the senior day care center at Washington Center as well as
the TLC programs. However, for the frail elderly, which number 8,000 in
Anaheim, who want to go to a doctor's appointment or shopping, there is no
viable means of transportation.
The Mayor then asked to hear from representatives who wish to speak.
Dannue Mayo, 1327 West Chalet, Director of Golden Opportunities Youth
Association. He is present to appeal the Community Services Board decision
not to allocate any funds to his organization. The Board feels they are a
duplicate organization and they are not, especially since there is no longer
any Turning Point organization.
Brent Hill, 18951 Glenwood, Irvine. He is Vice Chairman of the Golden
Opportunity Youth Association. They have recently established a partnership
with Anaheim Independencia Center which will provide mutual assistance and
cooperation and help both organizations to develop respective youth programs.
The Association is new in Anaheim. They have a new location but at present do
not have the funds to administer the programs. He then briefed the Council on
the history of the Association and the specific areas in which they are
involved which they feel is vital to the community. He also explained Mr.
Mayo's extensive involvement in establishing the Association and maintaining
its program. They are present today to request $5,000 from the City which
will provide the funds to enable them to operate through the end of the year
and to provide youth activities in collaboration with Anaheim Independencta
Center. They have developed an income and expense forecast which outlines
their planned expenses through the rest of the year which they would like to
present to the Board this evening.
Councilman Daly. He is recommending that the Council take action on the
$150,000 amount but that they defer action on the $50,000 for senior
transportation needs and in the interim ask staff Co report back on exactly
how the money will be spent as well as provide an analysis of some of the
740
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
existing services. He is not sure what this money will do that the CTSA is
not already doing. It is a contract service and the City could contract to
provide a higher level of service.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the allotment of $150,000 at this
time and to continue the allotment of the remaining $50,000 to August 14,
1990. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
169. STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD - INSTALLATION OF RAISgD MEDIAN; Councilwoman
Kaywood referred to an item previously approved by the Council on June 26,
1990 (item Al2 - see minutes that date). The request was to install the
median on State College Boulevard from La Palma Avenue to 160 feet south of
Sycamore Street but later in the meeting the Council approved installation
past Redwood Avenue. She is asking that the item be brought back for
reconsideration. At the meeting of June 26, the Council Chambers were full
and there were people in the lobby or outside who wanted to speak to the
matter but did not have an opportunity to do so.
City Clerk Sohl announced that the Traffic Engineer advises since the Council
authorized an extension of the median an additional 400 feet to Redwood
Avenue, the project is in redesign and needs to be rebid. It would eventually
have to come back to the Council for award of contract.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She would like the matter to be heard by the Council
before that time because she is not certain the Council has all the input
necessary. If the Council decides not to proceed, there will be no need for a
redesign.
Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer. He does not know the
specific schedule but based upon Council action, they did expand the design of
the median and are extending it beyond Redwood as approved. If they have not
yet advertised for bid and the Council would like to reconsider the matter,
that can be done. If it has already been advertised and out to bid, the
Council would see it again when it is submitted for award of contract. They
would prefer not to put contractors through that exercise if there is a reason
to amend it beforehand.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the item again be placed on the
August 14, 1990 Council agenda for discussion and reconsideration. Councilman
Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179. ZONING - LAND USE CONSENT CALENDAR, ITEMS BI B6,
On motion by Councilman Daly, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the following
items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar. Councilman Daly offered Resolution No. 90R-261 for adoption;
Ordinance Nos. 5150 through 5152, both inclusive, for adoption and Ordinance
Nos. 5154 and 5155 for introduction. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Books.
741
C~t¥ ~all. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolution and ordinances were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No.
90R-261 for adoption, Ordinance Nos. 5150 through 5152, both inclusive, for
adoption; Ordinance Nos. 5154 and 5155 for introduction.)
Councilman Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution and
ordinances. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Bi.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2762 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION:
REQUESTED BY: Dennis Hardin, Hardin Honda, 1300 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805
LOCATION: 1381 Auto Center Drive.
ggSObUTION NO. 90R-261: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2762.
B2, ORDINANCE NO. 5150: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING. (Rezontng property under Reclassification No. 89-90-20, located as
shown below:)
Area 1 - All properties currently zoned RM-1200 to be reclassified to the
RM-2400 Zone.
Those properties located on the west side of Resh Street currently zoned
RM-2400 to be reclassified to the RS-5000 zone.
All properties currently zoned PD-C to be reclassified to the PD-C/RM-2400
Zone.
Area 2 - All properties currently zoned RM-1200 to be reclassified to the
RM-2400 Zone.
All properties currently zoned PD-C to be reclassified to the PD-C/RM-2400
Zone.
Area 3 - Those properties bounded by Cypress Street to the north, the alley
west of Helena Street to the west, Chartres Street to the south and the alley
east of Helena Street to the east and currently zoned RM-1200 to be
reclassified to the RS-5OO0_Zone.
Those properties bounded by Cypress Street to the north, the alley east of
Helena to the west, Chartres Street to the south and Clementtne Street to the
east, and currently zoned RM-1200 to be reclassified to the RM-24OO Zone.
B3. ORDINANCE NO. 5151: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF T~E ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING. (Rezoning property under Reclassification No. 89-90-21 as follows:)
Area 1 - 4.5 acres bounded by Cypress Street to the north, Olive Street to the
east, Lincoln Avenue to the south and Claudina Street to the west to the
RS-5000 zone.
Area 2 - 7.8 acres bounded by the alley south of Center Street to the north,
Atchison Street to the east, Broadway to the south and Olive Street to the
west (except the easterly 125 feet).
Properties within Area 2 located west of Melrose Street into the RM-2400 zone.
742
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
Properties within Area 2 and east of Melrose Street into the RS-5000 Zone,
except those properties which front on Broadway which shall remain in the
RM-2400 zone.
B4, ORDINANCE NO, 5152 (ADOPTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (Rezoning property under Reclassification No. 89-90-33 to
the RM-2400 zone. The subject property consists of 1.26 acres bounded by the
alley north of Broadway to the north, Atchison Street to the east, Broadway to
the south, and Melrose Street to the west, except the easterly 125 feet.
B5, ORDINANCE NO. 5154 (INTRODUCTION): Amending Title 18 to rezone property
under Reclassification No. 88-89-14, located at 3107, 3111 and 3115 West
Lincoln Avenue from the RS-7200 zone to the CL zone.
ORDINANCE NO. 5154: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She recommended that the CL zone not include any liquor
stores since there is already an overabundance in that area.
City Attorney White. If the zoning reclassification is approved, whatever the
permitted uses are in the zone would be permitted by right. The Council does
not have the ability to zone property on an individual basis by taking out
permitted uses for particular parcels or areas and say they are not going to
allow these particular uses on this piece of property. The code would have to
be amended for that particular zone.
Councilwoman Kaywood. This is adjacent to and in front of single family
homes. There are a lot of liquor licenses in the area and a lot of police
activity. She feels it is necessary to amend the code.
The Council took no further action on the matter.
B6, 0RQINANCE NO. 5155 (INTRODUCTION): Amending Title 18 to rezone property
under Reclassification No. 88-89-55, located at 400 West Wilken Way from the
CG zone to the RM-2400 zone.
· ORDINANCE NO. 5155: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5150 through 5152, both inclusive.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5150 through 5152, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
743
Hall. A~-heim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
~?. 179/142: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMERCIAL RECREATION ZONE - ESTABLISHMENT OF
DESIGN GUIDELINES: To consider an ordinance of the City of Anaheim amending
various chapters, sections and subsections of Title 18 pertaining to the
Commercial Recreation (C-R) Zone and other related provisions and a Negative
Declaration as well as a Resolution establishing Design Guidelines for the
Commercial Recreation Zone. Extensive documentation was submitted by the
Planning Department which included specified changes to the proposed
Commercial Recreation Code amendment from the July 2, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting as well as the minutes of that meeting where there was extensive input
and discussion. The Planning Commission, subsequent to that hearing,
recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance (see minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated July 2, 1990).
Joel Ffck, Planning Director. The proposal tonight is the
product of a very detailed zoning study in a very important area
of the City which is governed by a zoning ordinance adopted in
excess of 20 years ago. This affords an opportunity to adopt
standards and guidelines that will enhance the area as a world
class tourist and resort destination. He then explained the
long and extensive process that the Planning Department went
through along with the business community in the C-R area to
bring the standards being proposed tonight to fruition and for
Council consideration and approval. He then introduced Lucy
Yeager, Senior Planner, project manager.
Lucy Yeager, Senior Planner, project manager. The City has
extensively been involved with the study effort. The project is
referred to as the C-R Enhancement Program and Transportation
Land Use Strategy Plan initiated to insure the area maintains
and enhances the status as a major tourism destination. The
discussion and recommended actions before the Council tonight
relate only to the C-R Area Enhancement Program portion of the
overall project effort. The project goal is to complete an
enhancement program that will redefine site development
standards as well as introduce and establish design gntdelines
associated with development in the G-R Area. It is a long-range
program to create a positive and attractive look and identity
for the area. Visitors should know that they have come to a
very special place. A second part of the Enhancement Program
involves the creation of a G-R streetscape program wherein
special treatments for gateway entry points into the area,
median treatments, special paving and lighting, street trees and
furniture, landscaping, etc. for public right-of-way areas.
Mrs. Yeager's extensive presentation then briefed the program
outlining all of the issues/standards it hoped to address in the
C-R area initially and in the future as well as the
recommendations proposed. (See extensive staff report to the
744
City ~all. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
Planning Commission dated July 2, 1990 with attachments.) In
concluding, she named those involved with the project, the
workshops that had taken place where adjustments had been made,
the two community meetings held with a total of 115 attendees
and finally the July 2, 1990 Planning Commission hearing where
additional input was received. She also clarified those
projects that would be exempted form the provisions of the
proposed ordinance. She also briefed the six major changes that
were made from the July 2, 1990 Planning Commission meeting.
Staff feels the proposed code amendment and design ~uidelines
are supportable by both the City and the community and as such
staff recommends that the City Council adopt by ordinance the
amendment of various chapters, sections and subsections of Title
18 pertaining to the C-R zone and other related provisions and
the associated negative declaration. It is recommended that the
Council also adopt by resolution the design guidelines for the
C-R zone.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those who wished
to speak.
Peter Nozero, owner, Anaheim Junction Campground. He objects to
the monument si~n project. A si~n has to identify and
advertise, the second point being most important for the small
businessman. The monument sign fails to do so because it is too
easy to be obscured by pedestrians and traffic. It is also
dangerous for people driving in their vehicles or motor homes
with the family looking for a destination. Monument signs can
also be easily vandalized. He did a survey on his business to
determine just how much his sign means to him and found that it
contributes to 26% of his business. Monument signs will have a
financial impact on businesses and it will have an impact on the
money the City receives from businesses which will go toward
implementing the plan. His business is already in a recession.
Comparing the first six months of 1989 with the first six months
of 1990, he is paying the City 15% in Transient Occupancy Tax.
The amount of money he paid to the State in sales tax is down
27%. The figures are too big to ignore and will have an effect
on the City budget. Everybody he has talked to is in the same
situation. Looking at the proposed plan, it is trying to make
everybody look alike. He does not feel that is the way they
want to go. The small businesses in particular have to have the
right to do the things that attract business to them like signs,
setbacks, etc. T~ey have to be able to use all of their land to
the utmost. The plan does not address itself to needs but to
aesthetics alone. He recommends that the City standardize sign
sizes and heights and enforce those standards, not on the basis
of a monument signbut a pole sign and look at ways to reduce
the number of times it is necessary to request a conditional use
permit.
745
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
Bob DiRobto, owner, Expressions Advertising, 556 South Rose,
Anaheim. His company was represented at the last ~wo meetings
by Mike Fay. They have previously submitted a letter (see
letter dated June 27, 1990 - made a part of the record) which he
would like the Council to consider before making a decision.
The recommendations relating to signage are too restrictive. He
does not believe that any consideration was given to the effect
these would have on local business especially small businesses.
The height restriction on monument signs is not sufficient.
With the heavy pedestrian and bus traffic in the area, the sign
will not be seen. The average copy height would be between four
feet and six feet off the ground. Signs instead will be a
hindrance to traffic and create discomfort and tension among
out -of-towners who are trying to find their destination. One
of the recommendations is not allowing changeable copy for
hotels that sit on under four acres of property. It is unfair
to the hotel that sits on a smaller piece of property. Hotels
use changeable copy extensively to advertise their features such
as cable ~v, kitchenettes, children under six free, etc. which
are important. This is the Dtsneyland area and it is obvious
that people come for bright lights, animation, technology, the
electric parade and fireworks. If they were looking for
something peaceful, they would be in the redwoods. A 25 foot
sign can be aesthetically pleasing, blend with the architecture
and contribute tastefully to the area as shown in the exhibits
attached to their letter. He is also concerned that hotels with
less than 60 feet of frontage are not allowed a freestanding
sign and that any sign cannot have more than three tenant
panels. The extreme restrictions on signs will hamper the
City's own efforts to clean up the area. Many signs are 35 to
50 feet tall and they will need to be changed but there is a
15 year amortization period.
Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates. He is present representing
Tarsadta, owner of several parcels in the area. He first
thanked staff for their responsiveness and cooperation in
working with them to implement the study objectives. They
discussed a concept with staff where in many areas public
agencies are provided density bonuses and other land use
incentives to encourage the revitalization of property. That
concept was discussed with staff whereby incentives rather than
restrictions would seem more logical to meet the objectives of
the C-R zone. He then gave examples. For that reason, they
suggest as a starting point to encourage the redevelopment of
certain properties in the C-R area, staff include a section
regarding master planned developments and specific plans. The
intent would be to encourage the assemblage of contiguous
parcels of land to facilitate the re-use or intensification of
the land use by providing development standards unique to the
site. They have come to an agreement with staff to include this
746
City Hall, Anaheim, Gali~orDia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
language in the proposed new C-R zone as noted in section
18.48.103. Based on the foregoing, he is pleased to report that
his client is in the process of acquiring additional contiguous
parcels and has authorized him to initiate a master plan for the
property which would include the consolidation of at least eight
parcels. Within the specific plan area several of their
clients' already approved projects (which have been exempted)
would be included for planning purposes. As noted in the
proposed code, it is their understanding that the projects at
1745 South Haster, 201 South Katella and 1752 South Clementtne
are exempt from the new ordinance.
Mike Capeletto, his father has owned property for the last 20
years at 231 West Katella. The proposal inhibits the small land
owner who has properties in "T" shapes, "L" shapes or small
blocks. The proposal would take some 30 feet by 125 feet of
their frontage on Katella, 30 feet by 146 feet on Clementtne and
including the green belt area, 15 by 146 feet on the street
would total 10,320 square feet of their property leaving them
only 7,900 square feet by the time the proposal is finished or
66% of their property. He urged the Council to look at those
who do not have the very large parcels. More than just one
property is involved. Anything the Council can do to help them
will be appreciated.
Joel Fick. The Planning'Commission heard about a similar parcel
irregularly shaped, which was a particular hardship. The City
Attorney's Office did a good Job of answering that question.
Those parcels are difficult to address under any zoning code.
They are parcels that have problems because of their size, shape
and irregular configuration. Those parcels are candidates for
variances. They are the types of projects the Planning
Commission and Council routinely see when there are hardships.
That is probably the best way staff could handle that type of
situation.
Clyde Schlund, 616 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim. They have
similar problems as the last speaker. They have a station site
on Winston and West Street approximately 180 feet by 150 feet.
They do appreciate going from a setback of 50 feet to 30 feet
but it still takes 5,500 square feet of their property. If they
take that much off the front there will not be too much property
left to profitably develop. At the present time it is vacant.
The proposed fence height is 36 inches and there is a chain link
fence surrounding the property. The property is convenient for
viewing the Dtsneyland fireworks. Before the fence was put up,
people would watch the fireworks and subsequently leave litter
behind. The fence has been effective in eliminating the
problem. A fence 36 inches high would not keep people off the
property. The guidelines are well intended and Mr. Fick and his
747
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5;30
staff have done a thorough and complete job but in some
instances they are probably harder on the small property owner
but would definitely benefit the larger property owner.
Betty Ronconi, 1241 South Walnut. She lives adjacent to the C-R
area. Her concern which has been discussed with staff has to do
with sound barriers. She has written a letter under the
auspices of Anaheim H.O.M.E. (see letter dated July 16, 1990
made a part of the record). The screening abutting the freeway
that will protect the C-R area from the freeway is not
adequate. It provides that the freeway traveler should be able
to see something beautiful as they go by. A wall is not
recommended. The residents are quite aware of the noises on
Walnut Street that have to do with all of the public
transportation vehicles - not only the noise, but also the air
pollution that causes a deterioration of air quality. Staff
should consider that walls are not necessarily unattractive and
can do a good job of screening as evidenced by the example on
Walnut Street at the present time. She recommends that walls
not be discounted and that in this phase or the next or both
that they be a consideration.
Joel Fick. Relative to the chain link fence issue, the Planning
Commission looked at that situation. It is not prohibited in
the ordinance but it is discouraged as a form of fencing. The
letter received from H.O.M.E. raises a good point that staff
would agree with. Staff suggests an incorporation in the
ordinance which has been reviewed with the City Attorney and
since it is in the spirit of an amendment and a minor change, it
does not disrupt the integrity of the ordinance. Relative to
the screening abutting the residential property, staff did not
intend that to be only a minimum but also a maximum of six
feet. If it makes sense that it be higher, that would be the
case. If the word "minimum" of six feet is added where
commercial abuts residential for protection, that would cover
the matter.
There being no further persons who wished co speak, Mayor Hunter closed the
public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She notes that kitchenettes were brought
back. She feels all-suite hotels are a different situation.
Going back into history and remembering why the Council limited
kitchenettes to 25% was to prevent them from becoming
substandard apartments, examples of which can be found along
Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard. She would be concerned
opening up that situation once again and allowing all kitchen
units. She would like to limit kitchenettes to 25% or not have
them at all, other than in all-suites hotels.
748
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
Joel Fick. That issue was discussed with the Commission.
Originally it was not structured that way in the ordinance. The
discussion was where they were headed in terms of enhancements
will encourage longer stays, perhaps two to three days creating
a greater demand and need for minimum kitchen facilities. The
Planning Commission and staff are concerned as well. They feel
it is covered in the ordinance prohibiting conversion to
residential structures and it does require a conditional use
permit for kitchen facilities.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She did not see an interpretation of
kitchenette in the ordinance. She believes previously there was
a provision that there be only two burners or no oven. Further,
when kitchenettes are allowed 100% it has to be considered that
parking requirements are much less for hotels and motels than
apartments. If people are living in those units, it will create
a shortage of parking and other problems. When it is
re-written, she wants to be sure the protections are included.~
In the existing code there is a definition of a kitchenette as
follows .... "...any room or area within a motel unit intended or
designed for the preparation of food but limited to a six cubic
foot refrigerator, two burner stove without provisions for oven
and/or baking facilities and a single compartment sink..." It
is quite limited in terms of parameters and the conditional use
permit provision will require Commission or Council action.
Councilwoman Kaywood. If it has that description, she would
want to see it in the ordinance. Further, she agrees with some
of the concerns that have been stated relative to signs. A big
problem is looking for a street address when people have no idea
where they are. She notes from the poster drawings the name of
the hotel is shown on the high buildings. In addition, she
would like to see the street numbers so that people would know
they are on the right side of the street. It is also important
for emergency vehicles.
Joel Fick. That concermwas discussed and input received from
emergency service departments. There is a requirement that the
address be included on the monument sign. The ordinance does
include that provision for the monument signs.
Councilwoman Kaywood. No one is more concerned with the
proliferation of pole signs, but she is as concerned that there
be proper identification and that businesses have the ability to
show who they are and what they are and that they can be seen
from enough distance in order to find a parking space to get to
it. She is not sure how that can be done. Something eight feet
is not enough because visibility can easily be blocked. She
suggested that perhaps there could be a limited amount of pole
749
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. ~990. 5;30 P,M,
signs and how that can be accommodated, if not visible then
something higher or on a berm for the monument sign.
Councilman Pickler. That is getting away from the whole concept
of what they have been trying to accomplish in the C-R zone. A
good example is Harbor Boulevard. He feels eight feet is ample
along with building signage. People with small lots may have to
have variances. If signs are allowed giving some people the
opportunity to have a ten or twelve foot sign, everybody will
want the same. Eight feet is ample height.
Councilman Daly. This is a series of guidelines that will be
revisited periodically to adjust to the marketplace and to
answer concerns expressed.
Joel Fick. He clarified this is an ordinance and a guideline
that he would like to see kept current with market trends and
the industry.
Councilman Daly. He noted letters that had been received from
local companies and businesses and a local law firm on one issue
having to do with heliports. He asked what the Planning
Commission's feeling was in this regard.
Joel F£ck. He clarified that heliports would be banned entirely
but that heltstops would be allowed under a conditional use
permit. He then clarified other questions posed by Councilman
Daly that kitchenettes are allowed under a conditional use
permit and that office buildings would be allowed if integrated
as part of a hotel project or mixed use and under the
conditional use permit process.
Councilman Ehrle noted the 15 year program for those signs not
in compliance and at the end of that period the signs would have
to be in conformance or face penalties. He questioned the 15
year period.
Joel Fick. There was a lot of interest not only at the staff
and Planning Commission level but also from a number of people
in the community in having a much shorter period. It involves
amortization over a period of time. With input from the City
Attorney, 15 years was the n%unber everyone settled on.
City Attorney White. The reason that number was derived does
not relate to a requirement under the law that they use 15. It
could have been different. The ordinance as written does not
mandatorally require that all signs will be converted at the end
of 15 years. It has a provision that requires a one-year notice
from the City that cannot be given to become effective prior to
the expiration of the 15 year period. As currently written, the
750
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
State Outdoor Advertising Act requires cities that mandate
on-premise signs to conform to new regulations compensate the
owners of those signs for the value of the signs. Using some
tables that are very common in the industry, over that 15 years,
the value would be greatly amortized. It would be a reasonable
amount of time for owners to have to know in advance the City
would be looking to have those signs conform to new standards
and would also minimize the amount the City may otherwise be
required to pay assuming State law remains the same for 15 years.
Councilman Ehrle. He would like to see the number reduced to
perhaps seven years with some formula that those companies,
hotels, motels that have removed signs in the past three years,
new permits for new signs grandfathered in for perhaps five
years giving a total of 12. A proprietor who has had the same
sign for the past 10 or 14 years, if they are going to clean up
the area, that it not be 15 years but 7 years with the
accompanying grandfather clause.
City Attorney White. The shorter the period, the more expensive
it will become for the City to have compliance. The City will
be required to pay the owners the value of the sign at the time
they are required to remove it. To the extent that there are
changes in State law, it would be his intention in the future to
bring back to the Council possible revisions to that provision
as to what the amortization period would be based upon what the
changes might be in the State law.
Councilman Daly. Another issue that they will be dealing with
is convenience markets. He asked if convenience markets were
banned entirely or if they are incorporated into a mixed use
project will they be allowed under a conditio~al use permit.
Joel Fick. Convenience markets per se are banned; the retail
sales aspects _that are permitted in the G-R are expanded. Under
present code, they are not permitted. In terms of general
retail sales and services those possibilities, when incorporated
into a primary complex, are opened up over the present code but
convenience markets per se are not permitted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Daly, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Daly offered Ordinance No. 5156 for introduction repealing Chapter
18.48 of, adding new Chapter 18.48 to, and amending, adding and repealing
751
City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P,~,
various sections of various other chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to Zoning (C-R Zone).
ORDINANCE NO. 5156: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS
CHAPTERS, SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.
Councilman Daly stated that he is recommending that second
reading of the ordinance be on Tuesday, August 14, 1990. He
thereupon moved that adoption of Ordinance No. 5156 be continued
to August 14, 1990 and that the resolution adopting the C-R
Design Guidelines also be continued to that date. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White. The ordinance as introduced would include
the one change as indicated by staff, page 27, section
18.48.086.011 to add the word "minimum" in front of six foot
high concrete block wall.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked that the definition of
kitchenette also be included; City Attorney White clarified that
it was already in the ordinance.
City Attorney White. The continuance coincides with the 30-day
effective date under the existing extension of the moratorium
ordinance in the C-R area.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (7:26 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order all Council Members being
present. (7:35 p.m.)
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Bill Ericson, 301 East North Street. The City is presently correcting an
error made in the decision to use patterned concrete which was installed in
the downtown redevelopment area. This patterned concrete is bein~ replaced.
It did not match up to expectations. He was at the July 10, 1990 ground
breaking for the Koll PacBell project which will be an inducement to foot
· traffic in the area. He therefore congratulates the Council for their action
in replacing the patterned concrete.
Dr. Howard Garber, P. O. Box 1709, Anaheim 92817. He was present last week on
an issue related to escalating crime and drugs in what he regards as the east
Anaheim barrio. He is not present to discuss that matter tonight but will
address that situation in the future. He is speaking to an issue that relates
to the general permissiveness that pervades the nation. He referred to the
752
Oitv Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
2 Live Crew group scheduled to appear at the Celebrity Theatre on July 27,
1990, stating that this group is not welcome in Orange County or California.
Hopefully the City Council will let this be known to the group and will take
whatever measures it can to make sure that they do not appear. As a Board
Member, he then read letter dated July 17, 1990 from the A.C.R.U., American
Civil Responsibilities Union, expressing opposition to the scheduled
appearance of the group and requesting, "...that the City use its good offices
in doing whatever is necessary to block the appearance of this obscene
group..." (Made a part of the record.) Unless something is done to stop the
appearance, they are prepared to demonstrate on July 27, 1990.
Darcy Netlsen, 2350 Rosslynn Drive, Fullerton. She represents the younger
generation. She does volunteer work with youth in the community and is
concerned about the forthcoming concert. She has called the Celebrity Theatre
and been given the "runaround" as to what the concert will consist of, whether
it is the adult version or not.
Mayor Hunter. He does not believe there is an answer to that yet. He spoke
with Dr. Garber for about an hour by telephone and explained that the entire
City Council and City are concerned. A great deal of effort has gone into the
matter involving the police and other City officials. They have tried to keep
the publicity and any demonstrations down so that groups such as this one do
not proliferate and receive notoriety. Under the first amendment, until a
crime is committed, nothing can be done. The City cannot prevent groups from
performing on a premise that the performance may be obscene. It would be
considered prior restraint. A lot of other people/groups much larger than
Dr. Garber's have respected the wishes of the City's Chief of Police and other
members of the Police Department that they have a handle on the matter and do
not need to have the press sell more records for the group. They are very
concerned whether or not the act will be the clean or obscene version but that
cannot be foretold.
Councilman Pickler. He had also called the Celebrity Theatre and was
concerned that the operators were bringing in 2 Live Crew. He is opposed to
censorship and anyone who wants to hear the group has a right to pay for a
ticket to see them. Because 2 Live Crew has already opened the door by using
clean lyrics, he proposes that the City Manager be instructed to send a
telegram to 2 Live Grew since they have two sets of lyrics and that they be
informed when they visit the City that they use the lyrics from their "clean"
album and that they also be requested to give an answer so that the City can
know what to expect. If they choose to go forward with the dirty lyrics, he
hopes that people will stay away from the concert. The City Manager should
also inform the operators of the Celebrity Theatre they should be more
sensitive to Anaheim's values in the future when they book their acts.
753
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990, 5:~0 P,M,
Mayor Hunter. All that has already been done through Police Chief Molloy. He
does not feel the City Manager should be instructed to do anything. The City
Attorney and Police have been working on the matter for a month and have those
areas handled. They should downplay the whole thing and hopefully the press
will do the same.
Shelly Zilliac, 2350 Rosslynn Drive, Fullerton. Her concern is that the
theatre is within 100 feet of a church (Set Free) that is using the building
across the street for their teen age dance club. The theatre will be in
violation of the City of A~aheim adult entertainment ordinance if 2 Live Crew
chooses to do the dirty version.
City Attorney White. He again explained as he did for Mrs. Marr earlier today
even though the activity being conducted may fall within the definition of an
adult business, that activity cannot be prosecuted as a zoning violation
unless it is being conducted on more than an isolated or sporadic basis as
ruled by the State Supreme Court. After further discussion, he gave Mrs.
Ztlliac the origin of the law which permits the exemption - a State Supreme
Court case, People vs. Superior Court - Real Party in Interest, Jose Lucero,
Citation 49, California Third, Page 14, 1989.
Mona Martinez, 6011 East Prado Circle, Anaheim. She also spoke in opposition
to 2 Live Crew scheduled for the Celebrity Theatre. She does not agree that
by not saying anything the situation will go away. She urged Council action
on the matter.
Barbara Mart, California Citizens for Law and Order, Fullerton. She again
expressed her opposition to 2 Live Crew. She also asked Council about
adopting a resolution expressing their opposition to performances by the group
at the Celebrity Theatre or any other such facility.
Ron Bengoshea, 1751 South Nutwood. He has teen-aged daughters and sons. He
suggested that the Council Just tell 2 Live Crew that they are not going to
perform and deal with the owner-of the Celebrity Theatre. There is more than
one group that performs such shows. The City should shut them down and take
their chances in court.
Councilman Pickler. He asked if it would be out of order to send the group a
telegram and if it would effect the City in any way; City Attorney White. He
answered it could subject the City to liability dependent upon how it is
phrased.
179. PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 3281 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
OWNER: George Siciliani and Eva Siciliani
c/o 300 North Tustin Avenue, Unit 201
Santa Ana, California 92705
AGENT: Dwyer Beesley
300 North Tustin Avenue, Unit 201
Santa Ana, California 92705
754
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 502 South Rio Vista Street. The
property is approximately 0.37 acre on the east side of Rio Vista Street and
approximately 260 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. The request
is to permit a 15-unit "affordable" senior citizen apartment complex with
waivers of (a) minimum site area per dwelling unit (granted) and (b) maximum
structural height (deleted).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3281
GRANTED, IN PART (PC90-117), with waiver (a) minimum site area per dwelling
unit - GRANTED and (b) maximum structural height - DELETED (5 yes votes,
2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Daly and Councilman Ehrle at the meeting of June 12, 1990 and public hearing
set this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 5, 1990
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 5, 1990
Posting of property July 6, 1990
PLANNING STAFF INpuT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 21, 1990.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Following Planning
Commission's approval of this senior citizens' conditional use
permit on May 21, 1990, the Zoning Code changed and an ordinance
became effective that requires a 20 foot landscaped setback
between the adjacent RS-7200 zoning to the east and south of the
project. Staff failed to advertise that waiver. Before the
Council could act favorably, it would be necessary to advertise
that waiver and consider it at another hearing. She knows that
people are present on this matter and she believes it is
possible to conduct the public hearing and take testimony and
then continue the hearing.
Dwyer Beesley, 585 Los Coyotes, Anaheim. The project is one of
the finest senior apartment butldln§s he has proposed. It is
convenient to shopping, there are apartments across the street
to the west, commercial to the north and single family to the
east and south. The code requirements allow 55 percent maximum
lot coverage and they are only at 40 percent. The east
elevation is single story sloping up to two stories with no
windows. The south elevation is 45 feet from the property line
and 76 feet away from single family residences. The project was
brought before the Planning Commission with no waivers. The
only reason for the one waiver is the senior density bonus with
accompanying affordable units requires that as a technical
755
Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
variance. They are not exceeding the maximum structural
height. They do request being grandfathered in under Ordinance
No. 5119, the 20 foot landscape setback ordinance. That
ordinance was not in effect when the Planning Commission
unanimously approved the project. After discussions with City
staff members, it was felt the ordinance was not intended for
senior projects but regular RM-1200 projects. It will remain
RSA-43,000; however, the senor ordinance does use RM-1200 as a
guideline. He has reviewed comments of previous public hearings
on this property in order to determine the concerns and wants of
the residents and has worked toward answering those concerns in
the subject project which he briefed. He also reported that one
third of the units will be rented to very low income residents
which will be $490 per month and their market rents will be $625
per month. This project represents a real opportunity to
provide low rents for seniors while at the same time providing a
low density home-like environment.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those who wished
to speak.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN FAVOR:
Kelly Schlagle, 208 North Kathryn (Lincoln and Brookhurst). In
her neighborhood the residents were initially concerned that
apartments, condominiums or office buildings were going to be
built but were glad to learn that a senior citizen project was
proposed and built. In that way, they do not have to worry
about fast traffic and they know that senior citizens will take
care of the property they are living in of course only if they
are able to. Mr. Beesley's eleven unit project was a good one
for their neighborhood.
Niles Zansivar (and his wife), 1047 Marian, one mile from the
proposed project. His folks are in the senior citizen age
group. They would like to have them as close as possible. The
proposed project meets their needs and he is hoping that it will
be approved by the Council.
Tom C0rnelli, 2716 East Gilbert Court. They plan to stay in the
east Anaheim area. They would like to see the subject site
improved and for the senior home to become a reality. There is
a possibility that his folks would also be residents of the
project which would be close to his home and work.
Carol Brown, 2522 Sandalwood, approximately one mile away.
would like to see the project completed. It would be a big
improvement in that area. Traffic congestion would not be
greater with this type of building.
She
756
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN OPPOSITION:
Ron Kotura, 2807 Puritan Place, immediately south of the
proposed project. He has been attending hearings on this piece
of property over and over again. He would like to remind the
Council that he and his neighbor, Shirley Stroh§, who recently
passed away, were in favor of the six unit apartment building
originally proposed on the property. They had worked with the
developer who gave them visual barriers, moved the trash
containers, etc. For some reason, the Council ultimately denied
the project. They had asked the developer to come back with a
six unit condominium and the developer dropped out of the
picture. Since then there is a new owner. Subsequently a
conditional use permit was requested for a small business on the
property which was not approved. Now the proposed 15 units
project will be looking down into his back yard. It is
illo§ical and he does not understand the sequence of events.
Councilman Daly. As he recalls, there was some neighborhood
opposition to the first project. He does not think it was as
clear as Mr. Kotura described. He also knew Mrs. Strong and her
family and he thought she and some of the neighbors were opposed
to the first eight unit apartment project.
Ron Kotura. Mrs. Strong could not be present at that prior
meeting so he spoke in her behalf. There was a real estate man
who lived farther east who said it would lower the value of the
property and he came and opposed. Since he and Mrs. Strong
lived adjacent to the property they wanted the propertydeveloped
where they could have some input into it which they did. When
Mr. Beesley came to his door he said he was not interested
because he intended to oppose the project.
George Murdock, 503 South Stehly Street. He shares the east
wall with the proposed project. He is in agreement with
Mr. Kotura that he was in favor of the first project that was
proposed. He did not attend the meetings because he was in
favor. The first meeting he was involved in was when the
Council heard the request to change the zoning. He had no
problem with the proposed use of the structure on the property,
but not a change in zoning. The new project with two stories
would be 20 feet away from his house. It will completely block
the western sky from his house. There are no other two story
buildings east or south of the site. He wants the codes of the
City upheld. The site is far too small for what is being
proposed.
SLTMMATION BY
APPLICANT:
Dwyer Beesley. Prior to any development, he read the past
history on the property. He looked at the neighbor's concerns
757
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
and tried to meet with them before the Planning Commission
meeting. He then relayed the outcome of his contact and/or
attempted contact with the neighbors. He also read a letter
from a woman who lives near his ll-unit project which was a
positive testament to his development.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Beesley
regarding the previous projects he has built concerning age
limitation, parking, etc. She (Kaywood) noted that there will
be .8 parking spaces per unit but it also states on page 3, item
6 of Planning Commission Resolution PC90-117 that guest parking
shall be clearly marked and has to be available for guests.
Annika Santalahti. That condition should not have been included
on the project. In senior projects there should be no assigned
parking. No spaces can be assigned to anybody. Relative to
maximum structural height also addressed by Councilwoman
Ka~wood, on senior projects they follow either the development
standards of the underlying zone, or if RS-A or commercial, they
follow the standards of the RM-1200 zone with one exception,
that being the height limitation. Rather than one stor~ add 150
feet, for every one foot of building height there has to be two
feet of building setback. There is no height waiver on this
project but it is closer.than a regular project or a condominium
project. This property would not get rezoned. If approved it
would specifically be for a senior citizens' project. Senior
apartments are considered a special housing type.
Councilman Pickler. He knows that Mr. Beesley builds a fine
project. He would like very much to see senior projects built
but this is an area where it does not fit. The area will be
changed if 15 units are allowed. He realizes the need and
necessity for such housing but not at the expense of the
residents who live in the area. The proposed project is too
much for the lot and it will take away from what the area was
designed to be, RS-72OO.
Councilman Daly. In May o£ 1989 when the Council considered the
8-unit proposal, he recalls they asked the property owner and
the developer to bring in an ownership project. This is a very
stable neighborhood with single family homes. It may be right
for senior housing but it does not have to be handled quite this
way. He believes the Council was correct over a year ago in
asking for ownership on this site.
Councilman Ehrle. The reason he agreed that this matter should
be set for public hearing, he wanted to find out exactly what
was happening. The Council turned down a multi-unit project at
758
City ~all. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
the request of the neighbors because they did not feel it was an
appropriate use. Subsequently a home office use for a plumbing
business was requested. He has~been waiting for months to see
the nice wall, the landscaping, etc. Now they are presented
with a 15-unit project. It is not the appropriate choice for
this property. Realistically with two people per unit, there
could be 30 people living in the project. The Council turned
down 8 units - how could they now approve a project with twice
as many people. It is too much for the property. He agrees
with Councilman Daly that the Council was looking for a
condominium project but the developer never came back. He is
not going to support the project.
Mayor Hunter. Fifteen units may be too much but when
Mr. Beesley talked about location, it is a good one for senior
citizens with services close by. There is a great need for such
housing.
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Ehrle, seconded by Councilman 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 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. 90R-262)
Councilman Ehrle moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Ehrle offered Resolution No. 90R-262 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 3281. Refer to Resolution Book.
g~SObUTION NO. 90R-262: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3281.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MF2~ERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Pickler
Hunter
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-262 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 89-6A: In accordance with application
filed by Anaheim Memorial Hospital, 111 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, public
hearing was held on proposed abandonment of that portion of Hermosa Drive
extending northerly from and extending to a point approximately 108 feet north
759
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 ~,M,
of La Palma Avenue pursuant to Resolution No. 90R-212 duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated June 7, 1990 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment subject to payment of $54,000 by the applicant.
Richard Santo, Senior Real Property Agent. Letter dated
June 22, 1990 has been received from Robert Sloane of Anaheim
Memorial Hospital requesting that the City waive any
compensation for the property. Staff's recommendation is to
approve the abandonment but for the Just compensation of $54,000.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Bob Sloane, President and Chief Executive Officer, Anaheim
Memorial Hospital. He is requesting waiver of the $54,000 fee
which the parcel was assessed for. The parcel is a small
remaining portion of Hermosa Drive which leads into the hospital
parking lot. It is a total of 5400 square feet bordered by the
hospital property. As indicated in the Assessor's report, it
has no value to anyone but the hospital due to the size and
location. They are a freestanding, non-profit hospital serving
the community health needs for the City of Anaheim for 32
years. They provide a high level of quality treating thousands
of patients each year. They have no Stock holders and are only
responsible to the community they serve. All excess revenues
after expenses are utilized for planned improvements the latest
in medical technology. They are not part of a chain of
hospitals. They need to use every cent of revenue in order to
be able to provide this service as well as community health,
education, etc. much of which is done at no charge. The $54,000
is extremely important to the hospital. For'those reasons he is
requesting that the fee be waived.
There being no further persons who wished to speak Mayor Hunter closed the
public hearing.
Gouncilwoman Kaywood. Since the property will be used as a
parking lot for the hospital and not for apartments, she sees it
as a service to the community and this is one area where she
would vote to waive the assessment fee.
City Attorney White. Because the appraised value is over
$50,000, Section 1222 of the Charter comes into play which
provides for conveyance of property. A finding needs to be made
as part of the motion that it is in the best interests of the
City to require less than fair market value for the transfer and
that the motion be adopted by not less than a four fifths vote.
760
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Daly, the City Council determined
that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 5
of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental
Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to
file an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the $54,000 compensation payment
finding that it is in the best interest of the City to require less than fair
market value for the transfer. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-263)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 90R-263 approving Abandonment
No. 89-6A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 90g-~63; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING ABANDONMENT NO. 89-6AAND WAIVING THE $54,000 COMPENSATION
PAYMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-263 duly passed and adopted.
134/179. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 307. RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 89-90-56 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1920 South Euclid Street.
approximately 2.78 acres located on the east side of Euclid Street
approximately 130 feet south of the centerline of Wakefield Avenue.
It is
This is a City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
redesignating subject area from the Low Density Residential designation to the
Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
This is a City-initiated reclassification of subject area from the RM-1200
zone to the BR-2400 or a less intense zone.
761
Citw Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COM}{I$SION; General Plan Amendment No. 307
APPROVED Exhibit A, (PC90-125).
Reclassification No. 89-90-56, GRANTED (PC90-126) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: Public heartn§ required due to the General Plan Amendment.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 5, 1990
Posting of property July 5, 1990
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 6, 1990
PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated
May 21, 1990.
Jonathan Borrego, Assistant Planner. Staff recommends approval
based on the fact that the General Plan Amendment and zoning
would be consistent with the existing density and use of the
property.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who
wished to speak; there being no response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman 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 that
there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-264 and 90R-265)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Gouncilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-26A and 90R-265 for adoption the
first approving General Plan Amendment No. 307 Exhibit A and the second
approving Reclassification No. 89-90-56. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-~64; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 307, EXHIBIT "A".
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-265; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
762
City_ Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-264 and 90R-265 duly passed and adopted.
%34/179, PUBLIC HEARING -' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 308-1 AND 2,
RgC~S$IFICATION NO. 89-90-58 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
A City-initiated reclassification of properties from the RM-1200 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less
intense zone.
A City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
redesignating subject areas from the Medium Density Residential designation to
the Low-Medium Density Residential designation (Area 1) and from the Low
Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential
designation (Area 2).
LOCATION: Area 1, approximately 7 acres consisting of those parcels located
on the east and west sides of Ix)ara Street beginning at the southern city
limits and extending north approximately 660 feet, also including those
parcels located on the north and south sides of Wilmot Lane. Excepting that
parcel located on the northwest corner of Wilmot Lane and Loara Street.
LOCATION: Area 2, approximately 4.6 acres consisting of that parcel located
on the east side of Euclid Street, having a frontage of approximately 330 feet
on the east side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately
608 feet and being located approximately 190 feet south of the centerline of
Cindy Lane.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; General Plan Amendment No. 308-1
APPROVED, EXCEPT LOTS FACING Della, Exhibit A amended, and General Plan
Amendment No. 308-2 APPROVED, Exhibit A, (PC90-143).
Reclassification No. 89-90-58 GRANTED to RM-3000 (PC90-144) (5 yes votes, 2
absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: Public hearing required due to the General Plan Amendment.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 5, 1990
Posting of property July 5, 1990
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 6, 1990
763
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, ~990, 5;30 P,M,
PLANNING sTAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated
June 4, 1990.
Jonathan Borrego, Assistant Planner. This General Plan
Amendment and zoning reclassification are part of the on-going
housing study. It involves two study areas. He then briefed
the proposed Land Use Element (Area i and 2) and the action
taken by the City Planning Commission in approving General Plan
Amendment No. 308-1 and -2 as well as Reclassification
No. 89-90-58.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who
wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response he
closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-266 and 90R-267)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Gouncilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 90R-266 and 90R-267 for adoption,
the first approving General Plan Amendment No. 308-1 and -2 Exhibit A as
amended by the Planning Commission and the second approving Reclassification
No. 89-90-58. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-266~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENTS NO. 308-1 AND 308-2, EXHIBIT "A". (AMENDED)
RESOLUTION NO. 9OR-267: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-266 and 90R-267 duly passed and adopted.
764
Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
134. PUBLIC HEARING -GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 309 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 98205
LOCATION: The property is located at 222 North East Street. It is
approximately 8.2 acres located on the southeast corner of Cypress Street and
East Street.
A City-initiated amendment' to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
redesignating subject area form the General Commercial and Medium Density
Residential designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: General Plan Amendment No. 309
GRANTED (PG90-145 Exhibit A, (4 yes votes, 3 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: Public hearing required due to the General Plan Amendment.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 5, 1990
Posting of property July 5, 1990
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 6, 1990
PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated
June 4, 1990.
Jonathan Borrego, Assistant Planner. The property is currently
developed with a church. They are recommending General Plan
Amendment from the GC and Medium Density residential to the
Low-Medium Density residential designation.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak
either in favor or in opposition; there being no response he closed the public
hearing. _
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman ghrle, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
to§ether with any comments received during the public review process, and 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. 90R-268)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-268 for adoption approving
General Plan Amendment No. 309 Exhibit A. Refer to Resolution Book.
765
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1990. 5;30 P.M,
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-268: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AHENDMENT TO THE 1AN'DUSE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 309, EXHIBIT "A".
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kay~ood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-268 duly passed and adopted.
179,
OUNER:
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO, 4051, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15;
Pterco Development
14771 Plaza Drive, Suite A
Tustin, California 92680
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 712, 718, 724 and 728 West
Romneya Drive. The request is for waivers of (a) minimum building site width
and (b) minimum side yard setback to establish a 4-lot subdivision of a
16-unit apartment complex (under construction).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Variance No. 4051 APPROVED
(ZA90-29) modified Condition Nos. 2 and 10.
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested
by Councilman Daly and Councilman Hunter at the meeting of June 19, 1990 and
public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 5, 1990
Posting of property July 9, 1990
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 5, 1990
PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Zoning Administrator dated
May 31, 1990.
Phillip Schwartze. This matter was set for public hearing by
the Council. Tht~ t~ a 16-unit apartment project which has been
built and will soon open. They appeared before the Zoning
Administrator and requested approval of minimum building site
width and minimum side yard setback. The project is almost a
mirror image of the project built right behind them. He is
requesting approval of their requested variance.
Mayor Hunter. He and Councilman Daly had the same questions as
to why the project is being split up in four separate units. He
understands there is going to be one management company for all.
766
Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990, 5;30 p,M,
Phillip Schwartze. The answer is yes. The reason it is done,
if the property can be divided up, it can be financed much
differently. It is purely a financing tool and it worked out
very well.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those who wished
to speak.
Emily Vinarooter, 1209 Ralston Street. She wants to know how
they can make four lots out of three. Three small houses were
on the property and now they want four apartments with 16 units
with one-car garages. She wants to know where all those people
are going to park. Every family needs at least two cars. At
present, she can hardly get out of her driveway. It is
dangerous getting out to Romneya. She questioned what it will
be like when there are 32 more cars. She does not know how the
project can be allowed in that small area. The problems from
the Chevy Chase area moved to their area. It is not safe to
live in the area and she has lived there for 30 years. She does
not want to be forced to move.
Gouncilman Daly. His concern in agreeing with the Mayor to
schedule the hearing, part of the problem in that neighborhood
is that City government is spending a lot of money on the area.
He is concerned with the incredible number of ownerships in the
neighborhood. There are hundreds of apartment units in the
radius of the intersection at Citron and Romneya. It is a major
problem.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Relative to the
concern expressed about parking, the project does comply with
the parking requirements. They are all two bedroom units with a
requirement of 2.5 parking spaces per unit, two of which are
assigned to the units. Part of the problem in an area such as
this, units were built under standards 25 years old where the
City at the time required only one and a quarter spaces. Most
of the older projects are at less than one half of current
standards. This project will be self supportive in terms of
parking.
John Lower, Frincipal Traffic Engineer. The traffic added by
this project is minimal, about 90 trips per day or 9 trips
during peak periods.
City Attorney White. If the variance is approved and the
property is subdivided into four lots, there is no legal
requirement that these all be maintained in one ownership and
one manager.
COUNCIL ACTION; There being no further persons who wished to speak Mayor
Hunter closed the public hearing.
767
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1990. 5;~0 P,M,
Councilman Daly. He is not clear how the public interest will
be served if the property is subdivided. He has read the staff
reports from the Housing Authority where the City is spending
tens of thousands of dollars in this neighborhood to deal with
the problem of multiple ownerships. This is similar to the
Jeffrey-Lynne situation. There are hundreds of owners and the
average owner owns six, seven or ten units and they are living
all over the world. It creates headaches and misery. This was
processed as a 16-unit complex and that is what is should be. A
great deal of time has been spent by City government coping with
the down side of the matter. Some day the project will be four
separate ownerships. He does not see it contributing to the
improvement of the neighborhood. He feels the parcelization
makes no sense to the City.
Councilman Ehrle. He agrees. It came to the City as 16 units.
It is under construction and the Council has vowed to do
everything possible to prevent future Chevy Chase areas.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She would like to ask the developer to
stipulate to the project remaining under one ownership.
Richard Pierce, 14771 Plaza Drive, Tusttn. He is the owner. He
always planned to make four fourplexes out of the project. The
reason he got the permit as 16 units was because the purchase
escrows on the three houses were so short or he would have the
parcel map at the same time as the permit. He had to start
construction so he got the permit as 16 units and is now asking
the City to grant him the four properties. He has no intention
at this time to sell but he does need the separate ownership for
the reason of financing. He cannot promise in years to come
they will not be sold but now that will not be the case.
Answering Councilman Pickler he explained they will be
maintained as 16 units as long as he is the owner. He has been
building in Anaheim for 35 years and has built hundreds of
fourplexes. His experience when he builds fourplexes,
80 percent of those who live there are older people who sell
their home and buy a fourplex, triplex or duplex and live in the
front and rent out the back. Almost all of his units are
beautiful. He always thought it was better to have the owner on
the property than under a management company. The quality of
the building has a lot to do with what it will be like in the
future. His buildings are quality buildings such as the
fourplexes on Pearl Street.
City Attorney White then explained for Mayor Hunter relative to
having CC&Rs and requiring one management company, it sounds
like it is contrary to the intent of the owner who wants to
parcelize for financing which means there will be a separate
trust deed on each parcel so that if there is a default under an
768
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1990, ~;30 P.M.
individual parcel, the lender would take ownership separately if
there were such a stipulation or deed restriction and no lender
would stipulate to an unsubordinated deed restriction which is
what the City would normally require. A lender would not lend
unless he had the security of being able to foreclose on the
individual lot. Councilman Daly. It has nothing to do with
this developer and his track record. To him it is bad planning.
MOTION: Councilman Daly moved to deny Variance No. 4051.
Before further action was taken, Annika Santalahti asked to make
a correction. There are two waivers involved. If the Council
intends to deny the maximumbutldtng site width which is what
allows the four lots, if they approve it in part denying
waiver (a), that would necessitate amending conditions to delete
or amend those referring to the parcel map issue. She then
explained how the conditions would be amended.
Councilman Daly. He suggested that staff take administrative
action to put an end to the system where there is an expectation
of parcelizatton later on. This is an after-the-fact legal
maneuver which he respects relative to the financial rationale.
He wants projects advertised as they are going to be and as they
shall be whatever it takes.
Annika Santalahtt. She asked if he was talking about future
projects that would comply with code as it stands or amending
the code that says there ts a minimum project size otherwise
they have to come before the Commission and the Council.
Councilman Daly answered no. He gets the sense this
parcelization has happened on other projects and it may be a
problem of the processing system.
Mr. Pierce then stated answering Councilwoman Kaywood that he
plans to retain ownership at this time.
After further discussion and questioning of Mr. Pierce, he asked
if it would be possible to ask for a continuance and come back
to the Council again in two weeks. During the interim he could
show the Council the projects he has built. He feels he is
being put in a category that he does not fit into. He provides
a service to the community. The only reason that other projects
have owners all over the world is because those projects are run
down.
Councilman Pickler thereupon moved to continue the public hearing on Variance
No. 4051 for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Daly noted that he had first made a motion to deny.
Councilman Ehrle thereupon seconded that motion.
769
City Hall, ~n~betm. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
City Attorney White. The continuance motion under Council's
rules would take priority and would have to be voted on first.
Councilman Daly. He will withdraw his motion if the Council
wants to take a look at the neighborhood and the project.
A vote was then taken on the continuance motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
114/129. BANNING OF FIREWORKS : Councilwoman Kaywood. She is continually
glad to see the voters of Anaheim made the right choice in 1986 when they
voted to ban fireworks in the City. There have been almost no problems during
the July 4th periods since then. She is concerned to see that cities on
Anaheim's borders still allow fireworks and she would encourage neighboring
cities to also ban fireworks.
114/105. COMPENSATION - PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Councilman Pickler. With
regard to Planning Commission members compensation, he would like to schedule
for Council consideration additional compensation for Planning Commissioners.
On every other Monday the Commissioners work from 10:00 a.m. to an average of
8:00 p.m. They do other work as well preparing for their meetings and putting
in many hours which as a recommending body makes Council's Job easier.
Perhaps the matter could be discussed on August 14th.
Councilwoman Kaywood. Having served on the Planning Commission, she would not
have worked any harder or less if she received more money. When people are
paid to do something, it is not the same quality of work.
Councilman Pickler. He is talking about raising the present $50 to $100. He
feels the Council should at least discuss the matter.
Councilman Daly. He supports putting it on the agenda after the Council
receives a report form staff as to compensation and what other cities of
comparable size are paying and what the terms and conditions of their work
are. He is not going to go out and research the answers himself but staff
should do so and present those to the Council. He does not want the matter to
be placed back on the agenda "blind" and is asking for a report.
It was determined that a discussion regarding the possibility of raising the
compensation amount for Planning Commissioners be scheduled for the August 14,
1990 Council agenda with staff directed to submit a report.
~DJOUgNMENT; Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:40 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CI.F. RK
Councilman Pickler seconded
77O