Loading...
1989/01/31City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:30 p.m. on January 27, 1989 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 12:00 noon. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership, O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59. b. To discuss labor relations matters 54957.6. Government Code Section c. To discuss personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957. d. To confer with its Attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). e. To consider 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. AFTER RECESS' The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (1:48 p.m.) INVOCATION: FLAG SALUTE: to the Flag. Bishop Murray Reed, Anaheim Eighth Ward LDS, gave the invocation. Councilman Tom Daly led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance 65 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. 119: PRESENTATION - ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE - MULTIVISION CABLE TV: Mr. John Merritt, Vice-President, Multivision Cable TV, announced in the spirit of his company's cooperation with the City and as evidence of the on-going commitment to the City and its residents, he is presenting the City with their check for $526,353 representing Multivision's Annual Franchise Fee. Mayor Hunter accepted the check and thanked Mr. Merrit on behalf of the Council and City, commenting that Multivision of late has been doing a good job for the City reflected in the many positive comments he has heard. 119; PRESENTATION - REIMBURSEMENT OF JOINT pOWERS AUTHORITY (JPA) ASSESSMENT FEE: Transportation Corridor Agencies presentation of a check in the amount of $12,730 for the reimbursement of the one-time JPA assessment fee. Mr. John Meyer, Executive Director, Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County. Three years ago the Anaheim City Council took an important step and joined with a dozen other communities and the County to form the two Transportation Agencies (the Eastern/Foothill Transportation Corridor and the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor JPA). The Council also allocated funds in the amount of $25,000 so that the Agencies could have operating funds with the promise that if the Agencies were in a position to repay those funds they would do so. The Agencies are now in that position and, in essence, Anaheim is getting $25,000 back but the Authority has deducted the interest due. In concluding, Mr. Meyer commended former Mayor Ben Bay who was the Authority's first Chairman and who always brought pressure to bear to get things accomplished. He was devoted and dedicated to his position and the cause of the JPA. The alternate member, Councilman Pickler, brought his expertise to the Agency whenever he was called upon to do so. Councilman Daly has now picked up the ball since last November. Thanks to Anaheim's representatives, the Authority is moving forward enthusiastically in a uniform fashion. Council Members Pickler and Daly accepted the check on behalf of the Council and the City. 119; PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Hunter and authorized by the City Council: Minority Business Opportunity Day in Anaheim, February 2, 1989. The proclamation was accepted by Mr. Ted Rogshn and Mrs. Smith (McDonnell-Douglas). 119: DECLARATION OF APPRECIATION; A Declaration of Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council appreciating Sylvia Marshack upon her retirement as a Convention Sales Director at the Visitors and Convention Bureau for 22 years. The Declaration will be presented at a later date. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held January 10 and January 17, 1989. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 66 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,287,085.44, in accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCE: The titles of the following resolutions and ordinance on the Consent Calendar were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 89R-21 through 89R-24, both inclusive, for adoption and Ordinance No. 4993 for introduction) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and ordinance. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION C~d~RIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR; On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 89R-21 through 89R-24, both inclusive, for adoption and Ordinance No. 4993 for introduction. Refer to Resolution Book. Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Stacey Berkman for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 16, 1988. b. Claim submitted by Patricia Bianchi for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 15, 1988. c. Claim submitted by Patrick & Staci Cole for bodily injuries sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 1, 1988. d. Claim submitted by Patrick Frost for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 17, 1988. e. Claim submitted by Isaac Pai for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 16, 1988. f. Claim submitted by Mary P. Pierce for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 14, 1988. g. Claim submitted by Ismael Rangel for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 18, 1988. h. Claim submitted by Jessie Villalobos for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 23, 1988. i. Claim submitted by Kema Landscape Company, Inc. for indemnity for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 8, 1988. 67 8O City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, ~989, 1:30 P.M. j. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell for indmenity for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 7, 1988. k. Claim submitted by Mercedes Mayer, Hector G. Mayer, Octavio R. Mayer, Benjamin Mayer and Maria M. Mayer for bodily injuries sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 23, 1988. A2. 107: Receiving and filing the Building Division Statistical Report for the month ending December 31, 1988. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Course Advisory Commission meeting held November 17, 1988. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held January 5, 1989. A3. 172: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Anaheim Traffic Control Event Communication Center, by D. W. Jensen Corporation, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. A4. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Spear Pipeline Construction, Inc., in the amount of $47,502.30 for the construction of Water Main Improvements in Janss & Pine Streets. A5. 155/164: Approving a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA for the construction of an 18" to 42" RCP storm drain and appurtenant structures Lincoln-Sunkist Storm Drain Improvement. A6. 106/155: Approving an appropriation and expenditure increase in the amount of $600,000 in the Public Works - Engineering Department Capital Improvement Budget (fund 43). A7. 169: Approving Contract Change Order #1, in the amount of $25,450.66 in favor of Artistic landscape & Engineering, to regrade and recompact the slope on the east side of Sunkist Avenue south of the 91 Freeway, and hydroseed the slope with a ground cover in lieu of the proposed planting. AS. 172: RESOLUTION NO, 89R-21; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-471 RELATING TO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. (Rescinding Resolution No. 77R-471 relating to stop signs, yield signs, pedestrian crosswalks, and crossing guard warrants) Ag. 123: Approving an agreement with BSI Consultants, to provide plan checking services for the City when schedules exceed a reasonable time period. Charges paid to the consultant will be billed to the developer and will result in no cost to the City. Al0. 177/174: Accepting an Emergency Shelter Grant Award in the amount of $36,000 for meeting the costs of operating emergency shelters, and improving the quality of emergency shelters for the homeless. 68 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. 177/174: Awarding the $36,000 in Emergency Shelter Grant funds to Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, Inc., for application toward operating costs of the Halcyon Shelter for homeless families in Anaheim. All. 177/174: Approving the adoption of the 1989 Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan and submitting such plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Al2. 106/177: Approving a Revenue and Expenditure increase adjustment in the amount of $1,000,000 for Control Center 60-Housing Assistance, Resource Allocation Plan 1988-89. Al3. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to Naaco, Inc., for an additional amount of $1,138 bringing the revised purchase order total to $89,138 for additional work required for asbestos removal/disposal from the Senior Citizen Center. Al4. 123: Approving an agreement with Episcopal Service Alliance, Inc., for fiscal year 1989/90, in the amount of $15,000 to provide emergency assistance services to homeless individuals and families within the community, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. Al5. 175.123: Approving the Fifth Amendment to the Agreement with Volt Energy Systems, Inc. as recommended by the Public Utilities Board, for energy audits and conservation support services, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement on behalf of the City. Al6. 123: Approving a License Agreement for Software Products with Honeywell, Inc. which grants specific rights for making copies (fo? archival and backup purposes). Al7, 152/184/116/129; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL CIVIL DEFENSE PROGRAMS. (Authorizing Bob Simpson, City Manager, Robert G. Berg, Emergency Services Coordinator, 3eff Bowman, Fire Chief, and James Ruth, Assistant City Manager to execute documents in connection with Federal Civil Defense Programs) Al8. 153: Authorizing the Job Training Manager to convene the first meeting of the Anaheim Private Industry Council scheduled for February 2, 1989, at 3:00 p.m. Al9, 103/171; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-23; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AGREEING TO A REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR ANNEXATION NO. 275 - THE COAL CANYON ANNEXATION - TO THE CITY OFANAHEIM. (Approving and adopting an agreement to redistribute property taxes between the County of Orange and City of Anaheim for Annexation No. 275, the Coal Canyon Annexation) A20, 170/142; ORDINANCE NO, 4993 - (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS AND FEES. 69 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. A21, 176/114/000; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-24; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RELATING TO THE ABANDONMENT OR VACATION OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY. (Adopting a Council Policy relating to payment of compensation for abandonment or vacation of public easements or rights-of-way) Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 89R-21 through 89R-24: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-21 through 89R-24, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED. 139/114; 1989/89 LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY PROGRAM - ESTABLISH LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE - APPOINT COUNCIL LIAISON; Submitted was report dated January 24, 1989 from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Kristine Thalman. Councilman Hunter moved to receive and file the 1989/90 Legislative Strategy program, authorizing the establishment of a City Council Legislative Committee, and appointment of City Council liaison members to the Legislative Committee. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hunter nominated Councilman Pickler and Councilman Ehrle as City Council liaison members to the Legislative Committee. Since there were no additional nominations, Council Members Pickler and Ehrle were unanimously appointed liaison members to the Committee. 105: COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD - UNSCHEDULED VACANCY: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to declare an unscheduled vacancy on the Community Services Board for the term of Sheri Pignone, expiring June 30, 1990 and the posting of the vacancy. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that a Certificate of Appreciation be prepared for Mrs. Pignone for her ~ervtces to the City: Councilman Pickler recommended that it be presented to Mrs. Pignone by the Council. 123: CIRCUS VARGUS USE OF YORBA REGIONAL PARK; Submitted was report dated January 31, 1989 from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services Chris Jarvi, recommending approval of an agreement with Circus Vargas for the use of Yorba Regional Park. City Clerk Sohl announced that since this is an emergency item which arose after printing and posting of the Council agenda, it would be necessary for the Council to waive the posting requirements of the Brown Act. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the Anaheim City Council determined that the need to act on the following item arose after the posting of the agenda for this meeting, on Friday, January 27, 1989, at 7O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. 3:30 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement relative to posting the item on the printed agenda. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Daly posed questions to Mr. Jarvi relative to the request at the conclusion of which Councilman Hunter moved to approve an agreement, in concept, between the City and Circus Vargas for the use of Yorba Regional Park for three days of Circus performances, with the City Manager authorized to sign the necessary documents to allow the use. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. ~n~-i~wem~n-K~yw~e~ voted no. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Councilman Pickler. He would like 'arks and Recreation to look at the situation closely and to inform the Circus Vargas people that in the future they should provide the City with more time to consider such requests. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4992 ADOPTION: Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 73-74-55 (8) located on the southwest corner of Woodland Drive and Magnolia Avenue, from ML into the CL zone. Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked if a specific use was proposed. Joel Fick, Planning Director. In 1974 an overall master plan was approved for what was then the Dunn Properties commercial site. This parcel is the eighth being rezoned to commercial consistent with the original approval. There is no development proposal under consideration. Councilwoman Kaywood. She would like to know what is going to be developed before voting on the ordinance. The item was trailed until later in the meeting (2:20 p.m.) at which time (2:25 p.m.) Mr. Fick confirmed that no additional development was being proposed. The commercial buildings developed on the property will remain. is a housekeeping item as part of the overall planned commercial complex. It Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Approximately 2/3 of the property is developed with existing office buildings and a shared parking agreement. They could never take the existing buildings, convert them from office use and lower the parking standards without some kind of zoning action. It would first take demolition to put something new on the property and she cannot foresee anything like that happening. Joel Fick explained for Councilwoman Kaywood if a proposal came in on the property, a notation on the zoning maps on that parcel would alert anyone doing plan checking to check the files and the specific plans. It would prevent someone proposing something on that property without coming back to the Planning Commission and Council. As far as a convenience market, such a use would require a CUP in any case and thus a review by the Planning Commission and possibly the Council. Since 2/3 of the property is built out, it is not likely that will occur. WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4992) 71 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 4992 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4992: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 73-74-55 (8) located on the southwest corner of Woodland Drive and Magnolia Avenue, from ML into the CL zone) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4992 duly passed and adopted. 114/177~ TERM OF AFFORDABILITY ON MULTI-FAMILY DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS: Discussion to extend the term of affordability on multi-family density bonus projects from present council policy of 10 years to 30 years. Discussion on the issue was initiated by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of November 29, 1988, and continued from the meetings of December 6, 1988 and January 17, 1989, to this date. Submitted was report dated January 24, 1989 from the Community Development Director, Lisa Stipkovich. Councilwoman Kaywood. When the City allows density bonuses without setting a 30-year limit on affordable units, all they are doing is increasing density. It is crucial if they are going to be serious about providing affordable housing, it must have a limit of 30 years minimum. Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the term of affordability on multi-family density bonus projects be increased from the present Council Policy of 10 years to 30 years. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she understands some developments have already been built and sold and they forgot to mention to the new buyers that affordable was involved. She asked how can they assure there is a legal requirement to disclose that to the new buyer. City Attorney White. Agreements between the City and the developer typically contain the requirement that that information either be recorded or provided depending on whether it is a rental or purchase unit. That would be the manner in which that information is disclosed. If it is not required in the agreement then he feels legally the City would have difficulty compelling them to perform anact not currently in the agreement. As a standard practice, they require disclosure either be recorded if for sale purposes, or to be provided by the landlord in the case of rental. He feels it is covered. 72 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Lisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director. They require an affordable agreement to be signed by the developer and all those agreements are recorded against the property and they should show up at any time the property is transferred. The obligations in the agreement transfer with the property owner in the case of all multi-family developments. On home ownership, there is a different requirement where there is a depreciating second trust deed mechanism to prevent windfall profit. In those cases, there is a recorded second trust deed on individual for-sale units. For clarification, on this policy they are only talking about multi-family projects. On home ownership, she will get that additional information to the Council as the City study continues. She also explained for Councilman Daly that they have a monitoring program which requires the developer to report to them the tenants in the affordable units. They check income and household size and do spot checks occasionally. She also pointed to the graph attached to the report listing some cities showing the terms of affordability in those cities. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 142: SELECTION OF TEN MEMBERS FOR THE BLUE RIBBON CHARTER COMMITTEE: Selecting ten members to serve on the Blue Ribbon Committee to review the City Charter. A discussion of the process to select members for the Blue Ribbon Committee to review the City Charter was discussed at the meeting of December 20, 1988 (see minutes that date). City Clerk Sohl. She has prepared and submitted to the Council a list of names of citizens who have indicated their interest in serving on the subject committee. Mayor Hunter. More names have also come in within the last few days. Each Council Member will nominate one person for the Committee and the five remaining will be nominated at large by the Council with each of the ten to be appointed by a majority vote of the Council. Working from left to right, the Mayor asked first to hear from Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood. (After each name was placed in nomination, the Council Member gave a brief background on his/her nominees). Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood nominated Dr. Janice Billings. Dr. Billings was appointed to the Committee by a unanimous vote. Councilman Daly nominated Floyd Farano. Mr. Farano was appointed to the Committee by a unanimous vote. Councilman Ehrle nominated Rita Robinson. Mrs. Robinson was appointed to the Committee by a unanimous vote. Councilman Pickler nominated Dr. Ken Heuler. Dr. Heuler was appointed to the Committee by a unanimous vote. Mayor Hunter nominated Mitch Caldwell. Mr. Caldwell was appointed to the Committee by a unanimous vote. 73 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Hunter then opened the floor to nominations of the five remaining members to complete the Blue Ribbon Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood nominated Ms. Beth Fujishige. Councilman Daly nominated "Maggie" Carillo-Mejia. Councilman Ehrle nominated Joanne Barnett. Councilman Pickler nominated A1 Peraza. Mayor Hunter nominated Wylie Aitken. At the completion of nominations, a vote was taken on the foregoing five nominations. The vote was unanimous thereby completing the appointment of ten members to the Blue Ribbon Charter Review Committee. Mayor Hunter. The Committee will take the City Charter into the 21st Century. The changes they recommend to be reviewed by the Council will be on the November, 1990 ballot. He thanked the Council Members on their selections of people to serve noting that because of the great response to the call for people to serve on the Committee, it was a difficult decision choosing from the many excellent applicants. It was determined by the Council that letters of thanks be prepared for all those who applied; the Council Members also expressed how pleased they were to have received so many applications noting their difficulty in having to choose between the very high caliber responses. Councilman Ehrle. He emphasized that the meetings of the Committee will be open meetings and all are encouraged to attend and participate by giving their input. The Charter is a document that should be truly representative of the people. Councilwoman Kaywood. She noted that the previous Committee set their own schedule and pace meeting on a weekly basis which she feels has merit and which may be more expedient than the year long, once-a-month preliminary schedule proposed to be followed by the Committee just formed. This would also possibly enable any changes to be placed on an earlier ballot than 1990. She is also asking that the City Attorney provide the minutes of the previous Committee formed to study the Charter. City Attorney White. He is intending to give each member a packet not only with the current Charter, but also the final report of the original 1963 Committee, plus the results of the 1978 Committee meetings along with the housekeeping ballot measures relating to the Charter which were on the November, 1988 ballot as well as some additional material his office would supply. Councilwoman Kaywood. Councilman Daly had mentioned previously the City of Irvine's Charter which allows that City to immediately adopt anything through 74 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1;30 P.M. the general law cities. If housekeeping changes could be incorporated without an election to keep it a viable document, she is certain they all would like to see that done. City Attorney White. There is a way to do that and he will provide that information to the Committee. MOTION; Councilman Pickler moved to direct the City Clerk to establish the date, time and place for the first organizational meeting of the Blue Ribbon Charter Review Committee. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 114: COUNCIL MEETING MASTER CALENDAR FOR 1989: Discussion regarding the Council Master Calendar for 1989 which was requested by Mayor Hunter at the meeting of January 24, 1989. Submitted was a 1989 Master Calender of Anaheim City Council meetings provided by the City Clerk. Councilman Daly. He suggested the following - that the Council not meet on the 5th Tuesdays of the month, one of which is the day after the Memorial Day Holiday (Monday, May 29, 1989) and that they also not meet on the Tuesdays where there are conflicts with other annual meetings of City importance which the majority of the Council will be attending as well as the July 4th Holiday and the day after Christmas, December 26, 1989. City Clerk Sohl. One event not noted on the Master Calendar is the Sister City visitation to Mito, Japan, which encompasses Tuesday, March 28, 1989; Councilman Daly included that day as well. Councilman Daly moved that there be no Council meetings on the following Tuesdays during 1989: March 14, March 28, May 30, July 4, August 29, September 5, October 24, October 31 and December 26, 1989. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (2:55 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:12 p.m.) 134/172; PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 210, CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 285: On August 16, 1988, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 210 which designated the intersections listed below as Critical Intersections. The City proposes that intersections so designated will be enhanced by up to 12 feet for a distance of 600 feet from the corner right of way line. Prior to issuance of building permits, conditional use permits, variances or other related zoning and building actions on the adjacent properties, the property owners will make an irrevocable offer to dedicate such additional right-of-way as required. The cost of widening will be borne either by the City or major property developers. 75 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. The purpose of this hearing is to allow the City Council the opportunity to review their action taken in August 1988 and make amendments to same. Intersections Designated Critical on August 16, 1988: Ball and Beach Ball and Brookhurst Ball and Euclid Ball and Harbor Beach and Lincoln Brookhurst and Katella Brookhurst and La Palma Convention Way and Harbor Convention Way and Haster Euclid and La Palma Euclid and Lincoln Harbor and Katella Harbor and La Palma Haster and Katella Kraemer and La Palma Kraemer and Orangethorpe La Palma and Imperial Hwy La Palma and Lakeview La Palma and Magnolia La Palma and State College La Palma and Tustin Lincoln and Magnolia Lincoln and State College Orangethorpe & Imperial Hwy There are nine other intersections which were previously designated as Critical Intersections under General Plan Amendment No. 214 on March 17, 1987, and these are not being considered as part of this hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC88-117, reco~unended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 210 and recommended certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 285. The City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 210 under Resolution No. 88R-323 on August 16, 1988 with the effective date of January 1, 1989; certified EIR No. 285 with a statement of overriding considerations as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. HEARING SET ON: Councilman Daly requested that the Council reconsider the City's Critical Intersection Plan under General Plan Amendment No. 210 at the meeting of December 20, 1988 and subsequently public hearing was scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 19, 1989. Posting of property January 20, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 19, 1989. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report dated January 24, 1989 from the Public Works Engineering Department submitted for Council's information only for this public hearing. (Reports and data were presented to the Planning Commission and Council at the time of the original approval of GPA No. 210). Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Staff does not have a specific proposal before the Council for consideration. Twenty-four intersections were approved in August, 1988 under General Plan Amendment No. 210 which are open for discussion at this hearing. His January 24, 1989 report is 76 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. a summary of the information the Council has received over the past 2 1/2 years. He will not repeat that information and suggests that the Council continue with this public hearing. It was determined upon questioning by Mayor Hunter that approximately 75 people were present on the issue. He clarified that the hearing involved only the 24 intersections remaining in the plan and not the 33. Nine intersections have already been approved and are not a subject of discussion today. He opened the hearing to public input. The following people spoke to the critical intersection plan. Included is a summary of each speaker's comments in opposition, concerns, possible alternatives, or comments in favor of the plan: Robert Peltier, 1721 Rutherford Street, Anaheim - opposed. He is located at Kraemer and Orangethorpe. It will take property from him and he will not be able to sell his house; the street is wide enough at present. Leaving Kraemer and traveling into Placentia is where the problem lies. Judy Carver, 169 "C", Magnolia (Magnolia and Lincoln) - opposed. She is a first-time home buyer. Taking 12 to 25 feet from that corner will bring traffic into what is now her yard. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The townhomes where Ms. Carver lives will not be affected since the 10-foot bikeway in that location which has now been discontinued is the right-of-way that will be used for the widening. Troy Deforest, representing a business located at 4411 East La Palma - American Lock & Supply - Lakeview and La Palma. He believes that the critical intersection plan is a good idea but he has questions regarding the 12 feet and if it includes the sidewalks since the businesses in that area were required to install sidewalks. (Mr. Deforest was instructed to discuss his particular situation with staff since solutions will be specific to the site involved). Claren Church, 1780 East Vermont (La Palma and State College). He is opposed because of the depreciation that will occur having traffic 3 feet from his door. He has a tremendous investment in his property. Robert Baker, 9381 Skylark Boulevard, Garden Grove. He is speaking in opposition for his next door neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Tyler who own property on the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln. The Tylers asked him to speak in opposition. Taking 12 feet from their property will effectively eliminate every tenant on the property. It would have to 77 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. be completely torn down and rebuilt to a much smaller scale. They will be adversely impacted in a big way. Sam Magid (Ball Road and Euclid - northwest corner), opposed. Euclid Street now has three lanes in either direction. Another is not necessary. Consider instead no parking at certain times as they do in Los Angeles. Look for an easy solution that will not cost money. Roger Hull, 219 "A" North Magnolia - opposed. He lives in the same complex as Ms. Carver, the townhomes at Magnolia and Lincoln. Their property value will be negatively impacted by the plan. Marshall Krupp, 1717 South State College Boulevard. He is neither in favor nor in opposition to the plan. He is suggesting that there be a compromise position that addresses particularly the resident's concern and consider a program of communication with each one of the neighborhood intersections as the program is being implemented. He also spoke to other issues such as the need for efficient traffic movement especially in the commercial/recreation area and the City as a whole. He believes the critical intersection program is unique because it is an alternative to a more drastic proposal, that of widening streets. Jeffrey Gradow, 1057 Wilkins Avenue, Los Angeles, 90024 - opposed. He owns commercial property on Ball Road, 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard. If the City takes 12 feet he will lose 35 parking spaces. Walter Shears, Seal Beach, property owner at 4410 La Palma. He built two industrial buildings at Lakeview and La Palma and in doing so had to build the road without compensation from the City as well as installing other improvements. Me is opposed because it will take away his property and the improvements he made. Rick Alcaino (Kraemer and Orangethorpe), opposed. Taking 12 feet from the intersection would cause him to lose his pool. Fair compensation would be a lot more in today's value. Jack Card, 1746 Pleasant Street (Orangethorpe and Kraemer), opposed. Even now it is a very noisy intersection. Small backyards would be made even smaller. If they want to sell, there will be a cloud on the property. He also posed questions which he feels are of concern to property owners. 78 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Gary Johnson, City Engineer. Regarding the issue of fair market value, the City would require a full appraisal of the property which information would be provided to the property owner. Negotiation would follow which would include the value of the property, severance damages, noise problem, improvements that would be effected, parking spaces, etc. Should that fail to materialize, eventually the value would be established by a court, something which is infrequent. As to the 12 feet, the General Plan Amendment calls for a standard 12-foot section but when they actually get into the detailed design, intersection by intersection, it may only be 6 feet, 7 feet or 9 feet - 12 feet being the maximum. He cannot give specific answers on individual cases today. Relative to there being a "cloud" on the property, that was answered by the City Attorney at a previous hearing. Mr. Card also asked if in selling their property they would have to declare in the listing that 12 feet will be taken from the property. City Attorney White. He does not believe it appropriate to commence giving private legal advice to individual property owners. In General, however, everybody's property in the City is designated in the General Plan in several different ways, only one of which relates to the circulation element critical intersection. When property is sold, it would be no more necessary to designate to a prospective buyer that the property is indicated on the critical intersection plan of the circulation element as a potential area for widening than it would be to tell a prospective buyer what the land use designation is of the property on the General Plan. Anyone who is interested in buying property has the'prerogative of coming to City Hall to find out what the zoning or land use designation is or any other restrictions on that property. The short answer is that it is up to the individual property owner to determine what they need to disclose to a potential buyer. Mitchell Ulrich, 134 South Magnolia (Lincoln and Magnolia), President, Board of Directors of the 134 South Magnolia Homeowner's Association, representing approximately 100 people. He does not know how making a "funnel" out of four corners can improve traffic. He then gave an example of what he meant by a "funnel" effect. Elma Keller, 2313 North Lyon, Santa Ana, owner of the commercial property at 209 through 225 South State College, opposed. Widening of the street would be devastating to her and her tenants in the small strip commercial center. State College already has six lanes. Synchronizing traffic signals would have a more positive effect. 79 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Peter Balov (Beach Boulevard - Ball Road). He owns property on the southwest corner of Ball Road 400 feet from the intersection and is opposed to the plan. Everett Miller, opposed. His business is at the northeast corner of Brookhurst and Ball. Years ago he gave up to 15,000 square feet of his property to the City for the widening of Brookhurst. The plan would not take another 10,000 square feet. The overall plan is not a practical one. W. W. Morningstar (Brookhurst and Katella), opposed. The notice he received which the Engineer's Office advised is wrong indicated prior to the issuance of a building permit he will be required to donate 12 feet. He wants the record clear because if he wanted to paint the building, it would wipe out his parking. Mayor Hunter. An ordinance was passed about a month ago wherein if a person owns a piece of property at a critical intersection that has been designated in the General Plan and some improvements are done to the property, the owner would not be required at that time to dedicate the 12 feet, but only if major improvements occurred. City Attorney White. The City for many years has had an ordinance that requires property owners to dedicate and improve rights-of-way shown on the circulation element of the General Plan. At the time the critical intersection General Plan Amendment was put into effect, a great deal of discussion took place at the public hearing. As a result, the City modified its ordinance to provide that anyone who seeks a building permit from the City is not required to either dedicate their property or to improve the right-of-way to the critical intersection standard. The fact that property is designated on the General Plan as a critical intersection would have no effect on requiring them to give up any property, dedicate or pay any money to the Gity or make any improvements to their property when they come in to get a building permit. W. W. Morntngstar. He is in favor of better traffic flow but in his case taking 12 feet will take all his parking. Further, he does not believe citizens on critical intersections should subsidize better traffic flow for the City. Will Kubal, 3328 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar Orangethorpe and Kraemer, opposed. property owner at 8O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. His property is so small now it is impossible to take anymore away from it. It may be decided that some of the intersections may never be improved. If people decide to sell, he asked if the City would give a person wanting to sell the assurance they will not have to mention that it is designated as a critical intersection to the General Plan Amendment. (It was determined that the City would not provide documentation to that effect.) Floyd Farano, 100 So. Anaheim Boulevard, in favor. He is representing the interests of property owners in the City who have both developed and undeveloped properties at major intersections. Traffic and circulation is an overriding concern and problem in Anaheim. The critical intersection plan is not the only answer to traffic problems but it is an essential element in solving those problems. Some intersections are more important than others and one of the answers is to prioritize those intersections which, if improved, would most significantly have a positive impact in the City. Those intersections should be constructed as part of an overall transportation answer. The intersections easterly of Euclid Street should be improved to critical intersection standards at the earliest possible time in his opinion and in the opinion of the experts with whom he has worked. David Chavez, 4420 East La Palma, corner of La Palma and Lakeview. Although he is for the program because it is needed in the City, he is concerned that widening will bring the traffic lanes too close to his house which he had mentioned at the previous public hearing. Ruth Kroll. She and her husband own property at the intersection of Ball and Brookhurst - 9922 Ball Road, which is still in the County although under Anaheim's sphere of influence. Twelve feet would take 3,000 square feet of their commercial property. It has been stated that property owners will be compensated but she would like to have something in writing that says if the improvement of the intersections comes about they will be compensated at commercial rates. Gary Johnson, City Engineer. Council policy is to compensate fully and for the City to share the costs of the public improvements. That was put in the form of an ordinance, a copy of which is available in the City Clerk's Office. City Attorney White. It is more than just an ordinance. The federal and state constitution provides that there has to be just compensation. The City has to pay compensation for property it takes at fair market value. 81 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31. 1989, 1~30 P.M. Gary Jaqutth, 200 East Katella, Orange. He represents the owners of Zaby's Motor Lodge and Ivanhoe Motel. One of the concerns reflected in comments made is that some of the intersections may never happen. What the City has done is to create an easement running down every property owner's frontage on the affected intersection of 12 feet where they are not allowed to improve their property beyond that. This will affect approximately 800 property owners. If the City never takes the property, it is saying they are not going to let the property owner use it either. There is also no hard evidence to indicate the program works. It is an unproven concept that is going to cost a tremendous amount of money. If the City goes forward, he suggested that they choose 3, 4 or 5 intersections or some small number that can be financed during the next several years, build those and do a 3 or 4-year study on the results. It is unfair and unjust taking without compensation. Gary Johnson. By state law, cities are required to have consistent elements in the General Plan - in land use, the plan and circulation element must compliment each other and be workable. With 30 intersections over capacity in the City, it is clear the circulation element does not support the land use. There is nothing new or unique in widening intersections. It is the most cost effective way to add capacity. Any reputable Traffic Engineer would state that this is a proven plan - that widening intersections increases capacity because of the ability to provide for the turning movements that are restricted. Mr. Blanchard, 948 North Helena Street (La Palma and Harbor), opposed. Three years ago the City took his parking away on La Palma along side his house. Twelve more feet will take the sidewalk and everything else to the curb. Children will have no sidewalks on which to walk to school. There is also no left turn on La Palma and Harbor which is needed. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The left turn signal is scheduled to be installed shortly. Sidewalks will also be replaced under the program. As he stated many times previously, when dealing with residential properties, it is the intent to be very sensitive in those cases and to have as little impact and encroach as little as possible. Larry Slagle, President, Chamber of Commerce, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard. One of the major concerns in California and in Anaheim is transportation. The Chamber has taken a position in support of the concept of the critical intersections along with other strategies to solve the overall transportation problem. Intersections are one of the main bottlenecks and easiest to City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. clear up. Those businesses and residents that may be adversely impacted by the plan should be compensated. It could be that some of the intersections included in the plan may have a fatal flaw and it should be in the Council's power to single those out and make that decision. Since this is a long-range plan, perhaps the intersections should be prioritized as suggested earlier to allay some of the concerns expressed. Funding is also a major concern. Since the program will be very expensive perhaps prioritization could be tied into the funding mechanism. Howard Sachar, Redondo Beach, property owner at 1728 West Ball Road, opposed. Traffic is a problem and a plan is needed. The critical intersection program is a conclusion in search of a plan the EIR is also a conclusion in search of a plan. He takes exception to staff's statement that it is cost effective. He then read from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways stating that arterials in Anaheim are all up to Code with the exception of two. The study states that signal coordination improvements will reduce traffic delays and improve speeds and is more cost effective than construction and widening projects. The program is to cost $320,000,000 over 20 years. After 10 years of effort, the City still does not have a computerized traffic control system. With dual left-turn lanes and signal coordination, 90% efficiency can be obtained with 10% of the money. The critical intersection plan is the opposite. It is not a plan, it is a "dinosaur". There is no evidence that widening intersections solves anything other than on a temporary basis. He urged the Council not to be persuaded by the fact that this an easy solution - it is a difficult problem with no easy solution. He urged them to look at the problem overall and resolve the problem and not the symptoms. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Mayor Hunter. There are 24 intersections under consideration. He would like to see those put in priority order knowing the great need in the Stadium/Convention Center area. Councilman Daly. He respects the effort and commitment staff has put into the plan. It is a very ambitious one and Anaheim is far ahead of other cities in the analysis of critical intersection needs but the plan has to be put in context with all the other needs facing Anaheim. Three hundred-twenty million dollars is a large price tag in today's dollars over the next 20 years and the federal and state government are not in a position this year and in the next few years to assist. He has other priorities which he feels should also be be Anaheim's priorities relating to 83 64 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. freeway interchanges, modern transit systems - the many other alternatives they should be looking at which are expensive as well. He is convinced that intersection widenings are a part of the solution but not at the expense of overlooking other possibilities for solving the traffic problem. He reiterated the program is too ambitious with a shortfall of $35 million as of today. It is his opinion they have to delete some of the intersections in the plan in 1989. Five or seven years down the road they may want to revisit the subject. Transportation needs should be revisited frequently. He cannot support the plan in its entirety when the City has so many other needs. Councilman Daly suggested that they focus on the crossroads of Anaheim where tourism impacts the City the most, in the Stadium area and the Disneyland area. They have to remain committed to widening the intersections in those areas as well as in the City's major employment area, the northeast industrial area. Most of the intersections in the plan are in the three areas he mentioned. Most of the funding is either in place or anticipated for the key intersections in those areas. Of those 24 intersections, 16 have an unfunded balance - either a total underfunding or partial underfunding. He is proposing in an attempt to address the $35 million underfunding to delete from the plan all the intersections in west Anaheim, two of the intersections in the northeast industrial area, all of the intersections on Beach Boulevard, Magnolia and Brookhurst and the two on Oran§ethorpe. He is also proposing that staff take the remaining intersections and put all the remaining intersections including the nine that are not a part of the discussion today into priority order so that the Council will know which intersections they will be attacking in the coming budget cycles. Councilman Daly moved to direct staff to draft a resolution deleting the following 9 intersections from GPA No. 210 which was adopted on August 16, 1988 for a new total of 15 intersections instead of 24 intersections and that the remaining 15 intersections together with the 9 intersections already approved under GPA No. 214 on March 17, 1987 be put in priority order. Beach and Lincoln Brookhurst and La Palma Lincoln and Magnolia Ball and Beach Ball and Brookhurst Brookhurst and Katella Kraemer and Orangethorpe La Palma and Magnolia Imperial Highway and Orangethorpe City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Before further action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he would first like more input from staff on how deletion of the proposed intersections will affect the total situation. He believes all intersections proposed should be included realizing it is not the total answer to the City's transportation problems and needs. He is not ready to act to delete the intersections at this time. City Attorney White. As he understands the motion, the matter is being referred to staff to draft the proposed resolution. Council is giving direction on what they want to see in the resolution and is also requesting the City Engineer's Office to submit a report concerning the 9 intersections proposed to be eliminated. He would recommend that the report and resolution be submitted in three weeks in order to give the Engineer's Office ample opportunity to prepare the report. The actual decision is not being made today on which intersections, if any, will be deleted but will be made at a subsequent hearing. The public hearing has been closed and the decision, when the matter is brought back, is in the hands of the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood. Relative to prioritization, staff has stated in the past there are different means of funding and if plans are not ready can miss out on that funding. Ail 30 intersections are over capacity or very close. She is not ready to delete any of them. Two of the intersections mentioned are in the Beach Boulevard Superstreet Program and are out of the City's hands. Gary Johnson. They will do exactly what the Council has requested. It is important to keep in mind that financing of the improvements is such a dynamic situation that if funding becomes available through the Transportation Commission, and the City has the ability to get funding for intersections whether on or off the plan, they will have to revisit the situation frequently as Councilman Daly stated. They will provide in~ormatlon on what they know today levels of service of the intersection, growth, impact on tourism, the industrial area. All the areas have different needs. Sometimes it is difficult to prioritize but they will do their best to bring something back that will make sense. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Before concluding, Councilman Ehrle proposed that the matter be evaluated by an outside consulting firm whose expertise is transportation. He wants to make sure the City is on target regarding its transportation needs. 85 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Hunter. Perhaps staff can make some recommendations in that area when the matter again comes before the Council. RECESS; By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (5:12 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:25 p.m.) 179: PUBLIC HEARING o VARIANCE NO. 3874 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: It was determined to hear public hearings on Variance Nos. 3874 and 3875 together as the properties are contiguous and to be developed as one project. APPLICANT: OWNER OF BOTH PROPERTIES WHICH ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER: Richard L. Pierce 14771 Plaza Dr., Suite "G", Tustin, CA 92680 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 322 South Bush Street. The request is to waive (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit and (b) maximum site coverage to construct a 2-story, 4-untt "affordable" apartment project. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Variance No. 3874 was granted by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC88-342; approved EIR Negative Declaration. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO~ 3875 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNER: Same as above. LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 318 S. Bush Street. The request is to waive (a) minimum building site per dwelling unit and (b) maximum site coverage to construct a 2-story, 4-unit "affordable" apartment project. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Variance No. 3875 was granted by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC88-343; approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision on both Variance No. 3874 and Variance No. 3875 was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Pickler at the meeting of January 10, 1989, and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 19, 1989. Posting of property January 19, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 20, 1989. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 19, 1988. 86 $9 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Richard L. Pierce, 14771 Plaza Dr., Suite "G", Tustin, CA 92680. In June of 1988, he found two old homes for sale on South Bush Street and found out from the Planning Department that the zoning was RM-2400 with a Master Plan for RM-1200. Assuming the City wanted apartments in that area, he purchased both pieces of property. He submitted his plans to the Planning Commission asking them to rezone the property to allow him to build fourplexes. He had a driveway coming off the alley and during the Commission hearing one of the complaints was that traffic was very bad from that alley. The Commission asked him to redraw his plans with the driveway access at the street instead of the alley and continued the matter for a month. They also suggested that he not ask for a rezone but a variance. His plans were redrawn accordingly and resubmitted. When he extended the driveway, it brought into play an ordinance that the driveway had to be deducted from the net square footage of the lot, so now he only had room to build a duplex because of the driveway. The Commission suggested another continuance and redesign and suggested that he look into the affordable aspect. He hired a different designer more familiar with the Code and created a shorter driveway to the street. They were legal for three units on both parcels but also agreed to an affordable unit for each project with rents of $500 a month for the 2-bedrooms 2-bath units. If the Council denies the projects, he can build a triplex on each piece of property with 3-bedrooms or 9 total, or the same number of bedrooms as with fourplexes. He would only have to have 8 parking spaces, whereas under the proposed project, he has 10 and the City will also be losing 2 affordable units. He is asking the Council to approve his request to build the two fourplex projects. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Patricia Meza, 325 1/2 South Bush Street. The Planning Commission took action yesterday recommending adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 251 designating their area low medium density residential from medium density which will prevent developers from building apartments in their area. The residents are concerned about the heavy traffic and the high density. Their children have to go into the streets to play. Cars are already parked in the alley. Santa Aha Street and Broadway are heavily travelled. (She submitted photographs which showed some of the conditions she referred to in her presentation). There will only be 2 affordable units, one in each project. If families are making only $800 or $900 a month, they cannot afford an apartment and instead there will be more than one family living in each unit. There are enough 87 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. apartments in the area now. The closest school is Lincoln and already 40 children have to be bussed to other areas. In a letter she had from Melton Lopez, Superintendent of the Anaheim City School District, he points out the overcrowding already existing in Anaheim schools. There is a lot of crime in the area. They do not want their residential area to deteriorate. They do not want to become another Jeffrey/Lynn area. If this project is approved, other developers will want to do the same. She urged denial of the projects. Victoria Gonzales, 422 South Vine. In their neighborhood, there are 15 lots with single-family residents and 11 with duplexes. Three years ago the community fought apartments that were proposed on 328 South Vine. She has lived there since 1943 and Santa Ana Street is still the same. By allowing these projects, there will be an impact on Santa Ana Street and Broadway. It is necessary to think about Anaheim before developers build. David Ortiz, 411 South Bush. He spoke with the manager of a 30-unit apartment complex on Rose Street and learned the complex is not even half full indicating there is already enough affordable housing in the area. There are also other apartments which are not well kept even though just completed in October. They want to keep the integrity of their area. They do not want more apartments. Greg Warner, 314 South Vine. With more people living in an already dense area, the neighbors living on either side of the larger complexes will lose their privacy. Some of the apartments in the neighborhood have already deteriorated. Apartment dwellers are different than owners. There are many negative impacts. Theirs is a caring group and they like their neighborhood. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Richard Pierce. If the City wanted the property to remain R-i, they should have kept it R-1. He would never have purchased the lots if he had known there was such opposition. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Anntka Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She clarified for Councilman Pickler that the zoning had not changed. The two parcels were originally submitted to the Planning Commission in connection with the reclassification from the RM-2400 to RM-1200 zone. During that procedure, it was modified and they substituted a variance for the 4 units with the affordability and eliminated the reclassification. They are 88 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1;30 P.M. asking for affordability 33% over that permitted. The applicant can have 3 units by Code and he wants 4. Councilwoman Kaywood. Relative to the size of the bedrooms, she asked at what point is the City requiring additional parking spaces. Annika Santalahti The parking used to be from 1.5 up to 3 spaces. When they increased that to 2.5 across the board, they did not differentiate between 3 and 2-bedroom projects. It is in compliance with Code for parking. Councilwoman Kaywood. Perhaps they need to take another look at that situation. With 3-bedrooms at 1,220 square feet, she cannot believe that 2.5 parking spaces are sufficient. In looking at the photographs, there is not a spot for another car and children are playing in the middle of the street which is a dangerous situation. Mr. Pierce later clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that they do not have playground space designated for children but do have the required open space and the City allows part of that open space to be included in balconies. The driveway is 25 feet wide so they really have their own street on the property. Annika Santalahti. The Code allows the developer to account for recreational space. This excludes the driveway and street setback, but includes the interior setbacks as well as balconies and patios. Councilman Daly. He is uncomfortable going as high as four units per site but he can support 3 units which is what the Code allows. He surmises that 8 total parking spaces would be Code for 3 units. Annika Santalahti. She answered yes. The requirement is 2.5 spaces per unit regardle~ of the ~ize in thi~ ease. Councilwoman Kaywood. With 3 large bedrooms in each unit, there are going to be three families and there is no way two parking spaces are sufficient. Annika Santalahti. The Planning Commission resolutions on the variance did not refer to the posted plans which are Revision 1 which the Commission did see and also the affordable units were not included and those should be reinserted. She also clarified that the term of affordability is 30 years. 89 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by Councilman Hunter, 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. WAIV$R OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resoltuion No. 89R-25) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-25 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3874, upholding the City Planning Commission's decision. to Resolution Book. Refer RESOLUTION NO. 89R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3874. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter Daly and Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-25 duly passed and adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Hunter, 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. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-26) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-26 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3875, upholding the Planning Commission's decision. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 89R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3875. 90 $$ City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M~ Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter Daly and Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-26 duly passed and adopted. 179; PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO 3829 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNER: Ronald J. Crowley 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, CA 92635 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1500 West Broadway. The request is to delete a condition of approval pertaining to requirement to record a final tract map prior to issuance of a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-349 amended Resolution No. PC88-217 adopted in connection with Variance No. 3829 and found that the negative declaration approved in connection with Variance No. 3829 is adequate to serve as environmental documentation in connection with the subject request. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Pickler at the meeting of January 10, 1989, and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 19, 1989. Posting of property January 20, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 19, 1989. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 19, 1989. Councilman Ehrle. He is abstaining from discussion and voting on this item. Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked if someone abstains is there a need to explain why. City Attorney White. He believes in accordance with the procedures adopted a month ago, no requirement was included that abstentions be explained even though historically in the past it has been traditional to do so. Councilman Ehrle left the Council dais. 91 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Ronald J. Crowley, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, CA 92635. His proposal is for a 15-unit condominium project and the covenant signed by himself and the City Attorney will undoubtedly answer Councilwoman Kaywood's concerns. Councilwoman Kaywood. She is questioning why the amendment to conditions of approval is being requested and if the City is fully protected by the change proposed. City Attorney White. He cannot give an absolute guarantee the City is protected by the change of procedure in the recordation of the covenant. Looking at it for the first time, it appears it was done jointly by a member of his staff along with Mr. Crowley or his legal counsel. The idea is to withhold the occupancy permit so no one could occupy the units until such time as the subdivision map is recorded. This would be a recorded covenant which would go with the property if sold during the building process. This is usually done before building permits are issued. That condition would be the preferable practice and the one he would continue to recommend. Based upon Planning Commission action, the covenant was prepared and that is why it is before the Council today. It is 99% protection for the City but not 100%. Ronald Crowley. It takes approximately six months to process a tract map. They have been through the City and the tract map has been approved. Two months ago the tract map was submitted to the County and it will probably be another two months before it is recorded. He wants to start the project. The construction loan is ready to be pulled and the only thing holding them up is the covenant letter which is being processed. He has no intention of building the units as apartments. The difference in selling prices is phenomenal and would not make economic sense. He has agreed that he will not build apartments. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: None. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration 92 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 31, 1989, 1:30 P.M. together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-27) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-27 for adoption, to delete a condition of approval pertaining to the requirement to record a final tract map prior to issuance of a building permit under Variance No. 3829. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 89R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3829. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Pickler and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-27 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Ehrle. He explained for Councilwoman Kaywood as he had previously that he and Dr. Crowley had the opportunity of working together on a project in Tustin during the past 12 months. That being the case, the City Attorney advised him to refrain from discussion or action on any projects involving Dr. Crowley within a year's time. 139/114; ASSEMBLY BILLS DEALING WITH MOTORCYCLE SAFTEY: Councilman Ehrle referred to the proposed bills - Assembly Bill AB 8 (Assemblyman Richard Floyd) and AB 55 (Assemblywoman Bev Hansen) both of which addressed the issue of motorcycle safety, requirement for protective helmets, etc. One is a compromise bill (AB 55). He has discussed the matter with Jack Jensen, President of the Anaheim Police Association. The Association is in support of either of the bills. (See letter dated January 12, 1989 from Assemblywoman Hansen and letter dated January 25, 1989 from Assemblyman Floyd, made a part of the record). He would like to have Gounctl discussion on this important issue and subsequently go on record in support of one or both of the bills. Mayor Hunter. He suggested that the Intergovernmental Relations Officer be directed to submit a report to the Council regarding the two proposals and make a recommendation for Council discussion and action at a later date. 114/116/159; REQUEST LISTING OF VACANT CITY PROPERTY: Councilman Pickler requested the City Manager to provide the Council with a listing of all vacant City property including Redevelopment. 93 54 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES January 31. 1989. 1:30 P.M. 114; GITY TOPICS SUBJECT OF NEW SHOW: Mayor Hunter announced that starting on Friday nights at 7:30 p.m. a new cable TV show will be aired on Channel 3 the Fred Hunter Show - which will deal with topics of City interest. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn. the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:21 p.m.) Councilman Pickler seconded LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 94