1989/04/11City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 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: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COORDINATOR: Greg Trombley
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:00 p.m. on April 7, 1989 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 12:00 noon.
REOUEST 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
unles~ the motion to r~c~s indicat~ any of th~ matter~ 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.
(1:55 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Bob Beeson, 1st Christian Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Tom Daly led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - INTRODUCTION OF NEW CITY EMPLOYEES: City Clerk Leonora
Sohl stated that there are a number of employees participating in the new
orientation program who are present in the Chamber audience. New employees
304
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
will be introduced and after their names are announced, will be asked to stand
and remain standing until all have been introduced.
At the conclusion of announcing the names of the new employees, they were
welcomed by the City Council.
119; PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATES OF ACHIEVEMENT TO CITY EMPLOYEES - EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM; The following employees were presented with Certificates
of Achievement issued by the Employee Involvement Program Board of Directors
along with monetary awards ranging from $30 to $960: Louis Selby, Deputy City
Attorney; Bernice Granato, Paralegal/Ctty Attorney's Office; Keely Ann Hall,
Library Technician; Mike Wegner, Water Service Crew Supervisor ($960); Sharon
McCamon, Senior Office Specialist/Public Works; Rick Vanderheide, Warehouse
Worker/Finance; Pat Hirt, Prinicipal Office Specialist/Maintenance Services;
Lauren Marsden, Data Control Supervisor/Data Processing.
The suggestions submitted will either save City costs, improve service to the
public or prevent possible hazards.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members personally congratulated each employee who
was present for their contributions.
119: PRESENTATION - COMMUTER SERVICES CITY LITHOGRAPHS: Traffic Engineer,
Paul Singer introduced Martine Micozzi the City's Commuter Services Specialist
who presented to the Council signed Lithographs that were produced to
publicize the City's vanpool/carpool and Transportation Systems Management
Program.
Martine Micozzi. She first thanked the Council for their support of the
Employee Ride Share Program. Anaheim is the first municipality to institute
such a program and one of the first employers to have its trip reduction plan
approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. An employee
design contest was conducted and the winning design developed into the
Lithograph, to encourage people to try different modes of transportation. The
Lithographs are only an edition of 150. Ms. Micozzi then presented a framed
lithograph to each Council Member. The design contest was won by Frank
Hardcastle, Real Property Agent, and subsequently the City contracted an
artist to do the work. Proceeds will go towards the Employee Ride Share
Program and to cover all production costs of the poster.
119; DECLARATION OF WELCOME; A Declaration of Welcome unanimously adopted by
the City Council was previously presented to the General Federation of Women's
Clubs Orange District Juniors to the City. The Council ratified the
Declaration.
119; PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
Anaheim Memorial Hospital Volunteer Week in Anaheim,
April 9 - 15, 1989, (Ratified)
305
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1;30 P,M.
Earth Day in Anaheim, April 22, 1989,
Consumers Week in Anaheim, April 23-29, 1989,
Fair Housing Month in Anaheim, April 1989,
Holocaust Remembrance Days in Anaheim, April 30 May 2, 1989,
Health Fair Expo Day in Anaheim, April 26, 1989.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,791,039.89, in
accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances on the Consent Calendar were read by the Assistant
City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 89R-111, 89R-113 and 89R-114 for adoption;
Ordinance Nos. 5009 through 5011, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance No.
5013 for introduction).
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
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-111, 89R-113 and 89R-114 for adoption; Ordinance
Nos. 5009 through 5011, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance No. 5013 for
introduction. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance 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 Wilco Packaging Supplies, Inc. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions o~ t~e City on or about November ~, 1988.
b. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance (Insured - Steve Davis; Claim
#31-0521-287) for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about October 16, 1988.
c. Claim submitted by Edward Reed Vicknair for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 27, 1988.
d. Claim submitted by Thurman Ellis Robertson for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 4, 1989.
e. Claim submitted by Richard Acevedo for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 5, 1988.
306
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P,M.
f. Claim submitted by Coastal Insurance Company (Cremer, Gary insured)
for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about December 23, 1988.
g. Claim submitted by Mark McDonald for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 28, 1988.
h. Claim submitted by Rick Lopez for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 17, 1989.
i. Claim submitted by Terry Lee McLendon for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 15, 1988.
j. Claim submitted by Peter William Mitchell for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 16, 1989.
k. Claim submitted by Shadow Run Homeowners Association for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
February 11, 1989.
1. Claim submitted by Wilfredo Crispo for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 19, 1988.
m. Claim submitted by M. W. Downs (Trust) for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December, 1988.
n. Claim submitted by Rose & Bartlo Vaicaro for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 9, 1988.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board
meeting held February 22, 1989.
A3 158: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-111: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES
HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (Greentree Circle, Carrotwood
Court, Stonepine Lane and Sweetbay Court (all private streets) for domestic
water system and appurtenances, and easement for water and public utility
purposes - Tract No. 11936)
A4, 000/149/142; ORDINANCE NO 5013 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO PERMIT PARKING AND AUTHORIZING A FEE FOR SUCH PERMITS.
Councilman Ehrle referred to memorandum dated March 28, 1989 from the Director
of Public Works, City Engineer on the subject. He has reservations charging
local taxpayers to park in front of their own homes.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The fee will barely cover the administrative
costs of the program and it does not represent any type of income that can be
measured. The point of charging is to give an incentive for the neighbors not
to give permits away so that parking becomes a burden on other residents.
307
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
Following additional questions, City Attorney White noted that although the
resolution can be offered today, it will be held and not be acted upon until
the next meeting when the ordinance will be presented for adoption.
A5. 106: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to Tennant Company, in the
amount of $48,766.36 plus freight estimated at $1,120 for one Model 550LP
scrubber for the Convention Center.
A6. 106: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order without competitive bidding or advertising to Bell &
Howell, in the amount of $69,574.16 for one Mailstar 200/AIM Inserting System
for the Utilities Department.
A7. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order without competitive bidding or advertising to Sico
Incorporated, in the amount of $318,736.23 for a portable staging system at
the Convention Center.
A8. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to
Advanced Office Concepts, for an additional amount of $4,800 bringing the
revised purchase order total to $38,651.10 for the purchase and installation
of movable shelving at the Police Department.
Ag. 153; .RESOLUTION NO. 89R-113: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-115 PERTAINING TO RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (effective
April 14, 1989)
Al0. 123: Approving the Group Medical and Hospital Service Agreement with
Kaiser Foundation Plan to provide medical benefits to eligible part-time
S.E.I.U. employees, and authorizing the Human Resources Director to sign said
agreement.
153: Waiving the first pay period payroll deductions for employees enrolled
in the Kaiser Plan.
Ail. 125/106: Approving an increase in expenditures of $300,000 to Account
No. 70-385-4190, and an increase in revenues of $100,000 and $200,000 to
Account No. 70-000-3908 and Account No. 70-000-3903 respectively for FY1988/89
(Data Processing).
Al2. 112/113: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-114: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE
THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (Authorizing the destruction of certain records in the
City Attorney's office more than two years old)
Al3. 123: Approving an agreement with Jay's Catering, Inc., for exclusive
catering services at Brookhurst Community Center for a proposed term of five
years, with a renewal option of two years.
308
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1;30 P.M.
Al4. 153: Approving the appointment of Ron Rothschild, Administrative
Services Director, as an alternate representative to serve on the Orange
County Job Training Partnership Agency Governing Board.
Al5. 153: Approving the Job Training Plan for the administration and delivery
of services for the City's 1989-1990 employment and training program, and
authorizing the Mayor to execute the plan in conjunction with the Anaheim
Private Industry Council (PIC).
Al6, 170/142; ORDINANCE NO, 5009 - 6DOPTION; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF
CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.06 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
GRADING. (Requires public hearing for grading permits)
Al7, 149/142; ORDINANCE NO. 5010 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION .2390 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF
TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING AND STOPPING.
(Adding a new subsection .2390 to Section 14.32.190 of Chapter 14.32 of Title
14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to no parking at any time on Hunter
Street, on the north and south sides, from Hancock Street to its westerly
terminus)
Al8, 153/142; ORDINANCE NO, 5011 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4965, NUNC PRO TUNC. (Relating to titles of
management positions)
Al9. 123: Approving an agreement with P&D Technologies, Inc., in an amount
not to exceed $292,000 for planning/engineering consultant services for the
Commercial Recreation Area Enhancement Program and Transportation/Land Use
Strategy Plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She wants to be sure that there is no walking pavement
made of cobblestone or pressed concrete as in some portions of the
Redevelopment area currently because it is too difficult for seniors and those
walking in heels. She would also like to see addresses on buildings so that
anyone, especially emergency vehicles, can easily identify an address. She
also does not want to have any type of bollards as there are presently in
downtown which were also mentioned in the report,
Councilman Daly. His concern is that they not lose any time on this important
study.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. That is staff's priority as well emphasized
throughout all of the interviews and consultant's presentation. It is a
10-month process. P & D Technologies was able to compress the expanded scope
into the original timeframes. Completed portions of the study will be taken
to Commission and staff even before the entire study is completed.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 89R-111, 89R-113 and 89R-114:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
309
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-111, 89R-113 and 89R-114 duly passed
and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5009, 5010 and 5011 :
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5009, 5010 and 5011 duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Appointment from the list
of candidates to fill the unscheduled vacancies on the Community Redevelopment
Commission. This item was continued from the meetings of March 21 and
April 4, 1989, to this date.
Councilman Daly. He has a recommendation on both vacancies. He moved to
reappoint Robert Dory to complete his term expiring June 30, 1991 and for the
term ending June 30, 1992 he recommends the appointment of Paul Kott, a
long-time Anaheim resident and active in community affairs. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
105: RESIGNATION FROM THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to accept with regret the resignation of Mr. William Swisher
from the Golf Course Advisory Commission, tendered in his letter dated
March 20, 1989 to the Commission's Chairman. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Clerk Sohl stated she would prepare a Certificate of Appreciation for
presentation to Mr. Swisher.
179: ITEMS Bi - B5 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1989
DECISION DATE: MARCH 30, 1989: INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
APRIL 14, 1989
Bi,
VARIANCE NO. 3907 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3A:
OWNER: NICOLAE & PERSIDA BORTIS, CORNEL & EUGENIA MARORIU, VIOREL
PRUNEAN, CORNEL PRUNEAN, VICTOR & ELIZABETH ILINESCU, 708 E. Sycamore
Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: MARK DESIGNS, 22994 E1 Toro Road, E1 Toro, CA 92630, Attn:
Joe Mark
LOCATION: 6268 Rio Grande Drive
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct seven single-family
dwellings.
Variance No. 3907 DENIED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA89-15.
A public hearing is scheduled for April 25, 1989 at 3:00 p.m.
310
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
B2.
VARIANCE NO, 3922, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 3:
OWNER: GREG B. BJORNDAHL, 4475 Forest Glen Road, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION; 7450 Hummingbird Circle
Waivers of (a) minimum frontyard setback and (b) maximumbuilding
height to construct a 5,126 square foot single-family residence.
Variance No. 3922 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA89-16.
B3,
VARIANCE NO. 3924, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 5:
OWNER: BRINKLEY AND YVONNE HULIN, 820 N. Dickel Street, Anaheim, CA
92805
LOCATION; 820 North Dicke~ Street
Waiver of minimum sideyard setback to construct a 296 square-foot
room addition.
Variance No. 3924 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA89-17.
B4.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0030, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
REQUESTED BY: DANIEL A. ROSENFELD, 6500 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500,
Los Angeles, CA 90048
LOCATION: 2475 W. La Palma Avenue
To construct an industrial building with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
Administrative Adjustment No. 0030 GRANTED by the Zoning
Administrator, Decision No. ZA89-18.
B5.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0031, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5;
REQUESTED BY: JOHN SWINT, 707 West North Street, Anaheim, CA
92805-1735
OWNER: TARSADA INC., 650 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: 2141 S. Harbor Boulevard
To construct a four-story 79-unit motel with waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces.
Administrative Adjustment No. 0031 GRANTED by the Zoning
Administrator, Decision No. ZA89-19.
End of the Zoning Administrator items.
128/142; ORDINANCE NO 5012 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 1989-3 (THE
SUMMIT): Levying special taxes within Community Facilities District No.
1989-3 (The Summit).
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance 'was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5012)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
311
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5012 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5012: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-3 (THE
SUmaIT).
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the homes that were
going to be built were going to be fire sprinklered; Mayor Hunter noted there
was no ordinance on the books requiring those homes to have fire sprinklers.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the ordinance is adopted without comment is it
then too late to require sprinklers.
City Attorney White answered no. The Council will still have total latitude
regarding that issue when the matter of fire sprinklers comes back to the
Council at the public hearing scheduled for the next meeting, April 18, 1989.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5012 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
119/114; PRESENTATION - POLICY RESOLUTION ON THE DRUG EPIDEMIC: Mayor Hunter
stated that he would like to have scheduled on next week's agenda a brief
presentation by the Orange County Congregation - Community Organization
regarding a policy resolution on the Drug Epidemic. He clarified for the City
Clerk that the presentation should be scheduled for the first portion of the
agenda.
114; PASSING OF LEO FREEDMAN; Councilwoman Kaywood commented on the passing
of Leo Freedman on Saturday, April 8, 1989. Mr. Freedman devoted a great deal
to the Anaheim community starting almost 30 years ago, his last endeavor being
the Freedman Forum (Celebrity Theatre). Services will be held on Thursday,
April 13, 1989 in the Anaheim Plaza Hotel.
RECESS: Councilman Hunter moved to recess to public hearing time.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:40 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:06 p.m.)
312
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1~30 P.M.
130; PUBLIC HEARING - EMPIRE CABLE TELEVISION. INC.: To consider granting a
non-exclusive cable television franchise to Empire Cable Television in the
Woodcrest, Presley and Baldwin Company ranches in East Anaheim.
At the meeting of March 7, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 89R-71 declaring its intention to grant a nonexclustve franchise for cable
television to Empire Cable Television.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 17, 1989.
STAFF INPUT:
See report dated April 4, 1989 from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer,
Kristine Thalman, recommending that the Council deny a cable television
franchise to Empire Cable due to unresolved issues or continue the public
hearing in order to address those issues and determine the financial
feasibility of two cable television franchises within the City of Anaheim.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated April 11, 1989 was submitted by
Thomas Kieviet, Farano & Kieviet, attorneys for the applicant requesting a
continuance of the public hearing to May 9, 1989.
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, representing Empire Cable TV.
He is requesting a continuance of the public hearing for the
purpose of working out the issues staff has indicated in the
April 4, 1989 report. They have essentially worked out 90% of
the issues and have filed with the City an amended proposed
ordinance that reflects the changes negotiated with staff.
There remains one provision that has some loose ends regarding
language. They would like to have the Council set the new day
and date. Under the ordinance, the City must publish not less
than 20 nor more than 60 days and if the public hearing date is
set today, he asked the City Attorney if they could have another
day or two to work out the half dozen words or so that need to
be amended.
City Attorney White.
As he understands from the letter received from Farano &
Kievlet, the request is to readvertise the matter with a revised
ordinance that among other things would revise the proposed
franchise fee from the current initial fee of 3% to 5%. It is
first necessary to determine which ordinance will be the subject
of the hearing if it is continued. He does not believe it is
appropriate nor contemplated in existing Charter provisions
relating to franchises that there be a multiple tracking of
ordinances proposed for franchises but that there only .be one
application and one ordinance under consideration at a time. If
it is the intent to readvertise the application, in his opinion,
it would be appropriate to have on the record an indication from
the applicant that the current proposal that has been advertised
is being withdrawn, and that the applicant is now seeking a
313
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
franchise based upon the proposal the Council is now being
requested to advertise. If an agreement is reached that is the
correct procedure, the Council could then take the appropriate
steps today to advertise the hearing to be held later and the
last details of the language could be worked out before it is
published in the newspaper.
Floyd Farano.
If that procedure is preferred by the City, he would officially
withdraw the application presently pending before the City and
replace it with a new one. The only change that would take
place in the amended ordinance is that No. 1, Empire Cable will
capitulate to the City's request for a 5% franchise fee and
increase their original proposal from 3% to 5%. The only other
change that will be made in that ordinance concerns service. As
far as community and government access channels, there is some
confusion right now as to the appropriate way to satisfy staff's
request insofar as making that service available to the City and
there are about a dozen words that have to be worked out and
those are the only ones that need to be changed.
City Attorney White.
He wants to be certain it is clear to Mr. Farano and his client
that the City is in no way recommending that Mr. Farano submit a
different application. If he wishes to submit and go forward
with a 5% fee, he has that right as well as the right to
continue the hearing with a 3% fee and have the evidence
developed as to a 3% fee. He does not want the record to
reflect that the City has taken a position with relation to a
franchise fee because the City has not taken such a position.
The withdrawal is voluntary on the part of the applicant and not
in any way being coerced by the ~ity. It is appropriate to have
only one ordinance in front of the Council at a time for
consideration. The withdrawal is at the request of the
applicant and a new ordinance with the changes as being
voluntarily submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Farano stated that he concurs with City Attorney White's
comments.
City Attorney White.
In that case, there may be people who wish to speak if they
understand their comments may be moot with regard to the
existing ordinance. It may not be necessary to take any
testimony today. It would be appropriate, however, if the
Council concurs with withdrawal and readvertistng to adopt a new
resolution. (The City Attorney then read the resolution
title). The resolution would contain a hearing date of May 9,
1989 at 3:00 p.m. or any other date the Council chooses to
consider. If adopted, it would then be appropriate to continue
the matter to that date because the general subject matter on
314
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
today's agenda is the granting of a non-exclusive cable TV
franchise to Empire Cable TV. It is also his opinion that even
though the resolution was not on today's agenda, it does not
conflict with the provision of the Brown Act because the subject
matter is clearly advertised and the Council is entitled to
adopt the resolution today.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response he
closed the public hearing.
After a brief discussion relative to the proposed date for the public hearing,
the Council took the following actions:
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-115)
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-115 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-115; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO GRANT TO EMPIRE CABLE TELEVISION, INC. A
NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE FOR CABLE TELEVISION WITHIN PORTIONS OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LOCATED GENERALLY IN THE AREA OF WEIR CANYON ROAD IN THE SANTA ANA
CANYON SOUTH OF THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-115 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 3117, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3 AND 5:
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
Matthew Frank Golonka and Rita Elizabeth Golonka
1403 Trenton Drive,
Anaheim, GA 92802
AGENT:
Morris Carmody
1044 Verona Drive,
Fullerton, CA 92635
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1403 Trenton Drive. The request
is to permit a 631 square foot "granny unit" with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
315
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1;30 P,M,
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3117 was granted, in
part, (waiver of minimum number of parking spaces deleted), by the Planning
Commission under Resolution No. PC89-33; determined the project to be
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Gommission's decision was requested by Gouncilwoman
Kaywood and Councilman Daly at the meeting of February 21, 1989, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 30, 1989.
Posting of property March 31, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 30, 1989.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent; there was no
response.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
Staff will try to contact the applicant by phone.
Councilman Hunter moved to trail the subject public hearing until later in the
meeting. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:25 p.m.)
Later in the meeting (4:07 p.m.) the applicant, Mr. Matthew
Golonka was present and answered questions posed by Councilwoman
Kaywood. The unit is not going to be a rental unit. His wife
had a stroke and is paralyzed on one side. The unit is attached
to the house and it will be a special unit. His grand-daughter
is going to be helping out. There will only be his wife,
himself and his grand-daughter.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Hunter closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Pickler.
He asked staff when there are pertinent circumstances similar to
those explained by Mr. Golonka on any future requests for granny
units, that the Council be informed so that they will have a
better understanding of the situation and the request before
hand.
Before the matter was concluded, Mr. Golonka questioned why he
is being requested to install a sidewalk in front of his house
only and no one else has to do so. He does not believe that is
fair.
316
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1;30 P,M,
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
Sidewalks are required with every development in front of every
residential or commercial unit. The City Engineer is improved
to give sidewalk waivers if they are justified. Therefore Mr.
Golonka has the right to make an application to the City
Engineer for a sidewalk waiver and to write a letter requesting
same. The waiver allows a certain amount of time but the
sidewalk may need to be installed sometime in the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION; On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, it was determined that
the proposed project falls within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 3 and
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 EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-118)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 89R-118 for adoption, with the
stipulation that the granny unit shall not be a rental unit. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-118; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3117, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:. Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-118 duly passed and adopted.
179; PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NOv 88-89-04, VARIANCE NO. 3812 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
Alimad Jilanehi and Parvaneh Jilanehi
2037 Port Bristol,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 716 N. East Street. The request
is for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-3000, and for waivers of (a)
maximum structural height, (b) minimum recreational/leisure area, (c) minimum
site area per dwelling unit, (d) structural setback abutting one-family
residential development and (e) structural setback abutting a public street to
construct a 3-unit condominium complex.
317
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1~30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Reclassification No. 88-89-04 was approved by the
Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC89-39; Variance No. 3812 was
approved by the Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC89-40; approved EIR
Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and Councilman Daly at the meeting of March 7, 1989, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 30, 1989.
Posting of property March 31, 1989.
Mailing to property o%n~ers within 300 feet - March 31, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 13, 1989.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She has concerns with the 5 waivers being requested which
usually means overbuilding the property. The code calls for a
maximum of 2 condominiums under RM-3000 and three are being
requested necessitating the five waivers.
Mr. Ostowari, 6263 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim.
He first explained what had occurred at the previous Planning
Commission meetings and actions that had taken place with regard
to the property. The project has gone from an 8-unit apartment
building do~n to 5 units and then to the subject proposal of a
2-story, 3-unit condominium complex. One of the reasons they
are faced with 5 waivers is due to the requirement for
dedication of land to the City. Relative to the design of the
project, they tried to avoid all of the major opposition from
the neighborhood. The residents were opposed to rental units so
he changed them to condominiums and they tried to avoid having
any windows facing the properties next to the condominiums.
With the existing General Plan which is medium density, there
will not be any possibility to build the project on the property
in that area without having any variances.
Councilman Daly then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Ostowari
regarding the requested waivers at the conclusion of which,
Councilman Daly stated that he is familiar with the intersection
and it is a project he cannot support with that many waivers.
The area needs this type of in-fill development but 5 waivers on
a project involving 3 units is far too many for him to 'accept.
Mr. Ostowari.
In dedicating part of the land, that land is available to the
whole City. It is an advantage that will go to the City because
it is next to a major street.
318
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P,M.
Annika Santalahtt, Zoning Administrator.
There is a large dedication required of 12 feet. It would be an
irrevocable offer. Until that offer is taken, the property in
addition to its basic 20 feet of landscaping required, will be
expected to maintain that additional 12 feet until the street is
widened.
Mr. Ostowari explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the open
parking is all tandem - each unit has two covered spaces and two
tandem spaces.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Earl Risher, 1211 East Wilhelmina.
He lives next door. It is a heavy traffic area and everything
is going to have to occur right out in the street. No matter
what happens, residents of the units will back out or park out
in the street. There are going to be accidents. The building
is going to be right next to his house. Even though there will
be no windows on his side, it will block out the sun. He
carried a petition through the neighborhood and everyone signed
it. It was submitted to the Planning Commission. It is not
feasible for that many people to be on that corner on such a
small lot.
Karen Beeson, 1219 East Wilhelmina.
She lives next to Mr. Risher. She has lived in the neighborhood
for 40 years and they are all trying to keep their residential
area an R-1 community. They are all 1-story and they want to
keep it that way. Traffic will worsen.
Bob Carter, 513 South Aron.
He is present for another hearing. The problem with projects
being proposed today is that they are loaded with waivers and
variances. It is time to put things back in perspective
eliminate all waivers and variances.
Mr. Victor Highfill, 719 North East Street, directly across from
the project then gave his comments as to what he feels would be
the most beneficial development for the property. Something
needs to be done with the East Street condition. He agrees that
the traffic is heavy. When it was converted to a secondary
street with 18,500 cars a day, his property lost its initial
value as a single story, single-family residential lot.' The
proposed RM-2400 zoning is something that should be "in the
mill". Something should be done but it is always in the
future. His property has escalated only 25% to 30% while other
properties in the neighborhood and other parts of Orange County
319
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1;30 P,M.
have gone as high as 300%. If properly rezoned to allow
something a developer might want to move into and develop, the
City would also get its dedication. The street is essentially
unsafe. He does believe that 2-stories are not necessarily
detrimental and does not agree with the problem of people
looking into someone elses yard. The entrance to the driveway
should be on Wtlhelmina and not East Street. He clarified for
Councilwoman Kaywood that he believes for proper development of
the property, RM-2400 would be a minimum zoning for the area.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Mr. Ostowari.
He countered the concerns expressed by those speaking in
opposition. Further, the reason they changed to homeownership
was because of the neighbor's concerns that renters would not
take care of the property. Each unit is like a single-family
home. He reiterated the reason for all the variances is due to
the amount of dedication required by the City and that cannot be
avoided.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hunter referred to the upcoming workshop with the City
Planning Commission where there is a possibility there might be
changes in the standards when condominiums are built adjacent to
single-family homes. If the subject property was left in the
single-family zone, a 2-story house could be built on it
adjacent to a 1-story single-family. Sometimes there appears to
be many waivers but it is necessary to look at the
reasonableness of what is occurring in the area most of which is
RM-1200 or an intent to RM-1200. The developer is proposing
RM-2400 which is less intense.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, then clarified for Councilman
Ehrle that there are no plans at the present time to widen East
Street.
At the conclusion of further Council discussion on the project, the Council
took the following actions:
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 - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-116)
320
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-116 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 88-89-04 for the RM-3000 zone. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-116; 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, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-116 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Hunter then offered a resolution to approve Variance No. 3812,
upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission which failed to carry
by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter and Pickler
Daly, Ehrle and Kaywood
None
Councilman Daly offered Resolution No. 89R-117 for adoption, denying Variance
No. 3812, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-117: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3812.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle and Kaywood
Pickler and Hunter
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-117 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Daly.
The zone change that was approved will now allow 2 units to be
built on the property but the developer will have to return to
the Planning Commission with a new design and application if he
wishes to do so.
321
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO, 3103 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
Galaxy, A General Partnership,
Bruce L. Borchardt et al
4321 E. La Palma Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT:
Benjamin J. Hale
4315 E. La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 4317 East La Palma Avenue. The
request is to permit a towing and auto repair shop with waivers of
(a) improvement of right-of-way and (b) minimum number of required parking
spaces.
PLANNING CObiMISSION ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3103 was denied by the
Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC89-42; waiver of code requirement
was denied by the Planning Commission; approved EIR Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by by Frank D. Granato,
on behalf of the owner in letter dated March 21, 1989, and public hearing
scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 30, 1989.
Posting of property March 31, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 13, 1989.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Frank Granato, Attorney representing Benjamin Hale, 801 Civic
Center Drive West, Suite 430, Santa Ana, Ca. 92701.
The petitioner was located at 4321 E. La Palma Avenue where he
had moved from a location on Kraemer Boulevard. The City
Traffic Engineer informed him that there were insufficient
parking spaces available. BDI (Basmactyan-Darnell, Inc.)
conducted a parking study which appeared to be favorable. Mr.
Hale was convinced after a discussion with Mr. Singer to attempt
to relocate to 4317 East La Palma being under the impression it
was a larger area and would provide more adequate parking. BDI
coordinated an additional study but at the time the Planning
Commission met, they did not have that study available to them
which went into detail relative to the number of spaces
available. The study differs from the staff report. He then
briefed the findings of the study. They calculated spaces based
322
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
on the elimination of the outdoor storage and being able to park
16 vehicles inside the building. Mr. Hale also is leasing space
in an adjacent property and shuttling employees back and forth.
There are 33 available spaces, 16 inside without even
considering the Coronado's lot which is available. There are
plenty of spaces and the study supports that. There are a
number of options even if there is a problem. (Also see Mr.
Granato's 3-page letter dated March 2, 1989 which explained the
appeal in detail).
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He quoted from the study that, "Ben's Towing and Automotive
service will be deficient by one parking space from their needs
unless arrangements to park employees off-site are continued to
the satisfaction of the City. Ben's Towing is currently
maintaining adequate parking on-site because they are arranging
for employees to park off-site." Based on that, he has come to
the conclusion there is a deficiency because employees are
unable to park on-site. Employees should be able to park
on-site where the business is being conducted. If a business
has to shuttle employees from what is actually remote parking,
it becomes questionable to the point where it is unacceptable.
He made a recommendation that the parking is not adequate for
the site and the use proposed.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Relative to the 16 parking spaces inside the building, she
presumes those were intended for work in progress. She asked
what would be the objection to counting those as spaces.
Paul Singer.
They normally do not count parking spaces within an automobile
repair facility. Parking spaces are reserved for customers,
vehicles brought in and for employee vehicles. The moment a
vehicle is being worked on, it no longer qualifies as a parking
space. It assumes a different nature. The spaces within the
building are usually work bays.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Frank Granato.
The parking inside is made available for the impounded cars by
the Police Department. As far as light automotive, that is all
it is going to be. Anything that will require 7 days will be
shipped and stored at the Coronado lot. Mr. Hale has already
323
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
been doing that. Assuming the waivers are not allowed and
Mr. Hale moves back to the 4315 East La Palma address, he will
still have the same problems. He (Granato) feels it is unfair
for Mr. Hale to go through this kind of expense. He would also
like to broach another issue at this time, that of having to
improve sidewalks in the area.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted there was a large discrepancy
relative to sidewalk improvements between the applicant's
estimate and the City's estimate.
Frank Granato.
His client got the estimate which is approximately $15,000 but
he is going to utilize only 12% of the gross floor area. It
seems unfair for the lessee to pay for the whole sidewalk. Mr.
Hale is not opposed to paying his contribution. There should be
some limitation.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The City's estimate was $5,000; Mr. Granato agreed but the City
is not willing to guarantee that figure.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hunter.
The issue is the parking problem. It appears from reading the
staff report that there is quite a deficiency in parking to
overcome on the proposed location.
Mr. Granato.
If Council had an opportunity to read the BDI study they would
see that the staff report does not give the full picture.
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
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-119)
Councilman Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-119 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 3103, upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
324
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1;30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-119; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3103.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Kaywood
Hunter
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-119 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 88-89-35, VARIANCE NO. 3898 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
Melodee Ann Swallow and Gladys F. Swallow
644 South Webster Street,
Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT:
Century West Development
Attn: Robert F. Torres
8141 Kaiser Boulevard, #207,
Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 644 South Webster Avenue. The
request is for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense
zone. To construct a 3-story, 20-unit apartment complex with waiver of
maximum structural height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Reclassification No. 88-89-35 was granted by the
Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC89-55; Variance No. 3898 was
granted by the Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC89-56; approved EIR
Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Daly and Councilman Hunter at the meeting of March 21, 1989, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 30, 1989.
Posting of property March 31, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1989.
Mr. Kenneth Walker, 8141 Kaiser Boulevard was present to answer
questions.
325
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P,M.
Mayor Hunter.
He has had several discussions with persons on South Webster and
has taken a second look at the project. His opinion is that the
project is appropriate for the area.
Councilman Daly.
His primary concern was with the height of the project next to a
single-family neighborhood. The street is so consistently
developed with apartments now, many of which are already
3-stories, he tends to agree with the Mayor.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
William McHenry, 2446 Clearbrook.
The project will not increase his property value. There is
already a problem of traffic on the street. It will add 40 to
60 more cars to Webster Avenue and although there is off-street
parking, there is no guarantee that there will not be more cars
than can be accommodated. He is concerned that the project is
being built in his back yard. He is opposed to apartments and
would like to see single-family dwellings, condominiums, less
density and permanent ownership.
Jean Parkins, 658 South Webster, south of the development.
The street is already very crowded. She referred to a public
hearing a few weeks ago (southeast corner of Orange Avenue and
Velare Street) and would only reiterate much of the testimony
given in opposition to that project on March 21, 1989. There
have been numerous accidents on Webster just in the last
12 months caused by street parking and people coming out of
driveways from the apartments. Another apartment will add more
congestion. Kids from the apartments play out on Webster
Avenue. It is a dangerous situation. She is not opposed to
development of the property but would like to see something
smaller and with permanent residency. She is familiar with the
developer's work and would be proud to live next door to his
work but it is a matter of the size of the project and the
density.
Bob Carter, 513 South Aron Street.
He was present with many other residents on March 21, 1989 (see
minutes that date) fighting the proposed development on Orange
and Velare. The subject development is within 2/10 of a mile of
that proposal. At that time, he presented a petition with 932
signatures of residents in the area who are in opposition - the
major problems being density and traffic. This is the same
issue and all those people are in the same neighborhood. He had
also relayed figures showing that from Brookhurst to Beach
326
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Boulevard, there are only 32% single family homes and 66%
multiple family. He does not see where any more apartments or
condominiums, especially medium high density, can do the City or
the area any good.
Esther Wallace, Member of the Board of Trustees, Magnolia School
District.
The density in the area is high with a ratio of 2 to 1
apartments to homes. The builder is being insensitive to the
surrounding 1-story homes. A "monstrosity" was built on
Magnolia and she does not want to see a structure like that
built on the subject property.
Ruth Good, 1359 Sherrill Street, Member of the Board of
Trustees, Magnolia School District.
She invited Members of the Council to walk with her down Webster
Avenue at 5:30 a.m. to see that it is one solid line of cars
from Ball Road to Clearbrook on both sides of the street. It is
dangerous coming out of driveways. There needs to be more
parking for all apartments that are being developed. Many
people not far away from the development were unaware this was
being proposed. She asked if there was some way that more
people in a slightly larger area around a planned development
could be notified. The City's General Plan needs to be looked
at and changes made. They do not have any more school space in
the School District. Apartments are not much worse than
condominiums because condominiums can be rented out. Webster
Avenue is very dense. People in West Anaheim feel that things
are stacked against them by having too many apartments.
Dan Goebel, 2450 Clearbrook.
His entire back property line adjoins the proposed
construction. He appeared at two previous Planning Commission
hearings where he presented a petition in opposition signed by
his neighbors who were not opposed to multiple family dwellings,
but the variance on the 3-story structure. That will be the
point of his presentation today. (Also see minutes of the
Planning Commission hearings of January 30 and February 27,
1989). During Mr. Goebel's extensive presentation, he
emphasized that they are interested in a logical transition
between apartments and single-family dwellings. He is not
asking for a variance on the General Plan. Multiple family
dwellings are necessary. His argument is against the 3-story
structure. He would have no objection to a single story,
multiple family structure on the other side of his wall. Two
other problems are traffic and parking upon which he
elaborated. In concluding, he stated that all of his
compromises were ignored at the Planning Commission meetings
with the exception of the request for an 8-foot wall. The
problem is density, privacy and safety. He urged denial of the
variance for 3-stories.
327
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11. 1989. 1:30 P,M.
Theresa Collmac, 618 South Webster.
When so many things are wrong in the area, she questioned why
add more problems to it. They are willing to have apartment
complexes but they must remain within the guidelines.
Pauline Giannone, 727 South Roanne, directly in back of the
proposed property.
The number of apartments on Webster Avenue facing her back yard
is horrendous. People on Webster Avenue have parties and they
park on Roanne and go through the properties on Roanne by
climbing over the fences. She moved there 30 years ago when
Webster was agricultural, now it is overcrowded and there is no
room for another 20 apartments which will also place an
additional burden on the School District. Litter is also a
problem coming from the apartments.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Kenneth Walker, 8141 Kaiser Boulevard. (Also see detailed
letter dated March 31, 1989 from Robert Torres of Century West
Development which contained many of the items addressed in
Mr. Walker's presentation - made a part of the record). They
could have designed for a 26-unit apartment building over
subterranean parking but chose not to do so. Instead they
developed 20 units to only 77% of the maximum. The City would
allow 55% coverage, they developed to only 32% coverage. On
green space, landscaping and open space, the City has set a
minimum which they have exceeded by 230%. Relative to the
City's stringent parking requirements calling for 46 spaces,
they have provided 47. With regard to the size of the building
expressed as a concern, 35 feet is permitted. By depressing it
into the ground, the overall height is only 26 feet. In January
at the Planning Commission hearing they heard the comments of
the neighbors and subsequently took the Planning Commission's
advice and requested a continuance. They met with the
neighbors, reduced the building height and did many things that
had been addressed, the result of which they felt was a good
project and a quality project. They incorporated a future
security gate, depressed the wall in order to provide 8-feet not
on the side of the neighbors but on the project side. He then
elaborated on the other things they did to answer the concerns
of the neighbors. He is requesting approval of the project and
they look forward to many other opportunities to build in
Anaheim, not to build and leave town.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Council Members then posed questions to Mr. Walker for purposes
of clarification at the conclusion of which Councilman Daly
stated having heard from a number of the neighbors especially
immediately next door to the project, he is convinced that
328
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1;30 P,M,
RM-1200 for this parcel may be too dense given the traffic on
Webster and the parking situation. He believes that a buffer
zone between RM-1200 and the single-family neighborhoods to the
north and the east is more appropriate, perhaps RM-3000 which
will still allow for multi-family development with not as much
density. Secondly, he believes that next to single story
residential, the 3-story waiver is inappropriate. His comments
are made with mixed feelings because he has examined the plans
and has heard of the fine reputation of the developer. He is
convinced it is basically a quality project that is being
proposed, but given the environment on Webster and that two
sides of the project abut single-family neighborhoods, he cannot
support RM-1200.
Mayor Hunter.
He would be against RM-1200 block busting in the rest of the
City but Webster has a long history of RM-1200 developments. To
completely stop development where the City consistently has a
history of RM-1200 is to change horses in mid stream. The
project consists of 20 quality units and the actual height will
be only 26 feet from ground level up. It has been designed to
minimize impact on the single-family homes. The developer has
worked with the neighborhood.
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 - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolution were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-120 and 89R-121)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 89R-120 and 89R-121 for adoption,
approving Reclassification No. 88-89-35 (RM-1200) and granting Variance
No. 3898, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-120: 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-121; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3898.
329 '
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P,M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
Daly
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-120 and 89R-121 duly passed and adopted.
155/179/134/185; PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 283
(PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, ~49 SYCAMORE CANYON
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-1) AMENDMENT NO, 1 (INCLUDING A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN) -
SYCAMORE CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA 10 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO, 88-01 (AMENDMENT NO. 1):
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Woodcrest Development
Attn: James Highland
17911 Mitchell Avenue,
Irvine, CA 92714
AGENT:
Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: Subject property, which is described as the 328.9-acre Sycamore
Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1) development area, is located southeast of the
southerly terminus of Weir Canyon Road and southwest of Santa Ana Canyon Road,
and is bounded on the northwest by the East Hills Planned Community, on the
southeast by The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan development, and on the
southwest by The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan development.
REQUEST: Subject request is for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 249 to
redesignate the 19-acre Sycamore Canyon School site to a Hillside Low Density
Residential land use and Amendment No. 1 to the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan
(SP88-1), including the Zoning and Development Standards and the Public
Facilities Plan Section, and an Amended and Restated Development Agreement No.
88-01 between the City of Anaheim and Woodcrest Development, to create a new
Development Area 10 to provide for the development of 61 additional
single-family units thereby increasing the total number of dwelling units
within Sycamore Canyon from 1,119 to 1,180.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: General Plan Amendment No. 249 was approved by
the Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC89-58; Specific Plan No. 88-1,
Amendment No. 1, was approved by the Planning Commission under Resolution
No. PC89-59; Zoning and Development Standards was approved by the Planning
Commission under Resolution No. PG89-60; Development Agreement No. 88-01 was
approved by the Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC89-61; EIR No. 283
(previously certified) was approved by the Planning Commission.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the items listed above was requested by the Planning Commission,
and public hearing scheduled this date.
330
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1~30 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 30, 1989.
Posting of property March 30, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1989.
PI2%NNING STAFF INPUT:
See extensive Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1989
with attachments; see Staff Report dated April 7, 1989 from Jeff Bowman, Fire
Chief.
Mr. Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates.
He is present on behalf of Woodcrest and will make a
presentation relative to the items listed on the Council
agenda. Mr. Jim Highland, Executive Vice President of
Woodcrest, Carmen Mortnello, Morinello, Barone, Holden &
Nardulli, and John Perry, Orange Unified School District are
also present. The first part of his presentation will be a
visual one which relates to the historical perspective and the
second part will address the items in the staff report along
with additional items he was informed about today by the City
Manager's Office and the Fire Chief. Mr. Elfend then narrated a
slide presentation showing a vicinity map, surrounding land
uses, the land use plan, product type, etc., leading to the
reason for his appearance before the Council today which is the
requested amendment to the Specific Plan dealing with the
deletion of the 19-acre Junior High School site to permit
residential development of up to 61 single-family detached
homes. (See Sycamore Canyon, Specific Plan No. 88-1, Amendment
No. 1 - City of Anaheim - February, 1989 - Woodcrest
Development, Inc., prepared for the City of Anaheim by Elfend &
Associates which contained many of the slides presented and
extensive and detailed documentation regarding the proposed
amendment.)
Councilman Daly interjected and stated that he is frustrated in
the fact that a voluminous report has been submitted, and he
notes that now Mr. Elfend is bringing up information not dealt
with in the City's staff report such as park acreage which the
Council must make a decision on, based on a speedy
presentation. It puts him in a difficult position as a decision
maker.
Mayor Hunter.
He asked Mr. Elfend if he could summarize what he said in his
presentation.
Frank Elfend.
A great deal of the information provided is in the text which
the Council has (booklet - Sycamore Canyon - Specific Plan No.
88-1, Amendment No. 1). The area on which they are proposing
the Specific Plan Amendment was an area considered when their
331
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P,M.
Specific Plan was approved approximately a year ago. During
that time when the Plan was prepared, they included an analysis
in the documentation evaluating a use for that area. Relative
to the second part of the presentation, everything presented in
terms of the parking, the size of it and everything else is
included in the Council's agenda packet in the Specific Plan
Amendment Booklet.
Mayor Hunter.
He asked what the difference was between the park now proposed
vs. the one originally proposed.
Frank Elfend.
It relates to the configuration and is increased by 4/10ths of
an acre. After their Specific Plan approval, they met with the
Parks Department who wanted to see the park configured
differently. They (Woodcrest) agreed with the change proposed.
In conjunction with the Park dedication ordinance, they also
increased the size of the park to accommodate the addition of 61
residential units. That is the nature of the park issue.
Acreage was increased pursuant to Code. Relative to Part B of
the presentation and the staff report, they agree with the
conditions of approval. The only thing they have done for
clarification purposes is to submit a letter to the City
indicating those conditions of approval which have been met via
the satisfaction of other conditions of the approval for the
overall Specific Plan area. The other two issues that they
would like to address, he suggested on one of them that the
Council ask the City Attorney to explain what the City is
requesting relative to cable facilities.
City Attorney White.
In reviewing the conditions relating to the cable television
facilities on all three of the Ranches in connection with the
most recent cable TV franchise proposal, it was observed that in
both the Highlands and the S~mmit projects there is a condition
which expressly provides that the property owners shall
construct and dedicate to the City cable facilities necessary to
implement the City's Cable TV Network System. This is to ensure
its ability for the City's franchisee(s) to access the
properties for the purpose of providing cable TV. That
condition does not appear specifically in the Sycamore Canyon
project approvals while it does in the other two. For the sake
of consistency and to assure what he believes to be the intent
of the developer that cable facilities and franchisees not be
denied access to the properties to serve customers in the area,
it was recommended that condition, tracking the conditions in
the other two Ranches be added in at this time since the City
would be in the process of amending conditions of approval of
the Specific Plan, so that all three Ranches contained the
equivalent condition. (Mr. White submitted a copy of the
proposed condition to the Council).
332
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
Frank Elfend.
When the Sycamore Canyon project was approved, Condition No. 133
read as follows: "that the owner/developer shall coordinate
cable facilities with the Cable Company which provides the Cable
Television Network System in the City." The condition now being
proposed states, "that the property owner/developer shall
construct and dedicate to the City of Anaheim all cable
facilities necessary to implement to the City's Cable Television
Network System." This wording is different in terms of who
pays. The issue City Attorney White raises has to do with
access. A letter was submitted to the City Manager today on
behalf of his client indicating they'have never prevented access
to ML Media (Multivision) to the site. Access is available and
they have no intention of preventing them from that access nor
have they done so in the past. They would like to keep the
condition as it presently stands because there is a difference
between construction and dedication. They would object to that
request and believe the letter provided to the City today will
resolve the concern.
Mayor Hunter.
The concern is consistency within the three Ranches since they
are all new developments.
Frank Elfend.
Relative to the Highlands, it is not an item that was addressed
by his client at the time. With the proposed condition, there
is a cost involved since it is more than coordinating. If it is
a condition, his client is going to concur but that would only
affect those 61 units being considered today. The remainder of
the property would not be affected by that request.
City Attorney White stated he does not agree with that statement
at all.
Frank Elfend.
Since there is a development agreement with the City, he
wondered how that could be modified.
City Attorney White.
They are present today to amend the Specific Plan and
Development Agreement. If the City allows the amendment, he
asked Mr. Elfend if he is saying that the City cannot exact a
condition for construction and dedication of Cable TV Facilities
as the quid pro quo for that.
Mr. Elfend answered that the City can request that for the
61 units. The amendment applies only to the 61 units as opposed
to the entire Ranch. If Mr. White is indicating it is a request
for the entire Ranch, that is a different issue; Mr. White
answered that is what he is indicating.
333
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P,M.
Carmen Morinello, Morinello, Barone, Holden & Nardulli.
Referring to specific sections of the Development Agreement with
regard to any future amendments to the Specific Plan, he
concluded it is their position that although the City could
request that the cable facilities be provided for the 61 homes,
they cannot require it for the entire project.
City Attorney White.
He could not more strongly disagree. The developer is asking
for an amendment to the agreement and to the Specific Plan. If
the developer's position is that it can be amended as a one-way
street only and the City cannot amend those provisions Mr.
Morinello just read, he does not agree. The parties that
execute a contract can always amend it. He (White) is
suggesting that they amend whatever conditions are necessary.
He does not believe the City's hands are tied and not allowed to
negotiate. The two parties, if they are in agreement, can amend
the Development Agreement not only to allow 61 houses, but at
the same time to provide for construction and dedication of
cable facilities on the entire project.
3im Highland, 17911 Mitchell Avenue.
He did not realize it was the City's intent to have the
developer build the cable TV system for the Cable TV Company.
It was not the intent of the developer to do so. His position
would be that the other developers should have their Condition
No. 133 as it now stands, rather than vice versa.
City Attorney White.
The intent is not to have the developer pay the cost of the
Cable TV Facilities. The important thing is to have the City's
franchisee have access to be able to provide service to every
home that is built and every unit that is constructed in the
development. The way he envisions that happening is that
conduit be installed at the developer's cost through which one
or more cable companies can pull their cable. He is not
suggesting the developer has to pay for the cost of the cable;
however, the conduit through which the cable runs needs to be
installed and dedicated to the City so the City owns the conduit
with the right to provide the lateral service from the conduit
to the individual units - the junction boxes on the property.
Jim Highland.
They do not have any problem when their trenches are open to
allow any cable TV company to lay cable or conduit or whatever
they want to do, but it is not their understanding the .developer
will have to pay for the system since it is the Cable Company's
system. If the City wants a condition granting access to them,
that is fine.
Mayor Hunter asked what if the City changes their franchisee;
Mr. Highland answered that he would be willing to install the
conduit.
334
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1;30 P.M.
City Attorney White.
The other half of the issue is to provide lateral access to the
junction boxes for each of the units. If there can be an
understanding that the conduit includes access up to the
junction boxes on the property, that will satisfy the request.
Jim Highland.
He has no problem with that and would be willing to provide
that. He asked if there are two or three franchisees what would
occur.
City Attorney White.
At the time the conduit is installed, it should be sufficient to
accommodate the City's current franchisee or franchisees. At
the moment, the City only has one. It would be best to provide
capacity for at least two systems to avoid streets immediately
being ripped up if the City approves an additional franchisee.
Discussion followed wherein Mr. Highland explained why they went
out looking for another cable TV company for their project;
Councilman Daly felt this was a peripheral issue and was more
concerned with the matter of deciding whether to allow 61 units
on what was planned for a school site. Other issues such as
cable TV, fire sprinklers, a discrepancy in the acreage involved
of 18 as opposed to 19 acres, and differences in what the
developer is proposing and what the City staff has been telling
him make him very uncomfortable. If he has to vote on the
matter today, he is going to vote no. The heart of the matter
is whether or not to allow 61 more housing units to a Specific
Plan, which he does not have a problem with, but he does have a
problem with adding other conditions and arguing those in public.
Frank Elfend.
He clarified they have no problem in providing the cable TV
conduit as suggested. Otherwise his client is on a schedule and
trying to move forward. It is a land use issue. They are
dealing with the fire sprinkler issue with the Fire Department.
Those issues are all related to the Development A§reement, not
the EIR, General Flan Amendment or Specific Flan. As far as
cable TV, they can concur with that part but cannot concur
relative to sprinklers. It is a policy issue the Council is
going to consider next week.
Mr. John Perry, Orange Unified School District (OUSD).
Through the Woodcrest Company, they have been able to nearly
secure the financing for the Canyon Rim School to be located on
the corner of Canyon Rim and Serrano. The school site had been
previously dedicated to the District as part of the Texaco
settlement and graded in conjunction with the Presley Company.
The District finds themselves being cash short in the facilities
area. There is still insufficient funding to build schools to
335
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1;30 P.M.
service the newly emerging neighborhoods. The agreement with
Woodcrest is contingent upon an approval of the reuse of the 19
acres from a designated Junior High site to some other use. In
1987, the School District notified the City of Anaheim that it
was abandoning the school site on the basis of their
re-evaluation of the growth patterns in the East Anaheim Hills
area also prompted by the change in enrollment from a 3-year
Junior High to a 2-year middle school. The schools that were
designed to house 3 levels are now housing 2 levels. The
District believes East Anaheim Hills can be serviced by two new
schools - Canyon Rim and Weir Canyon School. They are nearly
out of elementary school space and are looking to open the
Canyon Rim School as early as September, 1990 or as late or
January, 1991. They are presently in design and attempting to
form the Community Facilities District. The entire project is
contingent upon approval of the Specific Plan Amendment.
Pastor Bryan Crow, 113 Orange Hill Lane.
Woodcrest has donated 34 acres to him for the Garden Church. In
addition, he has worked out an agreement with the Highlands for
an additional 50 acres so everything on the East end will be in
a botanical garden. The church site will be 15 acres and it is
his intent that the botanical garden be a public facility. The
developer has made it possible for the church to give a gift to
Anaheim. Eighty plus acres is involved. The church will also
be in the garden mode and open to the public.
Councilman Pickler.
He realizes the Council is going to make a decision on the
sprinkler issue next week but he would like a stipulation that
the developer keep the 61 homes open relative to the
installation of sprinklers so that if the Council wishes it is
something they can impose.
Frank Elfend.
For those 61 units, he feels that would be fair. They will
leave it open until the Council makes its policy decision.
City Attorney White.
He would like an understanding that the mere fact that they are
not doing anything at all with regard to sprinklers today, next
week they will not use today's inaction as being an indication
of the City's ability to require sprinklers or not require
them. The "sprinkler" issue is being deferred until next week.
He reiterated that nothing that is decided today in connection
with this application is to be deemed to either prejudice the
City, developer or anybody else with regard to the issues that
would be raised next week regarding the installation of
sprinklers in the units.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
336
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1;30 P,M.
Councilman Daly asked for clarification on whether the acreage
under consideration is 18 acres or 19 acres.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
The original school site identified in all the Specific Plan
documentation was 19 acres. It was mentioned by Mr. Elfend
there was a .4-acre increase for the park which effectively
makes the amended area 18.6 acres. In correspondence from Mr.
Elfend, the reference is to 18.0 acres but it should be 18.6.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 283: Having previously reviewed by City staff
and approved and recommended by the City Planning Commission for Specific Plan
No. 88-1 and, having reviewed evidence both written and oral presented with
regard to EIR No. 283 the City Council again finds on motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter that Environmental Impact Report No.
283 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State
and City guidelines with regard to Specific Plan No. 88-1, Amendment No. 1.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the Gity Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-122)
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-122 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 249, Exhibit A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-122; 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. 249, EXHIBIT "A."
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-122 duly passed and adopted.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-123)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-123 for adoption, approving
Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1), Amendment No. 1 (Exhibit A) including
Public Facilities Plan and incorporating the findings of the City Planning
Commission with the additional condition relating to Cable Television
Facilities as follows "That the property owner/developer shall install and
337
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
dedicate to the City cable conduit sufficient to accommodate the City's cable
TV network system including lateral access to the property line for each
residential unit." Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-123: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-1.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-123 duly passed and adopted.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-124)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-124 for adoption, approving
Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan Development Area 10 Zoning and Development
Standards. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-124: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HERETOFORE ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-1, AS AMENDED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-124 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved (1) to direct the City Attorney to prepare
an ordinance for adoption of Development Area 10 Zoning and Development
Standards and (2) directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance
approving Development Agreement 88-01 (Amendment No. 1). Councilman Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 281
(PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) - REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 18.72,020,090 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE (TITLE 18 ZONING) PERTAINING TO THE SUMMIT OF ANAHEIM HILLS
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-2) ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD DEFINITION OF "LOTS"
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
The Baldwin Building Co.
Attn: Diana Hoard
16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714
338
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 11, 1989, 1:30 P,M.
LOCATION' The 591-acre Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) project
area is located approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the Weir Canyon
Road/Riverside Freeway intersection and is bounded on the north by the
Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan development, on the west by The Highlands at
Anaheim Hills Specific Plan development, and on the south and east by
unincorporated Irvtne Company property within the County of Orange.
REOUEST: To amend The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) zoning
and development standard definition of "lots" in order to permit residential
lots to front on private streets within the Summit of Anaheim Hills
Development Areas 101, 201, 202 and 205.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Request to amend section 18.72.020.090 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
(SP88-2) Zoning and Development Standard Definition of "Lots" approved by the
Planning Commission, PC89-63; Supplement to EIR No. 281 (previously certified)
approved by the Planning Commission.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the items listed above was requested by the Planning Commission,
and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 30, 1989.
Posting of property March 30, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1989, with
attachments.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
The property owner is proposing an amendment that would allow
lots to front on a private street. There are many developments
in the Canyon area that have private streets. This would allow
for a more unified planning process. He clarified that staff
and administration have no problem with the request.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to speak.
Diana Hoard, Vice President Baldwin Building Company,
16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714.
Mr. Fick explained the situation. The request simply allows
frontage of a lot on a private street provided the private
street has been identified on the tract map as a private street.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
339
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1989, 1:30 P,M.
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED): On motion by
Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, it was determined that
supplement to Environmental Impact Report No. 281 is previously certified by
the City Council on November 1, 1988 in conjunction with the approval of The
Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) is adequate to serve as
Environmental documentation for the amendment to the definition of "lots" for
Development Areas 101, 201, 202, 205. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-125)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-125 for adoption, approving
Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standard Definition of "Lots" (SP88-2).
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-125: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HERETOFORE ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-2.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-125 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance
amending Section 18.72.020.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Title 18
Zoning) pertaining to The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2)
Zoning and Development Standard Definition of "lots" (Development Areas 101,
201, 202, and 205). Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT; Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn to Tuesday, April 18, 1989,
at 2:00 p.m. for a Joint Workshop with the City Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:40 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
340