Loading...
1989/09/19City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter Lisa Sttpkovtch Annika Santalahti Arthur Daw A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:35 p.m. on September 15, 1989 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION; City Attorney Jack 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; Pacific Inland Constructors vs. City of Anaheim, NOCJD #B29857; Golden West Baseball Company vs. Talley, O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-29-07. 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 meet with its negotiator regarding possible acquisition of land from the Phoenix Club located at 1566 Douglass Road, Anaheim, California. f. 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' Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilwoman Kaywood, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:59 p.m.) INVOCATION; Father John Lenihan, St. Boniface Church, gave the invocation. 898 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, __ FLAG SALUTE; Councilman William D. Ehrle led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119; PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter and authorized by the City Council: Independent Living Month, October 1989, Constitution Week in Anaheim, September 17-23, 1989. Joyce Steefel accepted the Independent Living Month proclamation and Betty Lundgren accepted the Constitution Week proclamation. 119: DECLARATION OF APPRECIATION: A Declaration of Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Max F. Lippka, retiring Fire Engineer after 21 years of service with the City of Anaheim. Mr. Lippka was accompanied by his wife. Mayor Hunter and Council Members wished him well and thanked him for his dedicated service to the citizens of Anaheim. 119: DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS CURB-SIDE RECYCLING IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM; Orange County Supervisor Don Roth first congratulated and commended the City of Anaheim for the institution of its innovative curb-side recycling program. Anaheim, again, is taking the leadership role in the area of recycling which is one of the major environmental issues especially in light of the fact that local landfills will be reaching capacity within the next eight years. He read and presented the Declaration to Mayor Hunter and also presented a Declaration to Anaheim Disposal accepted by Bill and Vince Taormina, also commending their leadership role in the field of recycling. After the acceptance of the Declarations, Mayor Hunter invited Council Members, press, staff and all present in the Chamber audience to witness the unveiling and demonstration of the new automated disposal truck and how these trucks will automatically pick up and dump trash placed in the new containers provided in those areas of the City involved in the Pilot Program. RECESS; By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (6:15 p.m.) AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilwoman Kaywood. (6:35 p.m.) MINUTES; Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,619,616.13, in accordance with the 1989-90 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the one resolution on the Consent Calendar was read by the City Manager. (Resolution No. 89R-385) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 899 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5:30 CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CAT.mNDAR; On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-385 for adoption. 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 Melanie Mortensen for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 25, 1989. b. Claim submitted by Curtis Lineberry for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 7, 1989. c. Claim submitted by Steven Earl Davis, M.D. for indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 16, 1988. d. Claim submitted by Jeanette Montrose for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or ab6ut July 23, 1989. e. Claim submitted by Lonna Montrose for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 23, 1989. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - Recommended to be Denied: f. Claim submitted by Stacie R. McGowan for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 26, 1988. A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission meeting held August 30, 1989. A3. 150: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Abghari Construction, in the amount of $39,400 for Pearson Park Restroom Modifications. A4. 150: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Abghart Construction, in the amount of $32,800 for Brookhurst Community Center Patio Cover. A5. 150: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Mac Group, Inc. (dba A & M Design Development), in the amount of $49,984 for George Washington Community Services Center Improvements. Mayor Hunter stated that a Redevelopment Liaison meeting was held today and there are many things happening downtown. He has some questions and would like to continue this item for one week; City Manager Bob Simpson confirmed that there would be no problem with a one week continuance. 900 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M. ~ The item was thereupon continued to the meeting of September 26, 1989. A6. 169: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Ruiz Engineering Company, in the amount of $72,469.58 for Cypress Street/Claudina Street - Street and Sewer Improvements. A7. 150: Releasing Spec Builders as the sole bidder of the Ponderosa Park Maintenance Facility Improvements project in the amount of $52,600 due to a mathematical error in their calculations. A8. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 13266 and the Subdivision Agreement with Baldwin Building Contractors. Tract No. 13266 is located south of Serrano Avenue within The Summit of Anaheim Hills Phase I, and is in conjunction with Specific Plan No. (SP88-2). (Councilman Daly abstained). Ag. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 13459 and the Subdivision Agreement with Baldwin Building Contractors. Tract No. 13459 is located at Camerford Lane north of Serrano Avenue within The Summit of Anaheim Hills Phase I, and is in conjunction with Specific Plan No. (SP88-2). (Councilman Daly abstained). Al0. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 13493 and the Subdivision Agreement with Baldwin Building Contractors. Tract No. 13493 is located at White Fir Lane north of Oak Canyon Drive within The Summit of Anaheim Hills - Phase I, and is in conjunction with Specific Plan No. (SP85-2). (Councilman Daly abstained). Ail. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 13512 and the Subdivision Agreement with Baldwin Building Contractors. Tract No. 13512 is located at Taylor Court south of Serrano Avenue within The Summit of Anaheim Hills - Phase I, and is in conjunction with Specific Plan No. (SP88-2). (Councilman Daly abstained). Al2. 160: Accepting the bid of Pauwels Transformer Company, in the amount of $146,804 for 30 three phase padmount transformers, in accordance with bid proposal ~4723, as publicly advertised. Al3. 160: Accepting the bid of Associated Concrete Products, in the amount of $87,980 for 200 concrete parking barriers, in accordance with bid proposal ~4735, as publicly advertised. Al4. 160: Accepting the Iow bid of Kuhlman Electric Company, in the amount of $299,757.40 for 137 single phase subsurface transformers, in accordance with bid proposal #4720, as publicly advertised. Al5. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to The Monroe Company, in the amount of $29,444.40 for 200 round folding tables to be used at the Convention Center. 901 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, Al6. 123: Approving the termination of an agreement with Tallmantz Aviation for helicopter maintenance, and directing the Maintenance Director to give notice of such termination pursuant to the terms of the agreement. John Roche, Director of Maintenance, answered questions posed by Councilman Daly relative to the termination of the subject contract. He reported that a new agreement with another firm will be submitted shortly which will either affect a savings or be close to a push. Al7. 153: Approving the Conflict of Interest Code as submitted by the Anaheim Private Industry Council. Al8. 123: Approving an agreement (sub-contract) with North Orange County Regional Occupational Program, not to exceed $32,896 for FY 89-90, to allow the City to provide specialized services for JTPA eligible youth enrolled through the NOCROP 8% State Education Project, and authorizing the City Manager to approve said agreement and modifications thereof. Al9. 123: Approving an agreement with Planning Research Corporation/Public Management Services, in the amount of $16,334 to provide Police CAD/RMS system software maintenance. A20, 150/109; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-385; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM FOR TWILA REID, LA PALMA, STODDARD AND BOYSEN PARKS. A21. 123: Approving an agreement with Orange County Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (OCCTSA) at a cost of $24,699 to provide transportation services to senior citizens in the community, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A22. 123: Approving a Lease Agreement with Anaheim Senior Citizen's Club, Inc., for a term of five years, to utilize the Anaheim Senior Citizens Center for a business office and for club sponsored bingo, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A23. 175.123: Approving a Sixth Amendment to Agreement with Fluor Technology, Inc., at an additional cost not to exceed $3200 to provide additional assistance in obtaining permits for the Combustion Turbine Project, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said sixth amendment. A24. 123: Approving a Grant Agreement with Sylvia I. Scott and Carlos A. Scott, property owners of the facility occupied by Hope House, Inc., located at 714 North Anaheim Boulevard, for upgrade of the electrical system, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement on behalf of the City, as recommended by the CDBG Citizen Participation Committee. A25. 123: Approving an agreement among Senaca Construction Systems, Inc., Anaheim Hotel Partnership, and the City relating to repairs in the Enclosed 902 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5:30 P.M. Parking Structure at the Convention Center in the total amount of $1,425,000 (City's share $727,747.50 plus bonding costs). Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter None Kaywood The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-385 duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTIONS CARRIED. Chairman Hunter reconvened the Redevelopment Agency, all Agency Members being present with the exception of Agency Member Kaywood. (6:40 p.m.) 161.123; JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; To consider the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement with Lincoln Property Company, Inc., indicating the terms and conditions of the sale of certain real property located within the Alpha Redevelopment Project area, and is roughly bounded by Cypress Street, Atchison Street, Center Street and Philadelphia Street. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 5 and September 11, 1989. Submitted was report dated September 12, 1989 from the Community Development Department regarding the Disposition and Development Agreement involving Parcels 14N, 14S, 22N, 22S and 4D with Lincoln Property Development Company, and recommending certain actions by both the Agency and the Council pertaining to environmental findings and approving the sale of the property. (Report, with attachments, including summary of the Disposition and Development Agreement - made a part of the record). Lisa Sttpkovich, Director of Community Development, briefed the September 12, 1989 report and the recommendations and introduced Mr. Scott Davis of Lincoln Property to give a presentation to the Agency/Council. Mr. Scott Davis, Lincoln Property Development Company. What is before the Agency/Council this evening is identical to what was submitted a few months ago. Mr. Davis, working from a posted site plan, briefed the Agency/Council on what products each parcel will contain (see page 4 of Disposition and Development Agreement and pages 1 and 2 of the Summary Description of the Agreement) which overall includes for sale, single family detached homes, paired residential units, townhomes, apartments, and apartments and retail (mixed use). There will be 388 dwelling units total. The estimated price range will be an average of $162,000 for the townhomes, $174,000 for the paired homes and $207,000 for single family homes. One 903 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19. 1989. 5:30 P.M. change that was made and the only one vs. the plan presented previously, there was a "stepchild" home facing Olive Street. That was eliminated and another paired home created. The street configuration changed slightly to create a more urban environment. Lisa Stlpkovich, Director of Community Development. The Disposition and Development Agreement is included in the packet material and spells out the schedule of performance. It is the final agreement to be executed with Lincoln Property Development and with it, the Agency will be selling the property to Lincoln at the price agreed upon. Agency/Council Member Ehrle asked if some housing was going to be set aside for affordability. Lisa Stipkovich. There is no requirement on affordable housing but there is one element of the Disposition and Development Agreement that addresses a preference and priority to those employed in the downtown Project Alpha area. This will mitigate traffic impact and encourage people to live and work within walking distance. The developer has agreed to that provision. That was always something the Agency was concerned with and it is in the agreement. Lincoln Property will submit a program to her which she will forward to the Agency/Council. Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to speak to the project either in favor or in opposition, noting that the project was a good one and Lincoln Property has worked well with the neighborhood and the Agency. No one wished to speak. AGENCY/COUNCIL ACTION: Chairman/Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. City Attorney, Jack White. In addition to the proposed resolutions and, not appearing on the printed agenda, but which is listed as Item 5 in the September 12, 1989 staff report is a requested motion by the Agency to approve the basic concept drawings on the subject project under the Disposition and Development Agreement. Because the item was inadvertently left off the printed agenda, it will require a motion to waive the posting provision of the Brown Act by 4/5's vote followed by a motion to approve the basic concept drawings. Agency Member Pickler offered Resolution No. ARA89-8 and ARA89-9 for adoption, (1) certifying an initial study and making certain environmental findings with respect to the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement with Lincoln Property Company N.C., Inc.; and (2) approving the sale of certain real property in the Alpha Redevelopment Project Area; Approving the Disposition and Development Agreement with Lincoln Property Company, Inc., and authorizing 904 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5:30 P.M the execution of said Disposition and Developement Agreement. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, (REDEV AGENCY) ~RA89-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING AN INITIAL STUDY AND MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH LINCOLN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY N.C., INC. RESOLUTION NO, (REDEV AGENCY) ARA89-9; A RESOLUTION OF ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE ALPHA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter None Kaywood The Chairman declared Resolution Nos. ARA89-8 and ARA89-9 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Agency Member Pickler, seconded by Agency Member Hunter, the Anaheim City Council determined that the need to act on the following item arose after the posting of the agenda for this meeting, on Friday, September 15, 1989, at 2:35 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement relative to posting the item on the printed agenda. Agency Member Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION; Agency Member Pickler moved to approve the Basic Concept Drawings of the subject development. Agency Member Hunter seconded the motion. Agency Member Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS; The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 89R-386 and 89R-387) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-386 and 89R-387 for adoption (1) certifying an initial study and making certain environmental findings with respect to the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement with Lincoln Property Development Company N.C., Inc. and (2) approving the sale of certain property in the Alpha Redevelopment Project area to Lincoln Property Development N.C., Inc.; Approving the Disposition and Development Agreement with Lincoln Property Company, Inc., and making certain findings with respect to such sale. Refer to Resolution Book. 9O5 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, RESOLUTION NO, (CITY COUNCIL) 89R-386; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING AN INITIAL STUDY AND MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND LINCOLN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY N.C., INC. RESOLUTION NO, (CITY COUNCIL) 89R-387; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE ALPHA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO LINCOLN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY N.C., INC; APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPET TO SUCH SALE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter None Kaywood The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-386 and 89R-387 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; Agency Member Pickler moved to adjourn. Agency Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Agency Member Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:55 p.m.) 179; ITEMS BI - B5 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1989 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 19, 1989: Bi, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3185 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION; OWNER: LOUIS AND FRANCES CANNON, 231 16th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90402 AGENT: SAEED SHAHIDZADEH, 8190 East Kaiser Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION; 2901, 2905, 2911, 2921, 2941 Miraloma Avenue, 1325, 1345 Red Gum Street To permit approximately 41,525 square feet of industrially related office uses within an existing 166,103 square-foot warehouse complex with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3185 GRANTED uses limited to industrially-related ones as previously approved; no fast food uses. (PC89-213) (4 yes votes, 2 absent, and 1 conflict of interest) Waiver of Code Requirement GRANTED Approved Negative Declaration. B2, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3144 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC., 1926 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Willmington, CA 90744 AGENT: ALBERT AGUERA, 100 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 100 West Katella Avenue 906 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, __ To retain a towing service in an existing service station with waiver of dedication of right-of-way. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION' CUP NO. 3144 GRANTED, IN PART, for 2-1/2 years (April 1992) to end of present lease, deleting Condition Nos. 1 and 2, thereby removing the dedication requirement. (PC89-214) (5 yes votes, 2 absent) Approved Negative Declaration. B3, RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-04, VARIANCE NO, 3984 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: ANAHEIM AUTO PARTS, INC., ATTN: LARRY HAUPERT, 1256 E. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION; 1266 East Lincoln Avenue For a change in zone from GL and RM-2400 to RM-1200. To construct an 8-unit apartment complex with waivers of (a) minimum structural setback, (b) mintmum yard requirements and (c) minimum floor area. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 89-90-04 DENIED (PC89-215), (4 yes votes, 2 absent, and 1 conflict of interest). Variance No. 3984 DENIED (PC89-216). Approved Negative Declaration. The above item was appealed by the applicant and public hearing will be set before the City Council. B4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3189 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION' OWNER: EVERETT H. MILLER, 270 Roycroft Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90803 AGENT: HANI EL HA J, 20331 Bluffside, #305, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 944 South Brookhurst Street To permit a 5,040 square-foot commercial center. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION' CUP NO. 3189 GRANTED, no food outlets, deleting Condition Nos. 4 and 16 (PC89-217). (5 yes votes, 2 absent.) Approved Negative Declaration. Council Members Pickler and Hunter set this item for a public hearing. BS, 179/142; PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO PARKING LOTS AND STRUCTURES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the Ordinance. Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5066 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO, 5066: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING LOTS AND STRUCTURES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES. 907 City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, End of Planning Commission Items. 179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5067 THROUGH 5070 - INTRODUCTION; Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance Nos. 5067 through 5070, both inclusive for first reading. ORDINANCE NO, 5067; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 88-89-30 located at 845 South Beach Boulevard from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the CL zone.) ORDINANCE NO, 5068; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 88-89-31 located at 3629-3633 West Savanna Street from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the RM-1200 zone.) ORDINANCE NO, 5069; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 81-82-20 located at 608 E. Broadway from the RM-1200 zone to the ML zone.) ORDINANCE NO, 5070; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING. (Rezoning not applicable to the City.) 179; ORDINANCE NOS, 5063 THROUGH 5065 - ADOPTION; WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES; The titles of the following ordinances were read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance Nos. 5063 through 5065, both inclusive) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance Nos. 5063 through 5065, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5063: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAREIM AMENDING T~E ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone properties under Reclassification No. 88-89-11 from the PD-C zone to the PD-C/RM-2400 zone. Property is located at two different sites east side of Anaheim Boulevard, one on Cypress Street and the other on Wilhelmina Street.) ORDINANCE NO, 5064; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING, NUNC PRO TUNG, VARIOUS SECTIONS AND CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Minimum depth front yard; required setbacks and yards pertaining to garages.) ORDINANCE NO. 5065: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. 908 Cttv Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, . .... (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 88-89-37, located at 3700 and 3701 West Savanna Street, from the RM-10 zone (City of Buena Park) to the RS-A-43,000 zone.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter None Kaywood The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5063 through 5065, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO, 86-87-14 AND VARIANCE NO, 3611 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME; REQUESTED BY: Thakor and Rashmi Desai 4214 Teresa Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630 LOCATION: The property is located at 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. PETITIONER'S REQUEST; Petitioner requests an extension of time for Reclassification No. 86-87-14, and for Variance No. 3611, retroactive to February 3, 1989 and to expire on February 3, 1990. STAFF RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING RECLASSIF, NO, 86-87-14; That any extension be granted subject to the legal property owner within the next thirty days (by Sept. 14, 1989) preparing and recording an unsubordinated covenant limiting occupancy of each apartment unit to no more than two persons (other than children under the age of two years old) per bedroom. Said limitation shall be included in each lease/rental agreement. A copy of the covenant shall be submitted to an approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be furnished to the Zoning Division. STAFF RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING VARIANCE NO, 3611: That any extension be subject to the legal property owner within the next thirty days (by Sept. 14, 1989) amending an existing agreement with the City of Anaheim, which agreement was executed on October 13, 1987, to specify that the rental controls approved by the City of Anaheim be for a period of not less than thirty years. At the meeting of June 13, 1989, Council denied the extensions of time on Reclassification No. 86-87-14 and Variance No. 3611. The extensions of time were again considered at the meeting of August 15, 1989 at the request of the applicant's attorney, Floyd Farano, Farano and Kieviet, and Council again denied the extensions of time on the subject reclassification and variance. At the meeting of September 12, 1989, the Council, at the request of Mr. Farano, Farano and Kieviet, agreed to reconsider the requested extensions of time at its meeting of today's date. Mr. Farano, Farano and Kieviet, attorney for the applicant. He referred to his 2-page letter dated September 18, 1989 which listed seven items for 909 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989, 5;30 Council consideration in their decision to either grant or deny the extension of time. (See letter dated September 18, 1989 - made a part of the record). Item 7 explained that the project plans already have the approval of the Building Department. He is suggesting, "...in order to satisfy the Council's concern regarding the project's compliance with the current zoning standards, that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations..." Subsequently the Council can then make a decision in light of the Planning Commission recommendations. Input was then provided by the Zoning Administrator who explained the background of the issue, noting also that the project was approved over 1 1/2 years ago. At this point, the plan checking was done in the context of the Zoning Code at the time, 1 1/2 years ago. Councilman Pickler. He favors sending the matter back to the Planning Commission for their input and subsequent recommendation to the Council. City Attorney White. The Council could refer the matter to the Planning Commission under reports and recommendations and ask that the Commission make a recommendation to the Council on whether or not the requested extensions on the reclassification and variance should be granted. Under the Code, the decision lies with the Council. Joel Fick, Planning Director. A report can be submitted to the Commission giving an analysis of the plans, the project as it relates current standards and have the Planning Commission bring a recommendation back to the Council. Councilman Pickler moved to refer Reclassification No. 86-87-14 and Variance No. 3611, requested extensions of time, to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation after analyzing the plans and the project as related to current standards to enable the Council to make a determination whether or not to grant the requested extension of time. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Daly asked if the action will include the two staff recommendations as listed on the agenda relating to two additional conditions concerning occupancy and imposing 30-year affordability on the project. City Attorney White. When the report comes back from the Planning Commission, if the Council wishes to approve the extensions of time, they can add those two additional conditions as conditions of the approval. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 114/179: DISCUSSION - TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES/PROPOSED ORDINANCES ON C-R STANDARDS REVIEW; The discussion was requested by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of September 12, 1989 in order to protect the interests of the C-R (commercial-recreation) zone and discussion was set this date. 910 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, __ Submitted was report dated August 21, 1989 from the City Attorney, Planning Director and Director of Public Works/Engineering. The report was requested at the Council meeting of August 15, 1989 for the purpose of presenting alternative interim development controls which could legally be placed upon development in the C-R area pending completion of the C-R area study presently in progress. Attached to the detailed report were prepared ordinances which would enable the enactment of alternatives proposed by staff (building moratorium ordinance, building moratorium ordinance with a conditional use permit requirement, conditional use permit ordinance and another conditional use permit ordinance but exempting any projects for which Building plans were submitted for plan check prior to October 12, 1989). An updated 3-page joint report dated September 15, 1989 was also submitted which, in the final analysis, recommended that if action is taken, Ordinance D be adopted which would require a conditional use permit for all new, expanded and/or exterior-remodeled hotel/motels submitted for plan check after September 19, 1989 to provide for discretionary review and approval. (This was amended from the previous ordinance proposed accelerating the cut off date to September 19, 1989.) Joel Fick, Planning Director. The Council requested Planning staff and the City Attorney's Office to prepare alternatives for development controls during the intervening period when the C-R study will be completed in mid 1990. He noted at about the same time as the Council's expressed concern, they received a memorandum from Public Works/Engineering expressing similar but related concerns about the infrastructure relating to hotels/motels in the C-R area, primarily traffic-related issues. In response to the Council's request, four variations of ordinances have been submitted that could be introduced individually or in combination. It is staff's recommendation that Ordinance D (as noted above) be considered by the Council. It would insert a provision requiring a CUP for hotels and motels submitted for plan check after today's date. This action is opposed to having a moratorium in the area. It would allow projects to continue to be processed and constructed but would allow the City the opportunity to review infrastructure needs and project designs in the area. Since the ordinances were prepared several weeks ago, some of the dates would have to be updated and some technical clarifications addressed. Mayor Hunter.. He is definitely opposed to any type of moratorium and feels that there are sufficient safeguards currently in effect. Joel Ftck, Planning Director. The safeguards are the Zoning and Building Codes. Many hotel/motels would have to meet the setback requirements and parking requirements, etc. Beyond that as long as the project is in compliance with all City and Zoning and Building Codes, it is just a matter of pulling Building permits. There is no environmental review since the projects are not discretionary projects. That is the area where Engineering and other staff have expressed some concerns. Mayor Hunter. The Council should not set themselves up so that every new project in the C-R zone must come before the Council for scrutiny. It is governmental interference and Planning and Zoning laws are already in place. 911 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, Under a CUP process, it will come down to whether or not an individual Council person likes a project or not. If it is done in this case, he questioned what would prevent the same from happening in some other zone as well. In the Redevelopment area, the Agency/Council can set aesthetic values but in the C-R area, it is privately owned property. He feels it is wrong to set the Council up to make a decision on every project. He is not in favor of any of the proposed ordinances. Councilman Ehrle. He concurs about government control and interference but there have been expressed concerns about the C-R area and the type of developments that have taken place without having to go through either the Planning Commission or Council. The hotel/motel operators have expressed concern as well, questioning why the City could not have stopped some of these developments. It is really an issue that affects the 32 million visitors per year who come through Anaheim's C-R area. He does not want to be an architectural review board and another layer of government but feels they owe it to the existing businesses in the G-R area to make sure what is built there is complimentary to what is already in the area. Perhaps the matter should be set for a public hearing. Mayor Hunter. Staff has held meetings with the hotel/motel people and a General Plan Amendment is being considered. Joel Ftck. They have been working on the most comprehensive plan that the Council has embarked on and have also introduced other ordinances that provided added safeguards for some of the strip commercial uses that were going in, and in addition funded and authorized in conjunction with the business community the comprehensive study that is under way which will basically be a rewrite or a specific plan for the C-R area which will be coming up sometime next year. If the Council is desirous of adding anything else, it would only be an interim situation under any circumstances until everything is sorted out. Staff has been working closely with the business community and whoever else has expressed interest. Councilman Daly. That is the point. The City has undertaken a very aggressive study which will result in higher standards in the Disneyland area relative to signage, landscaping, setback requirements, height requirements, etc. Councilman Pickler's concern is what happen~ in the meantime. Ne does not think anyone is talking control or a major invasion of property rights but instead about new and improved standards in the area. The study is being conducted with the involvement and support of the community in that area. He is willing to consider interim measures between now and next spring. He believes the Council is unanimous in their desire to the see that things are built to the expectations they have for the area. It is a matter of whether or not they want to choose one of the interim measures. Councilman Pickler. If some action is not taken, there are going to be things built that they do not want in that area. Councilman Ehrle. Of the projects in process listed in the data submitted by staff, there are none that he would not support. 912 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, -- Joel Flck. In staff's recommendation, they have built in a provision that would exempt plans currently in plan check. Mayor Hunter. He again expressed concern about future projects coming in when it would then be up to the Council whether they like the project or not if it can proceed. He reiterated his concern if they do it here what will prevent them from doing the same in other areas of the City. It will take Planning and Zoning completely away from staff leaving the decisions to be made by the Council as well as adding to the length of time it takes to build in the City causing developers to go elsewhere. Councilman Daly. He disagrees. The area is very important to Anaheim. Consultants are being paid good money and staff is spending a great deal of time on the study effort. It is only for nine months and is a specific area. He suggests the adoption of Ordinance D (conditional use permit requirement) with the modifications recommended by staff to exclude projects in process but rather than requiring a CUP, that they ask those projects to pass Planning Commission scrutiny. Mayor Hunter reiterated that they should not take any of the alternative actions. Zoning laws are in place, the C-R study is in progress and subsequently there will be a public hearing on the General Plan Amendment for the area when everyone can speak. He urged the Council to leave the situation alone. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5071 for first reading, amending sections of Title 18 requiring a CUP for all new, expanded and/or exterior-remodeled hotels/motels in the C-R zone for plan check after September 19, 1989 to provide for discretionary review and approval. ORDINANCE NO, 5071; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SECTIONS 18.48.020 AND 18.48.050 OF CHAPTER 18.48 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Mayor Hunter asked for clarification if the projects already in process are exempted. Joel Fick. He confirmed that those projects are exempted as well as those that have gone through discretionary approval by the Council. He also asked that the second reading of the ordinance be in two weeks (October 3, 1989) instead of one week. It was determined that second reading be scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 1989. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, 100 South Anaheim Bouelvard. Relative to the foregoing action in introducing the proposed ordinance relating to building in the C-R area, he asked that the Council consider several factors. There have been some projects in the area which have abused design standards but they have not been hotels. They have been commercial/retail establishments. 913 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, Hotels built in the last 12 to 15 years have not abused those standards. Secondly depending on the type of hotel construction, not including inside furnishings, the cost is $60,000 to $150,000 per room. He doubts that they are going to find abuses among hotel operators who have to face these costs while trying to achieve 70% occupancy which is a break-even point for most hotels, abuses which would cause them to repel the public they want to attract. He feels that final consideration of the subject in just two weeks from today is not enough time. They just received the data today and have not had enough time to study it. For the contribution that hotel operators have made to the City, they deserve more time to study the matter and independently respond. He would like to see a continuance of three or four weeks. They need to get together because there is a lot that the City does not know that is going to happen. It is a serious undertaking. Answering Councilman Pickler, Mr. Farano stated he represents Tarsadia and Riviera Mobile Home Park. Hotel operators in the audience are very concerned. The action will add months to processing time as well as expenses that amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. There will also be other costs placed on an industry that pays 10% occupancy tax. It is a very serious move. Councilman Hunter. He offered a supplemental motion that second reading on the proposed Ordinance No. 5071 offered for first reading previously by Councilman Pickler (see previous item) be scheduled for second reading in four weeks, October 17, 1989. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. A vote was then taken on the motion and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly and Pickler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood Therefore the adoption will be scheduled October 3, 1989. 176; PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO, 88-10A; In accordance with application filed by Bartoll Corporation, 15569 Craham Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92649, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a public utilities easement located generally west of Loara Street, south of Orangewood Avenue, and within and north of the future street "Wilmot Lane", pursuant to Resolution No. 89R-360 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Gary Johnson, dated August 10, 1989 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. 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 914 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, -- 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. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-388) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-388 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-388; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. (88-10A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter None Kaywood The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-388 duly passed and adopted. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 88-89-32, VARIANCE NO, 3893 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION; APPLICANT: OWNER: Linda Lee Sprague 1305 1/2 W. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92803 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1305 and 1307 W. North Street. The request is for a change in zone from RS-iO,O00 to RM-3000, and for waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum structural setback and (d) minimum recreational/leisure area to eon~truet a 10-unit condominium complex. PROJECT AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 88-89-32 was granted by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC89-123; Variance No. 3893 was granted, in part, (waivers a and d denied) by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC89-124; approved 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 May 23, 1989. The public hearing was continued, per request of the owner, from the meeting of June 27, 1989 to August 22, 1989, (see minutes of June 27 and August 22, 1989). After 915 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, extensive discussion and input at the public hearing of August 22, 1989, the public hearing was continued to this date since new plans were in house but not yet reviewed by Planning Staff. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 15, 1989. Posting of property June 15, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 16, 1989. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 8, 1989. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: A1 Marshall, Newport Pacific, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard. Their proposal is 8 single family style detached condominiums on the RM-3000 design. They have appeared before the Planning Commission and Council on numerous occasions beginning with their original proposal for 32 or 34 apartments down to 10 condominiums which was approved by the Planning Commission. They have since redesigned the project which is now 8 single family style homes over a condominium plan. The proposal is very appropriate for the area given that the area is a mixed use of single family very nice homes across the street with apartments behind and on the other side of the property in the back. It is a good transition project and works well for the site. The homes will be an asset to the neighborhood. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She submitted to the Council and for public distribution three data sheets relative to the subject reclassification and variance - the first sheet was a comparison of this proposal to RS-5000 (single family) and RM-3000 (multiple family) development standards - the second - comparison of waivers if developed as single family vs. multiple family residential project and the the third, "livabllity and neighborhood quality of life factors", Revision 4, compared to typical single family residential. The factors addressed on this sheet were on-street parking, pedestrian access, front yards for each dwelling and trash collection. Miss Santalahti then briefed each of the sheets for Council and public information. (See sheets made a part of the record). Councilman Ehrle. This is the type of project the Council has said they want to see in Anaheim - home ownership and more single family detached homes if possible. This project has detached homes trying to fit the peg of condominiums. The property is not zoned properly. The Woodcrest project in Anaheim Hills have 3,500 square foot lots with very nice single family homes on them. There is a comparison that can be drawn in this case. 916 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, -- Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Anaheim Hills projects are coming in under specific plans. The inhibiting factor on this property is the single family area around it. The apartments near the property, with one exception, are all one-story. Anaheim Hills is developing on a much larger scale. It is an overall community situation with open space requirements, hillsides and views. This is an established neighborhood the developer is trying to fit a project into. Miss Santalahti than answered further questions posed by the Council. If a single family project realistically, there could be five or six single family units with one waiver, lot frontage on a public street. Relative to requested variances on the subject plan, these are detached units and if they remain attached will need a waiver. There is also a height waiver and a setback waiver. The first waiver could be corrected if the project is redesigned to have attached units. The final waiver depends on subdivision of the property. If they decided to subdivide into ownership parcels, they would need a waiver as well. With one basic modification attaching units to groups of two, Council could technically approve the project as they see it today. Condominium Zoning specifically says that condominiums are attached or semi-attached units. If detached, they go to single family and RS-5000. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Dan Rowland, 1290 North Hancock Avenue. He is also a property owner in the immediate neighborhood. One of the most difficult things about this particular zoning problem is the fact that it is in a vacuum. It is surrounded by single family homes. It has two single family homes on it now. It is a less than one acre. The proposal is an extremely dense land use. They prefer home ownership and would lik~ to support the owner's project and will work at it very hard. The neighborhood is in favor of the owner upgrading her property and generally agree with her single family approach. They will wholeheartedly support her project with a few conditions. If it is rezoned, it should be rezoned to RS-5000 and a General Plan Amendment filed to low density. The plans should be resubmitted and the revised application go to the Planning Department for normal processing. They would be happy to come back and see it again. They will meet with the owner as they have in the past or with City staff, A1 Marshall or whoever the designated developer is and will attend as many meetings and hearings it might take. This is their seventh meeting in the interest of maintaining their established neighborhood and it 917 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M, looks like there will be 8, 9 or 10 meetings. Evening meetings hurt them a little. They have been in a battle of attrition. Anything the developer gets more than one unit per 10,000 square feet is at the benevolence of the City Council. They would anticipate waivers to accommodate a project to the RS-5000 but the RS-Zoning is absolutely essential to their well-being. Councilman Daly asked for clarification from Mr. Rowland, with the understanding that waivers are required with the latest 8-untt project is he willing as a spokesperson for some of the neighbors to live with the design if the underlying zoning is single family. Dan Rowland. The underlying zoning is important to them. He does not think they can get 8 units on the property. There are dimensioning problems that have to be worked out. Mayor Hunter. Miss Santalahti had stated that with RS-5000 zoning they may get 5 or 6 units on the property; Councilman Pickler asked for a show of hands of those who felt the same. (A large number of people present in the Chamber audience indicated their agreement). Sam Markowitz, 180 Redondo Drive. He is in complete agreement with Mr. Rowland. He does not feel all the waivers are necessary. The developer should follow the Building Code. He wants the neighborhood left the way it is now. REBUTTAL/SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: A1 Marshall, Newport Pacific. The property is not exactly like RS-lO,000. It is under a General Plan of RM-1200. It does adjoin zoning that is 1200 and the other RS-iO,O00 does not. The property immediately adjacent is RS-lO,000 only at the very front. The back section is 1200, the back section adjoining the back is 1200. The lots are long, narrow and deep. There are hardships that are realistic, legitimate and that exist on the property. In order to utilize a fair use of the property, waivers are required. They will work within whatever zoning is required. They are confused as to what the neighbors will accept at this time since previously they said they would accept 8 units. Mr. Rowland stated they would accept something under the 5,000 zone with that number to be determined. They have worked very hard on the property to try and make everything work for all people. The land use of the property is the issue. They entered into an original agreement based on the General Plan which calls for a high density of 1,200. They have followed the diligent process of the City requesting what they assume to be their fair opportunity and have responded appropriately each time they have been confronted and changed plans numerous times at a great cost. They are not trying to appease anyone but to get the best 918 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989, 5;30 ~,M, -- land use for the property. Somehow there must be a compromise to achieve a project of quality and come very near to a price comparable to the adjacent neighborhood, but at the same time to be sympathetic with the fact that the property does back up to apartment property. He is asking that the Council work with them to produce a product that has as few waivers as possible but nonetheless produces something of the quality proposed that can be sold as homeownership that does come with a single family aspect. A 3,500 foot lot as being developed in the hills in some specific plan areas will work very well and is a good future for tn-fill properties such as this. He is asking that they be allowed to build the project and will work with the City. They feel it is a very appropriate plan for a very difficult site. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Councilman Pickler. The integrity of the neighborhood is important. If it takes six units to maintain that integrity that is something the owner and developer will have to realize. He feels the matter should be sent back to the Planning Commission with the idea that they review it. The neighbors in the immediate area have given their input. They still feel it is putting too much into the area. They feel it definitely should be zoned RS-5000. He does as well; Council Members Daly and Hunter agreed. City Attorney White first explained for Councilman Pickler that the Council may wish to consider just denying what is in front of them and allowing the developer, if he desires, to resubmit a new application to the Planning Commission. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The zoning is advertized for RM-3000 or a less intense zone. If the Council wishes they could approve the reclassification to the RS-5000 zone rather than 3000 and deny the variance thereby necessitating the variance going back to the Commission and another variance which addresses the specific need of the RS-5000. 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. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 89R-389 and 89R-390) 919 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989. 5:30 P.M. Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-389 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 88-89-32 to the RS-5000 zone under the same conditions previously attached by the Planning Commission; and Resolution No. 89R-390 for adoption, denying Variance No. 3839. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-389; 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. (To the RS-5000 zone) RESOLUTION NO, 89R-390; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3893. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter None Kaywood The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-389 and 89R-390 duly passed and adopted. 114/182; GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY; Councilman Daly. He has talked to staff on the status of the Growth Management Study. Approximately six weeks ago, the Council set aside funds in the budget to do the study. He is asking that staff return to the Council with an agenda item which would present the study schedule. He would like to know the proposed start date for the Planning effort, whatever milestones staff believes are needed as well as the inclusion of a Citizen's Advisory Committee. He will defer to the City Manager in terms of the appropriateness of the request at this time. It would merely be an agenda item which would present the study schedule to the Council including the milestones of the study, start date, proposed completion date and which would include the involvement of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to be appointed by the City Council either at that time or at a time suggested by staff. City Manager Simpson. Staff can do that anytime the Council wishes. The appointment of a Citizen's Advisory Committee, if Council is convinced that they need one, will be up to the Council. Councilman Pickler. There are many things already in place relative to Growth Management. He asked if this could come back at the same time as the other matter is being worked on. City Manager Simpson. The reason they put the minimal amount of money into the study, staff does have a number of elements for a Growth Management Plan already in place. Those items will be presented to the Council. It was determined that the status of the Growth Management Study will be placed on the Council agenda in three weeks, October 10, 1989. 920 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1989. 5:30 P.M. 161; REDEVELOPMENT PROGRESS: Councilman Ehrle. He met with staff and Redevelopment in a liaison committee meeting where they received an overview of the projects in Anaheim. After a review of all the projects in process, he feels the community is going to be very impressed with what is going to take place in the next 12 to 14 months. He thanked Ctty Manager Bob Simpson and staff for doing a tremendous Job. A lot of exciting things are happening. 114/179/172/000;' TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FEES; Councilman Pickler. Relative to the development of the commercial-recreation area, in many other cities along with the development of the area, traffic impact fees are also assessed. He is questioning whether the Council should be looking at such fees and if the Traffic Engineer and City Engineer have something the Council could look at. Mayor Hunter. Substantial fees are already being exacted from developments in the platinum triangle. He is concerned about additional fees being placed on those who want to build in the City and if that is what is being proposed he is 100% against it. Councilman Pickler. That is what he is talking about. Fees are being assessed in the platinum triangle but not on other developments in the immediate area. It does not make sense. It has been discussed previously but he feels it should come back for the Council to take another look. Mayor Hunter. Before the Council decides to put that onus on staff, in talking to the Planning Director today, $77 million in permits have been processed. Staff is overworked right now. There is more activity in the City than ever before and there is going to be even more activity in the next 12 to 14 months. He does not feel it is appropriate to have staff submit a report relative to fees at this time. It should go to a vote of the Council whether more fees should be levied. He finds it overburdening at this time. Things are going well and if they keep adding more and more costs to developments, developers will go elsewhere. Bob Simpson, City Manager. The Traffic people are already looking at different kinds of fees. He would rather not identify it as a traffic fee. They have constantly talked about whether or not it should be a part of the Growth Management Plan. Staff has not made a definitive decision. It may be that the Traffic Engineer will come to Council prior to the implementation of any plan with a traffic management fee since staff shares the same concerns as Council already discussed, that is, what to do with traffic and transportation and parking principally in the C-R area which was addressed earlier today. Councilman Pickler. He surmises then something additional may be coming back with the Growth Management Plan submitted sooner because staff is already working on the issue. Staff realizes there is a problem. He is satisfied with the answer he has received. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION; Councilman Hunter moved to recess into Closed Session to consider the balance of the items listed on the Closed Session agenda. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (8:40 p.m.) 921 -- City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 19, 1989, 5;30 P,M. AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilwoman Kaywood. (9:44 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT; Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (9:45 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 922