1989/04/258?
City Hall. AnaheSm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 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
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:30 p.m. on April 21, 1989 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
The Mayor called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the
Council meeting. (2:45 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend David Walker, St. Mark's United Methodist Church, gave
the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE; Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATES OF ACHIEVEMENT - 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 of $30 to $100: Sharon McCamon, Senior Office
Specialist; Nicholas Vtllacresses, Data Control Specialist; Joanne Williams,
Principal Engineering Aide; Nancy Sumida, Senior Accounting Specialist; Taylor
Prell, Customer Service Representative; Robert Sterling, Heavy Equipment
Operator; Ellis Williams, Custodian/Maintenance Services; Harold Abraham,
Building Inspector.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members congratulated each employee who was present
for their contributions.
119; pROCLAMATIONS; The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
Water Awareness Week in Anaheim, May 1-7, 1989,
Statewide Water Awareness Week in Anaheim, May 1 - 7, 1989,
National Day of Prayer in Anaheim, May 4, 1989.
Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, accepted the Water Awareness
proclamation and introduced key staff members who assist in bringing water to
the City of Anaheim.
381
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APril 25. 1989, 1;30 P,M,
~19: DEC~RATION OF COMMENDATION: A Declaration of Commendation was
unanimously adopted and ratified by the City Council commending the Katella
High School Lady Knights Basketball Team for their outstanding season.
119: PRESENTATION - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (OCTC) DRAFT
20-YEAR MASTER ~]~%N OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEME~T~; Cary Johnson, Director of
Public Works and City Engineer. He introduced Mr. Stan Oftelie, Director of
the OCTC who will give the subject presentation. He reported first that
May 8, 1989 is the deadline for cities and other organizations in the County
to make comments on the draft plan. He would like to have any comments prior
to May 1, 1989 so that written comments can be submitted to the Commission.
After Mr. Oftelie concludes his presentation, the Council may wish to discuss
policy direction as Anaheim's response.
Mr. Stan Oftelie, Director, OCTC. He answered the question why traffic is so
bad in Orange County. In spite of the tremendous growth in the County, there
has only been an 8% growth in freeway miles. The freeway system was
constructed between 1955 and 1965 but since that time, the employment base has
tripled. Traffic is bad because the investment has not been made in
transportation systems. Nationally, California is close to being the lowest
of the low in use of gasoline sales tax as a vehicle to improve transportation.
Mr. Oftelie then briefed portions of the extensive report entitled, "20-Year
Master Plan of Transportation Improvements" submitted under letter of March 7,
1989 detailing needed street, road, bus, rail and freeway projects for Orange
County (made a part of the record). (Also see Draft 20-Year Master Plan of
Transportation Improvements dated March 13, 1989 and memorandum dated April
18, 1989 from Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer to the City
Manager, City Council on the 20-Year Plan givimg additional data and listing
the primary issues Anaheim may wish to address prior to the Commission
adopting a plan on May 8, 1989 attached to which was his memorandum dated
February 27, 1989, subject: Proposed Orange County 1/2 Cent Sales Tax
Proposal - Documents made a part of the record). Amongst the many issues
addressed in the report were needed projects, expected funding,
recommendations for additional funding, an explanation of the public input
process that has taken place, etc. Things can be done to alleviate the
situation, but it costs money. The Commission staff has recommended pursuing
a 1/2 cent local transportation sales tax amongst other alternatives. Orange
County is ringed by counties that have taken that option. That sales tax will
buy $3.1 billion worth of projects. It is necessary to be very specific about
those projects when going to the public. With those funds, the Plan proposes
the following: Freeways $1.3 billion which will accelerate improvements
that under the present schedule will take 25 years, down to 10 years. Street
and roads, $900 million, and Transit, $900 million. He is asking the
Council's advice on what projects should be included in the Plan. Me then
explained the subsequent steps to be taken, the next being a public hearing on
May 8, 1989 before the OCTC who will be adopting the Plan.
In concluding, Mr. Oftelie stated they will then go out for the ratification
process and that is when he will come back to the Council again. At that
time, the Council's options are very limited - either they agree or do not
382
85
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINIYrES - Avril 25. 1989. 1;30 p.M.
agree but there is no adjusting the Plan after the Transportation Commission
acts in May. The request to be made of the Council, if the Plan is approved,
is to indicate should the matter be placed before the people of Orange County,
and does the expenditure plan make sense for the people of Orange County. The
question of whether or not it is a sales tax, gas tax or developer fees is the
sole ~ecision of OCTC. Ratification has to be by the Board of Supervisors and
by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population. If the
Plan is ratified, later this summer the Transportation Commission will make a
decision if the Plan should go before the people of Orange County. If so, an
election date will be set which could be as early as November, 1989 or some
time in 1990. He will be happy to answer any questions.
After Council comments and questions posed to Mr. Oftelie, City Engineer
Johnson stated it would be his recommendation that Anaheim submit a letter to
the OCTC under the Mayor's signature stating the City's proposal that the
sales tax be used to fund the substandard interchanges along I-5 in the City
of Anaheim, that the City not bear that responsibility, that they acknowledge
when the I-5 was constructed, some arterials were cut off and that growth by
the City does not now require them to be expanded but they should have been
constructed at first; that the distribution of funds is acceptable to the
City, and the transit component be fully funded of which Anaheim is a prime
beneficiary. Any money taken from that component will, in his opinion, hurt
Anaheim. With the Council's approval, he will prepare a letter for the
Mayor's signature so that it can be submitted to the Commission by May 1, 1989.
There was a general Council consensus that they would like to opportunity to
see the letter before it is signed and sent.
City Attorney White. Because the item is on the agenda, the Council could by
motion approve sending the letter and authorizing the Mayor to sign it on
behalf of the Council subject to review of the language of the letter and
ratification by at least three Council Members which will guarantee majority
support. The letter will be available for review not later than tomorrow and
if there are any concerns with it, those should be addressed to the City
Engineer.
Councilman Hunter moved that a letter be prepared by the City Engineer for the
Mayor's signature to be sent to the OCTC stating the City's position on the
20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements, subject to review of the
language and ratification by at least three Council Members. Councilman
Pict:ler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FIN~_NCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CIl~f in the amount of $2,639,789.87, in
accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCgS: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances on the Consent Calendar were read by the City
Manager. (Resolution Nos. 89R-135 through 89R-145, both inclusive, for
adoption; Ordinance Nos. 5021 through 5024, both inclusive, for introduction)
383
$6
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aoril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and
ordinances. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Hunter,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Hunter
offered Resolution Nos. 89R-135 through 89R-145, both inclusive, for adoption;
Ordinance Nos. 5021 through 5024, both inclusive, 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 Delores E. Ritter for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 28, 1988.
b. Claim submitted by Mark Industries for indemnity for damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 25, 1989.
c. Claim submitted by Donald Balz, II, a minor, for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 19, 1988.
d. Claim submitted by Pamela A. Edwards for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 21, 1988.
e. Claim submitted by Jeff GanJai for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 16, 1988.
f. Claim submitted by Erma A. Strankay for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 9, 1988.
A2. 156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and
Clearance Analysis report for the month of March, 1989.
It had been determined after contacting F~RC that the correct date in the
following document was October 31, 1993.
175: Receiving and filing correspondence from the United States of America
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding notice of filing by Southern
California Edison Company (April 3, 1989) of agreements with the cities of
Anaheim, Banning, and Riverside for transmission service from Vincent
Substation.
175: Receiving and filing Application No. 89-04-021 by Southern California
Gas Company for authorization to reduce revenues by $22.5 million annually,
beginning October 1, 1989.
384
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
A3. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Atlas-Allied, Inc., (contingent upon receiving proof of State Contractor's
License) in the amount of $264,408 for the construction of Water Meter Vault
Rehabilitation and/or replacement; or if proof of license is not received,
award the contract to Valverde Construction Company in the amount of $270,815.
In answer to a question posed by Councilman Pickler, Gary Johnson, Director of
Public Works/City Engineer, explained that contract specifications do not
require licensing at the time of bid opening but do at the time of bid award.
There have been ~wo contracts in the past five years where the contractor did
not have a license at the time of bid opening.- However, there is going to be
a change proposed in bid documents in the future which will now require
licensing at the time of bid opening so that this problem will not arise again.
A4. 169: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Red Gum
Street Street, Sidewalk and Water Improvements, by Blair Paving, Inc., and
authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of
Completion.
A5. 123: Approving the Subdivision Agreement of Parcel Map No. 88-317 with
the developer, Chaparral Development, Inc. The parcel is located at 4521 East
Cerro Vista Drive (southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Cerro Vista
Way).
A6. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 13744 and the Subdivision
Agreement with Andrew Homes, Inc., subject to approval of the covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Tract 13744 is located at 1226 and 1234 South
Western Avenue (on the east side of Western Avenue, approximately 400' south
of the centerltne of Ball Road), and is in conjunction with Reclassification
No. 87-88-49.
A7. 123/152/172: Approving an agreement with Orange County Transit District
to authorize the Commuter Services Office to sell monthly bus passes to
employees which will yield a 2% commission to be allocated to the employee
rideshare program.
A8. 175: Rejecting all bids submitted for the Trash Transfer Site
Improvements, said site located at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and
Crescent Avenue.
Ag, 176; RESOLUTION NO. 89R-I35: A P3.ROLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (88-17A) (Declaring its intention to vacate
that certain public utility easement located north of and parallel to Cerritos
Avenue, east of Euclid Street - suggested public hearing date is May 23, 1989,
at 3:00 p.m.)
Al0. 158: RESOLUTION NO, 89R-136; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES
HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (For Parcel Map 84-233)
385
84
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
All. 151: Approving a request for encroachment (alley between Melrose and
Kroeger north of Santa Ana Street) by Brown and Caldwell for Kwikset
Corporation, to install a temporary water monitoring well in said alley, and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute =he Encroachment License.
A12. 106/155: Approving an amendment to the Public Works - Engineering
Department 1988-89 Capital Improvement Budget, and increasing revenue and
expenditure appropriations by $730,500 in Program 793.
123: Approving an agreement with the City of Fullerton for the improvement of
Raymond Avenue between the Riverside Freeway (91) and Chapman Avenue at an
estimated cost of $40,500, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
said agreement.
Al3, 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 5021 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON
BUSH STREET BETWEEN SYCAMORE STREET AND WILHELMINA STREET BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
MIDNIGHT AND SIX A.M.
Al4. 123: Approving agreements with Joseph A. Hennessey, Cedric A. White and
Thomas M. Pike & Associates to provide appraisal services to the City at the
rate of $100 per hour.
Al§. This item was moved to the end of the Consent Calendar for discussion.
A16, 123/129: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-137: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL ANDAWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE
LOWEST BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND REMOVE
ALL RANK GROWTH AND WEEDS AND REMOVE RUBBISH,-REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL
OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 01-202-6320 (1989-1990). (Edwin Webber, Inc., in the amount of
$48,040)
617, 123; RESQLUTION NO. 89R-138: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT
NOS. 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58 AND 61 FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ~UBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. (Authorizing the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute said agreements on behalf of the City)
18, 139/150; RESOLUTION NO. 89R-139: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING HR-876, ESTABLISHING THE AMERICAN HERITAGE TRUST.
(Supporting HR-876 (UDALL) which establishes the "American Heritage Trust", to
enhance the protection of the nation's natural, historical, cultural and
outdoor recreational heritage, and convey this support to the City's elected
representatives)
Al9. 150/152: Authorizing the City Manager to sign and submit correspondence
to the Placentia Unified School District concerning a concession stand at Rio
Vista Park.
A20. 153; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-140: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-115 PERTAINING TO RATES OF
386
8]
~ttv Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS.
(Amending the per diem guarantee from four hours to five hours, effective
February 24, 1989)
A21. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-141: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-264 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (To
delete the position of Assistant Executive Director of Community Development,
and adding the positions of Development and Property Manager and Housing
Manager, effective April 14, 1989)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-142: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-265 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY.
(Deleting the position of Housing Program Manager, and adding the position of
Housing Rehabilitation Coordinator, effective April 14, 1989)
~53~ gESOLUTION NO. 89R-143: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-266 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL
MANAGEMENT. (To add the position of Senior Project Manager, effective
April 14, 1989)
A22, 185; ORDINANCE NO, 2022 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (i) APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 88-01 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT
INC. ("AMENDMENT"), (ii) FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AMENDMENT ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND (iii) AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY. (Sycamore Canyon)
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 5023 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION .055 TO SECTION 18.71.060 OF CHAPTER 18.71 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING (SP88-1) AND
AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 4909 AND 4910, ACCORDINGLY.
623, %79/185; ORDINANCE NO, 5024 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 18.72.105 TO CHAPTER 18.72 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (SP88-2) (Definition of Lots -
~e Summit)
A24. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by
the Director of Finance for eight months ended February 28, 1989.
A25. 123: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Data Processing
Director to enter into a purchase agreement with Storage Technology
Corporation, in the amount of $138,348 for additional Direct Access Storage
Device equipment.
123: Authorizing the Data Processing Director to enter into an agreement with
Storage Technology Corporation, in the amount of $36,480 for a 60-month
maintenance contract on the Direct Access Storage Device equipment.
387
82
Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Avril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
123: Authorizing the Finance Director to enter into an agreement to finance
this equipment at the lowest competitive lease/purchase rate or utilize the
General Benefits Fund and charge interest based on the current Treasurer's
earnings rate of 9.115%, if it is lower.
A~6. 139/137: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-144: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO
PRESERVE TAX-EXEMPT BONDS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. (Supporting the
request upon Gongress and the President to preserve the tax exempt status of
state and local government bonds and transmit the City's position to
appropriate representatives in Congress)
A27. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 89R-135 through 89R-145:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-135 through 89R-145, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
Al5, 161; ~NAHEIM PLAZA SURVEY AREA - AMENDING THE DESIGNATED SURVEY AREA FOR
THg PROPOSED PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Submitted was report dated
April 18, 1989 from the Community DevelopmentDepartment, recommending the
amendment of Redevelopment Survey Area No. 85-1.
Councilman Daly. He asked for clarification whether or not Price Elementary
School is included in the survey area since page 4 of the Urban Land Institute
(ULI) report shows that it is included.
Lisa Stlpkovich, Director of Community Development. The amended project area
does not include the Price Elementary School. Exhibit "B" is what staff is
recommending and it does not include the school even though ULI recommended it
be included. The rationale for including it being if there was an interest in
changing the land use from a school to residential, it could be included in
the future. However, after discussions with the School District, the District
does not see any possibility of that use being changed in the future.
Mrs. Stipkovich also explained for Councilman Daly relative to the Post
Office, the ULI study recommended that not be included. Staff has no power of
eminent domain over the Post Office. It would be strictly at their option
should that land use change. If staff could convince the Post Office of that,
staff has the ability to use their 20% set-aside for housing outside the
project area and those funds could be utilized for acquisition of that
property and creating some type of residential development. Probably the best
alternative land use for that site would be residential. It could be'included
388
~itv Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M,
but staff did not think it would necessarily have to be in order to acquire
the land should they decide to sell. Staff also felt by surrounding the
existing apartment complex, perhaps those residents totally being surrounded
might make them concerned about land use. They tried to avoid getting into a
situation where they surrounded residential uses although technically there
would be no impact.
Councilman Daly. He asked if there will be a change at a later date to
include the properties under discussion.
Mrs. Stipkovich. It would be better to include the properties now and then
delete them at a later date because in order to include additional projects,
it would be necessary to go through the process all over again from the
beginning which would cause a time delay. If the Council adopts the
resolution, those sites can be included and then discussed further as they
proceed.
Councilman Daly. Because he believes it will give the Agency more flexibility
in the future and because the intersection of North Street and Loara is so
troublesome, he would like to ask the Council to include the properties north
of Crescent all the way to the flood control channel in the amended survey
area. They will be going to the Planning Commission for further discussion
and work.
Mrs. Stipkovich asked if he was including the residential. Staff is trying to
exclude any residential property. Her preference is to delete the two
apartment projects but include the Post Office site.
Councilman Daly. His concern is the one to the north of the Post Office site
- the very large apartment project. He sees that site as part of the overall
effort. He will support a week's continuance if more discussion is necessary.
Mrs. Stipkovich. Staff will withdraw the item today and reschedule it for
next week's agenda.
Councilman Ehrle. He notices coming down Lincoln Avenue, the project stops at
Manchester. He wants to know if it is possible to consider bringing the
project area down Lincoln to at least Harbor Boulevard so there is some
connection between the Alpha Project and this new proposed project area.
Mrs. Stipkovich. That could be done. There is the ability to provide funding
for that right-of-way improvement as it benefits both this and Project Alpha.
A right-of-way project is capable of being funded because it benefits one
particular project area. Staff can look at including that as well.
By general Council consensus it was determined that the item would be
withdrawn as requested by staff and rescheduled for the next Council meeting
agenda.
123/150/106; EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL CINC0 DE MAyO FIESTA: Councilman Pickler
moved to approve the following as recommended in report dated April 18, 1989
389
8O
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Anril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
from the Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services, Chris Jarvi: (1)
approving an agreement with the Cinco de Mayo Committee for the promotion of
the Eighteenth Annual Cinco de Mayo Fiesta on May 4 - 7, 1989; (2) permittng
an amateur boxing contest as part of the Fiesta; (3) consider the Cinco de
Mayo Committee request for $1,500 and appropriating said funds from Council
Contingency Fund. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler left the Council Chambers. (3:47 p.m.)
176; pUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT 88-15A: In accordance with application
filed by Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc., 721 North Euclid, Suite 311,
Anaheim, CA 92801, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an
easement for electrical purposes extending westerly from Euclid Street, 125'
north of Katella Avenue (Northwest corner of Euclid and Katella), pursuant to
Resolution No. 89R-77, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin on April 6 and
April 13, 1989 and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated March 6, 1989 was submitted, recommending
approval of said abandonment.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the City Council ratified the
determination of the City Engineer, that the proposed activity falls within
the definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to
the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Pickler
was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-146)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was temporarily
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-146 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 88-15A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING AN EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL PURPOSES. (88-15A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
None
Pickler
390
??
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Avrtl 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-146 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler entered the Council Chambers. (3:50 p.m.)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONHENT 88-19A: In accordance with application
filed by Alpine Services, 1315 E. St. Andrews Place, Santa Aha, CA 92705,
public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of a storm drain
easement extending northerly from Orangethorpe Avenue, approximately 400 feet
west of Orangethorpe Park, pursuant to Resolution No. 89R-78, duly published
in the Anaheim Bulletin on April 6 and April 13, 1989 and notices thereof
posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated March 6, 1989 was submitted, recommending
approval of said abandonment.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilwoman KayWood, the City council ratified the
determination of the City Engineer, that the proposed activity falls within
the definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to
the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Pickler
was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-I47)
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-147 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 88-19A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-147: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING AN EASEMENT FOR ST0~ DRAIN. (88-19A).
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-147 duly passed and adopted.
179; PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3911 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
Jack Nosek et al
1206 W. Ash Avenue,
Fullerton, CA 92633
391
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
AGENT:
Thomas Maurer AFA & Associates
1150 E1 Camino Real, Suite 200,
Tusttn, CA 92680
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 806 West Romneya Drive. The
request is for waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 9-unit,
3-story, apartqnent complex.
PLANNINC COHHISSION ACTION: Variance No. 3911 was granted by the Planning
Commission under Resolution No. PC89-64; 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 BulletinApril 13, 1989
Posting of property April 14, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 13, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1989.
APPLICANT'S
STATEHENT:
Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, Orange.
The project was originally proposed as a lO-unit project. It
was denied by the Planning Commission, appealed to the Council
and denied again. The project was then taken back to the
Planning Commission and completely redesigned reducing it to
9 units and eliminating the need for a variance for coverage and
setback. The variance for maximum structural heisht is still
necessary.
The developer has an almost identical project under construction
two lots down the street. This is a high quality development
and was upgraded in quality at the time of the redesign. The
last time the project was be£ore the Planning Commission there
was no opposition. A Mr. Craton, the next door neighbor, was
originally opposed but is now in support of the project. He was
planning to be present today but has not yet appeared. He has
copies of the agreement between the two parties which he will
submit.
Councilman Daly.
Based on the reduced density and site coverage, and after having
had an opportunity to look at the revised plans, he believes
this will be a good, quality project and he is now prepared to
support it as approved by the Planning Commission.
392
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989, 1:30 p,M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She noted that one unit was reduced but two bedrooms were
added. She wants to be sure that management will control the
number of people living in the units.
Bob Mickelson.
It is their intent to build and hold it as an investment.
manage and own their projects.
They
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
COMMENTS: Mr. Lee Schlosser, 217 South Olive Street, commented on the
maximum structural height.
Mr. Dick Randlett, builder, Ranco Development, 1521 Sherwood
Village Circle, Placentia.
Relative to the question posed regarding line of site, there
will be no visual intrusion to the next door neighbor.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - N~GATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial s~udy 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-148)
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-148 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3911, subject to conditions of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to R.~solution Book.
~ESOLUTION NO. 89R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3911.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
393
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-148 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3914. CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS-l:
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Ting F. Hsiao
328 N. Beach Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 310 North Philadelphia Street.
The request is for waiver of maximum structural height to convert a third
level attic space into a habitable area.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: Variance No. 3914 was denied by the Zoning
Administrator under Resolution No. ZA89-11; determined to be categorically
exempt.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal was submitted by the owner, Ting F. Hsiao, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin Aprtl 13, 1989.
Posting of property April 13, 1989
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 14, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator dated March 9, 1989.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Ron Bailing, attorney for the applicant, 3255 Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles.
The request is waiver of maximum structural height and to
convert the 3rd level attic space into an habitable area. The
building already exists and is 70% completed. He then submitted
photos of the structure. The project is a quality one and it
does upgrade the neighborhood. Most of the features far exceed
the applicable code. Mr. Ting's letter of March 20, 1989
(previously made a part of the record) points out nine ways this
is true. The neighborhood is in a situation where most of the
buildings are run down and overcrowded already. The subject
project is a positive addition. Mr. Ting is desirous of living
in the building himself. The building is already at its full
height which is 25 feet and within the allowable height. There
has been mention that this is a 3-story building but it is a
matter of interpretation. There are levels that are staggered
as outlined in the letter so that the 3rd level is only 10
inches higher than the 2nd level at the highest point. As for
density, 85% of the surrounding lots in the neighborhood
presently house 6 to 10 adults plus children. Houses are
divided into rented rooms with rents of approximately $200 per
month per adult. The subject project would not be crowded in
394
73
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
this way. He then submitted additional photographs taken of
what he termed as dilapidated, overcrowded conditions in the
neighborhood.
Conway Cook, Architect, 505 East Compton Boulevard, Compton.
The building turned out to be the height it is because of
vaulted ceilings in a living room whtch created the tremendous
attic space. The attic space could be converted into a loft
overlooking the living room. It is a very good and attractive
space. The windows and the loft space would not have a view
out. There is a baffle between the window and surrounding area
so that nobody can see past the louvered space either in or out.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
It was originally built that way calling that space storage
space. If it is converted to a 2nd bedroom she asked where the
storage space would then be. She is also concerned that this is
a back-door approach to get a 2nd bedroom; Mr. Cook answered
that there would not be any storage space outside of closets.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
Before each of the following people spoke in opposition, they took issue with
Mr. Bailing's statement that their neighborhood and homes were in a
dilapidated, run-down condition.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Keith Olesen, 321 North Philadelphia Street.
He first submitted photographs of homes in the area as well as
the project (work in progress) showing the "attic" space. It is
not a question of height. Height was not mentioned at the
Zoning Administrator meeting. The density existing on the lot
is already double the allowable density for the 96 acres
surrounding it. There can be four times the possible number of
people living on this lot than will live on any lot in the
area. Within a month of the time the downzontng of the whole
area went into effect, the developer was told if he were to
build an RM-1200 project, it would have to be built to Code
because there was no time for a public hearing. He accepted
that, had plans drawn and approved, and built to Code. He is
now coming back a year later to ask for the variance which he
(Olesen) finds insulting. He then read the reasons why the
project was denied by the Zoning Administrator (Decision
No. ZA89-11). The neighborhood is asking for strict application
of the Code in this case. The applicant has proven a number of
times that he is not concerned for the neighborhood. The
neighbors are concerned and are urging that the variance be
denied.
395
74
City Hall, Anaheim, Caltforoia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Avril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Lee Schlosser, 217 North Olive.
He commented on the building height and is against the waiver.
Howard Swarthout, 303 North Philadelphia.
He urged the Council not to approve the waiver.
Sally Horton, 226 North Claudina.
The applicant has proven from the outset that he is a poor
neighbor in this neighborhood. He has shown a flagrant
disregard for the neighborhood and City codes. He illegally
removed asbestos from the structure one weekend and disposed of
it in containers around the City. The design and construction
has to be some of the poorest that has ever passed the Planning
Department. He is going to have people living in the attic
space regardless of the decision made by the Council today. He
wants people up in that space. The structure is an example of
what poor quality can be built even conforming to City codes.
The City's building codes are minimal at best. The project is
going to tax the Code Enforcement Department. She asked that a
covenant or a special notation be placed in the file to assure
Mr. Ting does not have people living in the attic space. She
asked the Council to consider adding some design gnides to the
City's building codes not to govern architectural types but to
better define such things as acceptable roof lines, exterior
stairways, etc., as well as reviewing minimum building codes and
upgrading and defining them. She is concerned when projects
like this can get through without anyone seeing them. She
strongly urged denial of the request.
Bill Erickson,'301 East North Street.
Single-family homes are a predominant factor for the quality of
life for the neighborhood. To try to bring in a variance as
ridiculous as this is a "slap in the face" to the neighbors.
Lyla Turner Hutchinson.
She owns the house at the corner of Philadelphia and Cypress.
She does not see how the trash trucks can go down that alley the
way they used to due to the overhang of the subject structure.
Her garage also has an overhang. If the residents back their
cars out, they are going to back into her fence every time
unless they are driving a very small car. She is against the
request for variance.
Judy Olesen, 321 North Philadelphia.
She first explained that Hrs. Hutchinson's house is listed as
multiple-family but it is single-family Just as the entire
street is single-family homes. There are a couple of houses
listed as multiple-family which are single-family. She would
like to reiterate and emphasize what Mrs. Horton stated in
asking for assistance to keep people out of that attic space.
She has no doubt the applicant is going to try to have People
396
71
City Hal~, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
living in that space. There are numerous code violations on the
projects even now including the asbestos removal.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Ron Bailing.
He refuted statements made by those in opposition.
will be an improvement for the neighborhood.
The proJect
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hunter.
He feels some of the finest people in the City's history live in
the subject neighborhood and that district was Just proclaimed a
National Historic District and the house at 321 North
Philadelphia Street is now in the National Historic Register.
Mr. Bailing should have researched the area more thoroughly.
The homes are not dilapidated but some of the finest homes in
Anaheim. He takes affront as do the neighbors to some of the
comments made in Mr. Bailtng's presentation.
Councilman Ehrle.
He feels that the project which never came to the Council would
not have had his support to begin with. He has driven by it and
was not pleased with what he saw. It is those kinds of projects
that have given rise to groups like A~aheim Neighborhood
Association and others. He feels there should perhaps be some
kind of review board not to dictate architectural control, but a
review process to assure that a'proJect is going to be
compatible with the surrounding area. He is not going to
support the request.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is very concerned with lofts and feels that part of the code
needs to be looked at carefully. It is not the first time such
a situation has occurred. When a similar situation came before
the Council, the Council required the builder to remove the
stairway that wam installed. If there is one in this case, she
wants to see it removed, and that there be cathedral ceilings or
some way that it cannot be converted to living space. She
reiterated she is extremely concerned with this "b tek door"
approach. To have done this immediately after the area was
downzoned shows contempt for the neighborhood, the Council and
the City. It is already double or quadruple the density of the
area. This neighborhood that had been on the decline several
years ago has done an about-face and beautiful old homes have
been restored. There is pride of ownership and pride in the
neighborhood that needs to be encouraged and nurtured. She
wants to make certain nothing is allowed in there that will
create an additional bedroom of any kind. Whatever is in the
code that allowed that situation needs to be reviewed. The
Planning Commission needs to review the situation as well.
397
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler.
He asked if there was anything the Council can add to give
reinforcement that the attic area will not be housing people.
City Attorney White.
If Council denies the variance, there is no mechanism to impose
a stipulation, condition or covenant. If the project were going
to be approved, the Council would have that ability. ~Otherwtse,
the City will use its normal Code Enforcement techniques to
attempt to assure that the project is not converted in violation
of the Code. He is certain the Code Enforcement Officers will
be keeping tabs on th~ development.
EN~VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the
determination of the Zoning Administrator, that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 1, 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-149)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-149 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3914. Refer to Resolution Book.-
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-149; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3914.
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-149 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She wants it stated if the developer/builder sells the building,
the next buyer must also understand that the loft or high
ceiling will not at any time be converted into any type of
living space, but Just as proposed when the project came in that
it was to be for storage. If Code Enforcement has to check this
out every week they will do so.
398
Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 288. RECLASSIFICATION
~0, 88-89-27. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3106. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 88-05:
APPLICANT: OWNER:
California Drive-In Theatres
120 North Robertson,
Los Angeles, CA 90048
AGENT:
IDM Corporation
5150 East Pacific Coast Highway,
Long Beach, CA 90804
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 291 North State College
Boulevard, City of Orange, (Orange Drtve-InTheatre). The request is for a
change in zone from ML to CO and to permit and govern the construction of one
(1) 18-story, 391,667 square-foot commercial office building and a 2,843
space, 6-level parking structure (City of Anaheim) in conjunction with two (2)
10-story, 250,000 square-foot commercial office buildings and two (2)
18-story, 321,667 square-foot commercial office buildings in the City of
Orange (IDM Business Center).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Reclassification No. 88-89-27 was granted by the
Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC89-70; Conditional Use Permit
No. 3106 was granted by the Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC89-71;
the Planning Commission recommended approval of Development Agreement
No. 88-05 under Resolution No. PC89-72; the Planning Commission recommends
certiftcasion of EIR NO. 288 with Statement of Overriding Considerations.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the project by the City Council was requested by the Planning
Commission, and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin Aprtl 13, 1989.
Posting of property April 13, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 14, 1989.
STAFF INPUT:
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
He described the project as outlined in the March 13, 1989 staff
report to the Planning Commission. He further explained that in
addition to meeting all conditions of approval and participation
in the interim fee program and shortfall fee program for the
subject area, as an additional consideration for entering into
the development agreement, the developer has agreed to provide
$250,000 concurrently with the issuance of the first building
permit for any structure in Phase I whether in Anaheim or Orange
for fire improvements in that area, payment of an additional
$250,000 concurrently with the building permit issuance for the
second structure, payment of $255,000 for the first building
permit for any structure whether it be the parking garage or
office building. Those dollars will be inflated for the
399
?0
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - A~ril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Engineering news record construction index and in the event that
the City does advance funds through either the fee program or
other means for fire improvements in that area, the money could
be used Just to reimburse the City. Other provisions contained
in the development agreement, above and beyond typical
requirements, there is a provision for a child care facility in
the first Phase, art work, liquidated a-mages of $500,000 in the
event the project does not go forward and the agreement
terminates, and also the overhead utility lines will be
undergrounded. The term of the development agreement is
8 years. Both staff and the developer have worked long and hard
to come up with the parameters of the agreement and staff
believes it represents a significant contribution by the
developer to guarantee, enhance and accelerate the improvements
for the area.
In concluding Mr. Fick stated that the Traffic Engineer also
made certain recommendations which were agreed to by the
developer and those recommendations were incorporated as part of
the agreement. Further, since the matter was discussed at the
Planning Commission, the Council has received a copy of a letter
from the attorney representing the adjacent property owners
concerning the parking structure to be built near the north
property line. Originally the plans showed that structure to be
located immediately on the north property line. Concern has
been expressed by the adjacent property owner and as a result
the Planning Commission did incorporate into their recommended
conditions of approval, Condition No. 64, that there be some
review to ensure that the parking structure would have some
compatibility with the project - that the architectural detail
of that parking structure be compatible with the office
building, set back a minimum of 5 feet from the property line,
and that it be planted and irrigated with a maximum height of
45 feet. More significantly, the final designplans for any
parking structure needs to be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance. The
Planning Commission recommended approval, certification of the
EIR with a Statement of Overriding consideration, recommendation
of approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Reclassification
with findings incorporated into the resolution.
Ron Winkler, IDM Corporation, Project Manager.
This is the culmination of two years of work which has been
challenging not only from the size and complexity of the
development, but also that it lies within ~wo separate
jurisdictions. They have worked with the City of Orange and the
City of Anaheim to reach agreement on the size, scale and scope
of the development. He thanked staff for their guidance through
the project. They have been supportive and helpful. IDM is in
agreement with the terms and conditions of all items before the
Council. They accept the conditions imposed by the Planning
400
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Avrtl 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Commission entirely. Members of their consulting team are
available to answer questions. They are asking Council's
consideration and affirmative action on the development.
David Lurker, Attorney, Voss & Cook, 840 Newport Center Drive,
Suite 700, P.O. Box 2290, Newport Beach, Ca. 92658-8958
(representing T~eedt & Wells - owner of the property located to
the north of the proposed development).
They have a concern about the design of the proposed parking
structure. As originally designed, it was to be built directly
on the property line, 6-stories high and would have required no
openings making it a solid wall. They are concerned not only
about the location but what it is going to look like and the
visual impact from their property. They have taken steps to
work with IDM to mitigate the impacts on their properties but
have not been successful in doing so. They are requesting IDM
be required to have specific examples and renderings of what the
structure is going to look like prior to approval. As adjacent
property owners, they are concerned about their value and the
development of that site. It is equal in size to the project
presented to the Council today. To allow a parking structure to
be approved that close to the property line with a solid wall
without any other criteria on the design is ill-advised. (See
Mr. Lurker's explanatory letter dated April 24, 1989 - made a
part of the record).
Mr. Robert Wells, Tweedt & Wells, 2100 East Orangethorpe,
Anaheim.
Working from large photographs and by the use of overlays on
those photographs, he showed what a solid wall would look like
from his property. It would be very large and quite dull - a
large concrete wall with no beauty to it. In meetings with IDM,
they were very cooperative and he (Wells) made suggestions on
how the visual impact could be mitigated by terracing,
landscaping and other suggestions. His suggestions were well
received, but two days prior to the meeting in Orange, he found
out that IDM was not going to do anything.
Mayor Hunter.
Condition No. 64 answers the concerns expressed calling for a
minimum 5-foot setback from the north property line with the
setback fully landscaped and permanently maintained, etc.
Mr. Wells was aware of the provisions of Condition No. 64. He
then explained subsequent discussions with IDM which after all
was said and done IDM informed him they will not do anything
more than what was approved by the Planning Commission. They
are not against the project but are concerned that IDM will not
give the ~uidelines on what they are going to put on the face of
the building and parking structure or the material. They are
asking for that information. He is asking that he be given what
401
68
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Winkler was suggesting to him in his office and they would
be happy with that. The Council has been supplied with the
sketches. They would be happy with something other than
compatible with the sky scraper building.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
COMMENTS: Lee Schlosser, 217 North Olive.
He does not feel that the City will benefit from the proposed
building.
Tom Lamb, O'Keh Caterers, located across the street.
He wants to be sure IDM is not just going to build a concrete
block wall located across the street from him.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Ron Winkler.
They feel there will be sufficient controls as stipulated in
Condition No. 64. They have agreed to a 5-foot setback. They
feel adequate landscaping can be placed there and there will be
adequate room for maintenance. The City still has the ability
to review and examine the design. It is a condition of
approval. This item will be back before the Planning
Commission. The designwtll be evaluated and the concerns can
be properly addressed as they get further into the design.
Councilman Daly asked for clarification from staff that the
final design of the structure will be back before the Planning
Commission.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
That is correct. The condition of approval as recommended
states that final design plans or any parking structure shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to
issuance of building permits. Relative to the parking structure
by IDM, the plot plan notes where the location will be. Someone
mentioned that the building code requires that when a parking
structure is located in that proximity to the property, it does
have to be a solid structure. The Planning Commission expressed
sensitivity to the concerns expressed and required and
incorporated into the condition that the architectural detail be
compatible and similar to the office building complex proposed.
IDM is subjecting themselves to Planning Commission review. The
Planning Commission also heard the arguments presented to the
Council today. Findings by the Commission were that this
condition adequately mitigated the concerns expressed. They
evaluated different options including having terracing and tiers
and felt this was the best solution and gave them the review
option opportunity in the future.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
402
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Avrtl 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
F~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 288 - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT
~ Environmental Impact No. 288 having been reviewed by City staff and
recommended by the City Planning Commission after having considered
Environmental Impact No. 288 for the proposed IDM Business Center and having
reviewed evidence, both written and oral, presented to Supplement EIR No. 288,
the City Council, .~cting upon such information and belief, does hereby certify
on motion by Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, that EIR
No. 288 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
City and State guidelines and also adopted a Statement of Overriding
Conditions as recommended and outlined by the City Planning Commission.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 89R-150 and 89R-151)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-150 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 88-89-27, subject to City Planning Commission conditions
and Resolution No. 89R-151 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit
No. 3106, subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-150: 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-150 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-151! A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE GITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3106.
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-151 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Ehrle offered Ordinance No. 5025 relating to Development Agreement
No. 88-05 for first reading.
403
66
Hall, Anaheim, Califovota - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aoril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO, 5025: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(i) APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 88-05 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND CALIFORNIA DRIVE-IN THEATRES, INC., (ii) FINDING THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, AND (iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY C1.RRK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
gECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (5:02 p.m.)
~ The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:25 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HF~RING - VARIANCE NO. 3907 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 3A:
APPLICANT: 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/REQUEST: The property is located at 6268 Rio Grande Drive. The
request is for a waiver of maximum structural height to construct seven
single-family dwellings.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: Variance No. 3907 was denied by the Zoning
Administrator under Decision No. ZA89-15; determined to be categorically
exempt from the requirement to file and EIR.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal was submitted by the owner, Ntcolae Bortts, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 13, 1989.
Posting of property April 13, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 14, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator dated March 23, 1989.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. Stephan Wambach, interpreter for Mr. Nicolae Bortis.
Speaking through his interpreter, Mr. Bortis stated that he
wants to develop and make the area much more beautiful. He is
using the same style and size of homes from other areas of
Anaheim Hills. He is not asking for any special request or
404
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL HINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
permission but only to build homes such as those already built
in Anaheim Hills. The homes will not take away any views from
anybody. No one surrounding the property will suffer because
they are building this project. He does not understand why
people have come forward against the proposal. He is requesting
permission to build the homes a~ he has proposed.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Joe Hark, Hark Designs, 22994 E1 Toro Road, E1 Toro, Ca. 92630.
He is working with Hr. Bortis in building the homes. The Zoning
Administrator stated if they reduce the height of the homes she
might reconsider allowing them to be built over the height
limitation. Each house is 2-story. It is a two to one slope.
The coverage by each house is about 12.5 to 14% which is very
little. They are hillside houses. No view is being blocked.
There is one that has a potential of visual intrusion and they
told those neighbors they would work with them and slide the
house over. As far as the height limitation, it is quite unfair
in interpreting it on a hillside lot. Each house would be no
taller than 29 feet if they were on a level lot. He showed the
Council a sketch to illustrate what he was explaining. He
reiterated the average height is only approximately 29 feet.
Some would be under the 25-foot height limitation. They are
very attractive and nice homes. The exact same house anywhere
else in Anaheim would fit right in. The fact that it is on a
slope works a hardship.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Gene Boyle, 6276 Rio Grande.
The applicant's request is unreasonable, as the height is
disproportionate with the homes in the area. The architect is
intending to slide one of the homes over. He does not know
which one but he does know there is a home that will be of a
height that will impact the view. He lives directly above the
project. He also feels the square footages that are proposed
are out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. He is
present on behalf of himself and as President of the Pepper Tree
Hills Homeowners Association. The Association is also opposed.
There are 40 homes in the Association.
Lorene Ernst, 6280 East Palo Alto.
She is objecting to a height variance. The property borders the
lower portion of the hill. The horse trail would be dividing
her property and the bottom of the second house property. The
seven homes proposed are quite large. Her home is 2,600 square
feet. The largest home is under 7,000 square feet. She is
concerned about her privacy and property value as well as
drainage and slippage since she is right at the bottom of the
hill. Her prime concern is sunlight. Ail her windows are in
the back portion of her house. Her view is of the hill. If the
405
64
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aoril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
houses are too large, they will block all the sunlight from her
house. She has objected twice to this project. The Bortis
family or the architect or both have not contacted them to try
to explain that the project would not impair their view and
would increase their property value. They would like proof of
that or at least walk them through the property and to discuss
the project.
Lee Schlosser, 217 North Olive Street.
He expressed concern over the requested variance.
Marge King.
She is located on the property Just above the middle of the
second proposed house at 181 South Canyon Wood Road. She is
opposed. She moved into the area nine years ago having chosen
the area because of the regulations that were in force. She is
concerned if the request is granted it will Jeopardize the area
opening it up to other such requests.
John Sherk, 625 Arboretum Road.
The height and size of the proposed home would be inconsistent
with the other homes in the area. It will overshadow the view
of the people below, and obstruct the view of the people above.
He hopes that the Council and Planning Commission have taken the
time to visit the area to determine the impact the proposed
homes would have. He also questioned if Mr. Bortis had checked
the height codes in the area before purchasing the property.
Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place.
Mr. Bortis was given ample opportunity by the Zoning
Administrator on February 23, 1989 to compromise on the plan.
It does present a challenge in developing it. Mr. Bortis chose
not to compromise. He wants what he wants where he wants it
despite the objection of the neighbors and in spite of the
City's building codes.
Linda Nelson, 627 Arboretum Road.
She is located in the corner. All the houses will be hah§in§
over her backyard. She is concerned about the ~rading and
similar issues. Years ago all the sand came floating down into
her neighbor's backyard. They said they were not going to grade
that much. The houses are going to look over her backyard.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Mr. Bortis, speaking through his interpreter, stated if the
property is one-half acre and they are using only 15%, they are
not destroying anything. Times have changed. He wants to build
houses in a modern style. He wants to keep his family
together. Each family has five or six children. The neighbors
will be looking into his backyard and not the other way around.
He wants permission to build according to his plans. The
drainage will not cause a problem.
406
Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Joe Mark.
There is nothing in the code that would preclude Mr. Bortis from
building the homes the size they want which as stated previously
amounts to 12.5% to 14% coverage. When it was turned down
originally, they were told if they made the houses smaller and
reduced the height, the project would be reconsidered. They
will design the roof so that no living area will be above the
25-foot height and since only one view would be affected, they
are going to make adjustments to satisfy that property owner and
then work with the people down below across from the horse trail.
SNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the City Council ratified the
determination of the City Engineer, that the proposed activity falls within
the definition of Section 3.01 Class 3A, 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-152)
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-152 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3907, upholding the findings of the Zoning Administrator.
to Resolution Book.
Refer
gESOLUTION NO. 89R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3907.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, ghrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-152 duly passed and adopted.
179; ITEMS B~ - B4 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF APRIL 6. 1989 -
DECISION DATE: APRIL 13. 1989 - INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
APRIL 28. 1989:
BI,
CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT NO. 3135 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, 2312 S. Fremont Avenue, Alhambra,
CA 91803
AGENT: JOHN STEINHAUS, 2312 S. Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91803
LOCATION; 89~ South Walnut Street
To permit a child day care center.
407
Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aoril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
CUP NO. 3135 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA89-20.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B2.
VARIANCE NO. 3920. CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 3:
OWNER: TOM & DEBBIE KENNEDY, 621 Lunar Avenue, Brea, CA 92621
AGENT: BILL JOHNSON, P.O. Box 19608-342, Irvine, CA 92713
LOCATION: 112 Mont~omeryWay
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a single family
residence.
Variance No. 3920 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA89-21.
B3,
VARIANCE NO. 3928 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
PACIFIC HARBOR, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Dr. Phil
Trinh, 12302 Garden Grove, CA 92643
AGENT: JAY VANDERWAL, 12302 Garden Grove Boulevard, #3, Garden
Grove, CA 92643
LOCATION: 1641 West Cerritos Avenue
Waivers of (a) required lot frontage and (b) orientation of
structures to establish a 4-lot residential subdivision.
Variance No. 3928 APPROVED, IN PART, for three lots by the Zoning
Administrator, Decision No. ZA89-22.
Approved Negative Declaration.
VARIANCE NO, 3930, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 1:
OWNER: F.J. HAWSHAW ENT., INC., GORDON R. & SHELBA J. HAWSHAW, 10921
Westmintster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92643
AGENT: F.J. HAWSHAW OR KARL KORDIK, 10921 Westminister Avenue,
Garden Grove, CA 92643
LOCATION; 1112 North Brookhurst Street
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 945 square
foot donut shop.
Variance No. 3930 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA89-23.
End of the Zonin§ Administrator Items.
179; TERMINATING RECLASSIFICATION NO, 76-77-63 AND VARIANCE NO. 3647:
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 89R-153 and 89R-154)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-153 for adoption; the first,
terminating Reclassification No. 76-77-63 and declaring Resolution No. 78R-27
408
59
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Avril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
null and void and the second; terminating Variance No. 3647 and declaring
Resolution No. 87R-189 null and void. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-63 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION
NO. 78R-27 NULL AND VOID.
RE$0LU~ION NO. 89R-154: A RESOLUTION OF TME CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING VARIANCE NO. 3647 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-189
NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly,
COUNCIL ~ERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Ehrle,
Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-153 and 89R-154 duly passed and adopted.
179; ORDINANCE NO. 5020 - ADOPTION: Amending Title 18 to rezone property
under Reclassification No. 87,88-53 at 1188 North West Street from the
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 zone.
WAIVER OF ~ADING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5020)
8Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5020 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5020: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly and Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5020 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5014 THROUGH 5019: These ordinances were introduced at
the Joint Workshop between the Council and Planning Commission on April 18,
1989 (see minutes that date).
City Clerk Lee Sohl referred to letter dated April 20, 1989 from the Anaheim
Chamber of Commerce, requesting that the Council continue their vote on
adoption of these ordinances for 60 days.
409
6O
City Rail. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. He is opposed to a continuance. The issues have been worked on
for a long period of time and are not something they are springing on
anybody. It is a year down the line since this work has been in progress. He
feels it is too late at this Juncture to stop the process since a great deal
of hard work has been done by a lot of people. There is a great deal of
activity taking place and the Council has been anxious to promote and
encourage homeownership developments in the City.
Councilman Pickler. He does not favor 60 days but would consider a 30-day
continuance to give the Chamber an opportunity to review the ordinances and
come back with comments. He asked what affect a delay would have.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. The Council also received a copy of letter
dated April 24, 1989 from Century West which addressed concerns which he would
like to address as well, portions of which relate to the Chamber letter. Five
points were raised and staff had an opportunity to discuss those concerns with
representatives from the Company. Three of the points addressed the two
ordinances that were referred back to the Planning Commission for additional
input. ~hat staff told Century West is that the two points regarding deck
housing, staff will evaluate the concerns raised and dialogue those with the
Planning Commission. In addition, another point was raised concerning the
"basement" ordinance which is back at the Planning Commission and which staff
agrees with and they will be bringing that back. The two points on the front
end where there may be an interrelationship with the Chamber letter, the
wording that the Planning Commission incorporated and introduced by Council at
the workshop is better language than suggested and provides the protection and
flexibility the Commission and Council wanted to see. What staff told Century
West, if they do experience operational problems or issues or concerns are
raised, staff will be back to fix any problems. That is the spirit staff is
working in. If there are things that need to be further refined, they will
bring it back.
Councilman Daly. While he reco~nizes they can change things downstream and
the developers may be suggesting changes which are appropriate, he does not
see any harm in continuing the final adoption for two weeks to give the
Chamber an opportunity to express their concerns. If the Chamber feels
strongly enough that they want more time to study them he does not feel two
weeks will do any harm.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if anything would slip through if the matter is
continued; Mr. Fick answered that the permits in process will continue in the
interim until the ordinances are adopted. There are projects that are pending
review right now.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She has a problem with the Chamber's request. The only
thing the ordinances are going to affect is relative to upgrading and will
give quality where it has been lacking; Councilman Pickler concurred that the
changes are positive.
Councilman Ehrle. He is also opposed to a continuance. The Chamber has had
ample opportunity to give input which the City welcomes but a continuance at
this time is inappropriate.
410
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Avril 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES: The titles of the following ordinances were
read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance Nos. 5014 through 5019, both inclusive,)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 5014 through 5019, both inclusive,
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
OP~DINANCE NO. 5014: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS
SUBSECTIONS, SECTIONS AND CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (EXHIBIT A)
0RDINANC~ NO. 5015: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTIONS
.012 AND .013 OF SECTION 18.32.062 OF CHAPTER 18.32, AND SUBSECTIONS .012 AND
.013 OF SECTION 18.34.062 OF CHAPTER 18.34, OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (EXHIBIT B)
ORDINANCE NO. 5016: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANANEIMAMENDING SUBSECTION
.010 OF SECTION 18.32.061 OF CHAPTER 18.32, AND SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION
18.34.061 OF CHAPTER 18.34, OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO ZONING. (EXHIBIT D)
OgDINANCE NO. 5017:
18.31.070 TO CHAPTER
SECTION 18.34.070 TO
RELATING TO ZONING.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
18.31, NEW SECTION 18.32.070 TO CHAPTER 18.32, AND NEW
CHAPTER 18.34, OF TITLE 1~ OF THE ANANEIMMUNICIPAL CODE
(EXHIBIT E)
ORDINANCE NO. 5018: AN ORDINANCE OF THE ClTY-OFANAHEIMAMENDING SECTION
18.06.050.0121 OF CHAPTER 18.06 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PARKING. (EXHIBIT F)
ORDINANCE NO. 5019: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING AND ADDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS TO CHAPTERS 18.31, 18.32 AND 18.34 OF TITLE
18 RELATING TO RECREATIONAL-LEISURE AREAS IN RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY
ZONES. (EXHIBIT G)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Ehrle,
Pickler, Kay~ood and Hunter
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5014 through 5019, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
108; APPLICATION FOR POOL ROOM PERMIT - T. HOUSE BILLIARD: Requested by Tone
Vtravouth, 200 North Gilbert, Anaheim, CA 92801. The property is located at
1151 North Euclid, #K (northwest corner of Glen and Euclid Avenues). The
request is to consider allowing the applicant to operate pool tables at his
business establishment, subject to conditions of Title 4 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
411
58
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINU~ES - A~ril 25. 1989. ~;30 ~,M,
Councilman Pickler. He is speaking against the request. He is opposed to the
type of operation being proposed with 4 pool tables and 4 video amusement
machines. He feels the business would be detrimental to the area.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to deny the subject application for a pool
room permit finding that by reason of the location, a pool room would be
detrimental to public health and safety. Councilman Hunter seconded the
motion adding that the location on North Euclid has a heavy concentration of
apar~nents and there is criminal activity in that area. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Lee Schlosser, 217 North Olive.
Police Department.
He spoke to complaints he had relative to the
114/116/182: GRO~FI~{ MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSAL; Councilman Daly. He referred
to the IDM Development that was approved by the Council today where the
developer is paying a great deal of money to the City for traffic improvements
in the area of his development - improvements that Anaheim needs in any case.
The developer is also addressing increased traffic that will be brought about
by his development, current problems and those in the future created by his
development.
He (Daly) has been talking to the Planning Director for the past few weeks
about an issue that has been "brewing" in Anaheim and other cities that of
growth management. He is requesting that Council authorize Joel Fick and the
PLanning Department to create a Growth Management Plan for Anaheim that will
look at service levels in the area of police and fire, paramedics and parks
and library services and, most importantly, traffic flows. What he has in
mind is that the Planning Department create a ~plan for growth management
City~ide and bring that plan back to the Planning Commission for review and to
the Council for final adoption. Mr. Fick has indicated he will need
additional funding to accomplish this and will need authorization in the
coming budget year to help with the study effort. He is not asking the
Council to vote today but to authorize Mr. Fick and the Planning Department to
start to put the mechanisms in place to create a Citywide growth management
plan. Some cities in Orange County have already adopted such plans. As the
largest City and job center, it is time for Anaheim to establish a similar
plan.
City Manager Bob Simpson. He would like to spend some time with staff before
addressing the issue. Me has a number of concerns which have not been
addressed, with him. With the workload in planning currently, he is not sure
he wants to make a commitment to take that on without some additional help in
the budget and he is not sure it would be entirely a planning effort but may
cross a number of departmental boundaries. He would like to take a look at it
and come back with a response. He would like a little more detail on how
comprehensive the Council would like such a plan to be.
Mayor Hunter noted that the City already has many things in place such as the
traffic signal assessment fee, special assessment districts, etc. He agrees
with Councilman Daly in many ways but a great deal of effort will have to go
into such a comprehensive study.
412
55
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL HIN~fES - April 25. 1989. 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Daly. He clarified all he is asking is for the Council to
authorize the Planning Department to begin the process. That can involve a
report back to the Council with a su~ested time frame, whether an advisory
committee is appropriate, how much the work effort will cost, etc. It is
nothing entirely new since bits and pieces are already in place. It would be
an amendment to the General Plan - a Growth Management Strategy in the General
Plan. He would like Planning to report back with a su~ested process, a time
frame, estimated cost and any other comment City management wants to give.
Mayor Hunter. He feels it would be better to use the word staff, and have
staff come back with some type of report with regard to a growth management
plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned with starting a process without a
funding source.
Councilman Ehrle. He also feels that many of the elements that would be
included in a growth management plan are already in place such as the Economic
Development Board. He concurs that staff be directed to submit a preliminary
report.
Councilman Pickler. He recommended at this time that the City Manager submit
a report to the Council.
It was determined that the City Manager will first submit a preliminary report
to the Council.
11&/107/106: DISCUSSION - PROACTIVE CODE ENFORCEHENT: Councilman Pickler.
He would like to schedule for Council discussion that Code Enforcement in the
City of Anaheim be proactive rather than reactive.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. The proactive Code Enforcement issue was a
subject raised in the Vision 2000 hearings. It was one of the recommendations
and suggestions from that effort which is different from established Council
policy. Because it is a new program and an enhancement, he has incorporated
it as one of his Department's budget items. It will be discussed as a package
item which the Council will be seeing when the budget is presented in another
month or so.
City Manager, Bob Simpson. One of the things staff will be presenting to the
Council are a number of enhancement packages to the budget which will become
policy issues. Code Enforcement can be made proactive within limits. Code
Enforcement workload currently can hardly keep up with responsibilities that
are now expected of them. The be proactive costs money.
The Council consensus was that the issue of proactive rather than reactive
Code Enforcement would be addressed as part of the City's budget hearings.
gECESS - TO CLOSED SESSION: By general consent the Council recessed to Closed
Session with City Attorney Jack White to consider the following items:
(6:27 p.m.)
413
56
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25. 1989, 1:30 P.M.
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 5&956.9(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 - Government Code Section
54957.6.
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. (7:25 p.m.)
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5026 AND 5027 RELATING TO EXEMPTING CERTAIN DEV~I~OpMENT
PROJECTS FROM RECENTLY ADOPTED ORDINANQ~$; Councilman Pickler moved to waive
the 72-hour posting provisions of the Brown Act since the subject item arose
after the printed agenda was posted. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 5026 and 5027 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5026: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXEMPTING CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NOS. 5014, 5015, 5016,
5017, 5018 AND 5019 HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ORDINANCE NO. 5027; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXEMPTING CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 4999 HERETOFORE
ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
The Council recessed to Closed Session at 7:28 p.m.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:29 p.m.)
~DJOURNMENT; Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8: 30 p.m. )
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
Councilman Pickler seconded
414