Loading...
1988/03/01City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. The Assistant City Clerk called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council to order at 12:00 noon and recessed same until 3:00 p.m. for lack of a quorum. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:15 p.m. on February 26, 1988 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs. County of Orange, et al., O.C.S.C.C. No. 50-96-78; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59. b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957. d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:05 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (6:39 p.m.) INVOCATION: Father John Lenihan, St. Boniface Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member William D. Ehrle led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 246 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1~ 1988, 6:35 P.M. 119: DECLARATIONS: The following declarations were issued by Mayor Bay and authorized by the City Council: Girl Scout Week In Anaheim, March 6-12, 1988, Red Cross Month In Anaheim, Month of March, 1988, Save Your Vision Week In Anaheim, March 6-12, 1988, Home Restoration & Remodeling Week In Anaheim, March 6-12, 1988. Erica Tiedke accepted the Girl Scout Week Declaration; Myrtis Pebley and other Red Cross Representatives accepted the Red Cross Month In Anaheim Declaration and requested that the Red Cross Flag be flown over the Civic Center for the month of March; Dan Green and Peter Castas accepted the Home Restoration and Remodeling Week Declaration. 119: EXPRESSION OF CONGRATULATIONS - CITY OF ORANGE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION: An Expression of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Councilman Gene Beyer of the City of Orange on the occasion of the City's Centennial Celebration having been incorporated on April 6, 1888 with a population of 1,500 people. Mayor Bay and all Council Members personally congratulated Mr. Beyer and the City of Orange on this special occasion. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 9, 1988. Councilman Hunter seconded the.motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,582,063.44, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions on the Consent Calendar were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 88R-97 through 88R-100, both inclusive) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 88R-97 through 88R-100, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: 247 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. a. Claim submitted by Davista Corporation for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 16, 1987. b. Claim submitted by William R. Tempel for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 28, 1987. c. Claim submitted by Isabelle Jane Callies for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 29, 1987. d. Claim submitted by Anna Garcia, et al. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 9, 1987. 2. 107: Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 107: Building Division, Statistical Report, for period ending January 31, 1988. 3. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of 429,381.08 for one stake bed truck in accordance with Bid #A-4545. 4. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of 4119,855.05 for fourteen subcompact sedans in accordance with Bid #A-4543. 5. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation for an additional amount of 41,357.86 in connection with purchase order #44989M, revising the total order for additional vehicle parts and storage box changes to 4283,185.20. 6. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation for an additional amount of 4452.62, in connection with purchase order #42488M, revising the total order for additional vehicle parts and storage box changes to $62,571.32. 7. 109/156: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROPERTY CRIME PROGRAM, AGREEING TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MATCHING FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID GRANT. 8. 123: Approving an agreement (No. D87-222) with the Orange County Flood Control District and the County of Orange for a project to extend the Gilbert-Cerritos Storm Drain in Gilbert Street from Pacific Avenue to Ball Road, and in Ball Road from Gilbert Street to Empire Street, with City and County to each contribute 41,250,000 towards the cost. 9. 101: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1 in the amount of 420,241.40 for Signs West, Inc./Artech Sign, Inc. in connection with the Anaheim Stadium Theme Tower. 89 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988~ 6:35 P.M. 10. 123: Approving an agreement with P & D Technologies in the amount of ~23,363 to prepare a financial plan for circulation improvements on Santa Ana Canyon Road. 11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED. (Authorizing the execution of a quitclaim deed for a conditional easement located in the vicinity of Lot 6, west of the terminus of Grove Street, and south of La Palma Avenue) 12. 158: Authorizing payment of $47,241 to Larry R. Haupert for modifications to building located at 750 North Anaheim Boulevard as a result of the North Anaheim Boulevard street widening project. 13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-99: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS~ EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (Accepting an irrevocable offer of dedication for the south side of Ball Road, west of Knott Street from Pierco Development, Inc.) 14. 123: Approving an addendum to agreement between Meyer and Associates for consultant services in connection with the improvements to Peralta Canyon Park Recreation Center to increase the fees by $2,720 to cover the modification to original scope of the project to provide permanent facilities for one of the two maintenance crews in the Hill and Canyon Area. 15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-97 through 88R-100, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED. 179: REVIEW OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISIONS - FEBRUARY 16r 1988: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 16r 1988: Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Fred W. Hottenroth, 411 S. Country Hill Rd. 92807 Agent: Paul A. Waterman, Waterman Associates, 1420 North Glassell St. Orange Ca 92667 Location: 411 South Country Hill Road The request is for waiver of code sections pertaining to minimum sideyard setback, 8 feet instead of the 10 feet required, to construct a 47 square foot addition to an existing single family residence. 249 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. Zoning Administrator granted the requested waiver, Administrative Adjustment No. 88-02, dated February 16, 1988. Appeal period for the above item will expire on March 3, 1988. 179: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC HEARINGS OF FEBRUARY 11, 1988: VARIANCE NO. 3753~ EIR - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: Owner: Ronald W. and Nancy R. Pharris, 130 South E1 Dorado Lane, Anaheim, 92807. Location: 130 South E1 Dorado Lane, north of Cerro Vista Drive. Request is for waiver of minimum side yard setback (11 feet proposed instead of the 15 feet required) in order to add a 1,400 square foot room addition. GRANTED by the Zoning Administrator, ZA88-04, da~ed 2/18/88. Determined Categorically Exempt, Class 5. 0 VARIANCE NO. 3757, EIR - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: Owners: Robert J. and Shirley J. Slaughter, 8572 Travistuck, Buena Park Ca 90621. Agent: Thomas Q. Nicholson, 315 Black Oak Anaheim 92807 Location: 1180 Tamarisk Drive Request is for waiver of code requirement pertaining to structural height (25 feet required; 40 feet proposed) to construct a 2-story, 40-foot high, single family residence. GRANTED in part, to allow maximum height of 35 feet, ZA88-85, dated 2/18/88. Determined Categorically Exempt, Class 3. No action taken by Council. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES: The titles of the following ordinances were read Dy the City Clerk. (Ordinance Nos. 4906 through 4909, both inclusive) Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 124/142/179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4906 THROUGH 4909: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 4906 through 4909, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4906: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS, SERIES E, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF ADDITIONS TO THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER AND DESIGNATING THE ANTICIPATED SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT WILL BE PLEDGED TO SECURE SAID REVENUE BONDS. (Authorizing the issuance and sale of lease revenue bonds by the Community Center Authority in the amount not to exceed 965,000,000 for the purpose of providing funds for acquisition, construction and financing of additions to the Anaheim Convention Center, including a parking structure and renovation of convention center space at Anaheim Stadium) 0;. Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4907: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SIZES OF PARKING SPACES FOR SMALL CARS. (Amending Subsection .020 of Section 18.06.040 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the minimum width of the small car space) ORDINANCE NO. 4908: 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. 86-87-33, located at 1261 North Placentia Avenue from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the RM-1200 zone) ORDINANCE NO. 4909: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 18.71 RELATING TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-1 (SPECIFIC PLAN 88-1) ZONE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4906 through 4909, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4910: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4910 for first reading, amending Title 18 to rezone property covered by zoning and development standards for Specific Plan No. 88-1, designated Chapter 18.71 (Specific Plan 88-1) Sycamore Canyon Project. ORDINANCE NO. 4910: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Hy Friedman, 400 So. Sunkist Street, Anaheim. He referred to Ordinance No. 4900 adopted on February 23, 1988, allowing anyone running for public office to be able to display signs and banners without having to obtain a permit or pay a fee. He questioned if business people are not permitted to do the same why can elected officials or those running for office do so. city Attorney, Jack White. The ordinance does not apply specifically to the current Council incumbents but to anyone who either wishes to run for public office or supporting someone that is running. The amendment was made to the Code which had been in effect for almost 30 years to bring it into conformity with federal and state laws. The courts have made it clear that non-commercial signs have a higher degree of protection than commercial advertising. It is a constitutional problem for the City or other governmental agencies attempting to prohibit a member of the public from displaying non-commercial signs without getting a prior permit for the display. Further, no fee is required to display any flag or anything else that is of a political or non-commercial nature. 69 251 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. Doug Kintz, President, Anaheim H.O.M.E. (1) He recommends that there be more night Council meetings. (2) He invites the public to attend an Anaheim H.O.M.E. General Membership meeting on March 20, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. 161.114/177.114: REQUEST TO RESCIND ACTION TAKEN ON COMPENSATION INCREASE: Councilwoman Kaywood. She again moved that the Council rescind its action of January 19, 1988 approving pay increases covering Redevelopment and Housing Authority meetings for Council Members, and that the issue be placed on the November 1988 ballot. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Mayor Bay ruled that the motion is out of order since it is not an item on the printed agenda. Councilwoman Kaywood. If the proposed action is not going to be taken, she has a check for 4250 for the City of Anaheim which is to be donated to the Police 2000 Project. No further action was taken by the Council. 114: REQUEST TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL NIGHT COUNCIL MEETINGS: Councilman Hunter. The Council meeting of April 5, 1988 will be the sixth night Council meeting to be held since such meetings were initiated in November, 1987. He would like to agendize for the Council meeting of April 5, 1988 a discussion by the Council regarding holding additional night City Council meetings. He named approximately 18 adjacent and surrounding cities whose Council meetings are held at night. Anaheim is the only City in the County holding day meetings. It is time to give further consideration to the issue since they are not giving the public an opportunity to speak and be involved in government by holding day meetings. Later in the meeting, Councilman Pickler spoke to the subject issue and to some of the comments made by Councilman Hunter. He did not agree that it was necessary to have night meetings to have qualified people run for City Council. Also, of the cities who have night meetings, some have only one meeting a month or two. The number varies between cities. Relative to his own schedule, although retired, he works 12 hours a day not only on City issues but also various other issues and meetings which ultimately have a direct bearing on the City's well-being. Afternoon Council meetings are just as full as night meetings when issues of high public interest are scheduled. He does not see any reason for more night meetings at this time and is personally not ready to go to more than one night meeting a month. Councilman Hunter moved that Council discussion to consider additional night City Council meetings be scheduled for the Council meeting of April 5, 1988. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood. She feels one night meeting a month is working well and everyone is aware that it is the first meeting of the month. When there is a controversial issue on the agenda, the Council Chamber is filled no matter when it is held. 252 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 161.114/177.114: Ehrle and Hunter Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None INCREASED SALARY COMPENSATION - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY & HOUSING AUTHORITY: Councilman Hunter. He referred to the recent editorial in the Santa Ana Register entitled, "Three For The Money' referring to Council Members Bay, Ehrle and himself. The editorial used the words "sleazy" and "money hungry." Four Council persons agreed on the issue and knew that the item was going to be on the Consent Calendar at the following Council meeting to initiate an allowance for the Redevelopment Agenc~ and Housing Authority. One Council person, having been absent at that meeting, came back the following week and reneged but he was aware it was to be a part of the Consent Calendar. He took strong exception to the article in the Register and is not going to have someone call Fred Hunter "money hungry." He is no longer going to take being called names. He challenged whoever wrote the article to examine his accounts to learn how much he has given to charitable and other causes. He agrees with Councilwoman Kaywood in the way the salary increase went about being placed on the Consent Calendar. The matter ought to be placed on the Council agenda for next week and the resolutions rescinded that were approved giving the increases. An additional $200 a week does not materially affect him. He is not on the Council to make a penny. If it takes a Charter amendment in November, then that is what they should'do. Councilman Ehrle. The increase has been totally misrepresented and people are making "political hay" out of something that the Council had administrative ability to do. He asked the City Attorney to answer if the Council violated the City Charter in any way in approving the increases and if what they acted upon as a body was an administrative decision granted to them by government Code. City Attorney, Jack White. He answered no to the first question and yes to the latter. Councilman Ehrle continued that 80% of the cities in Orange County received compensation for Redevelopment Agency duties as well as for the Housing Authority. This body has not received the funds up until the time they decided they be compensated by an administrative action for Agency and Authority meetings and related meetings such as liaison meetings and additional Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings outside of those scheduled every Tuesday. He does not apologize for that. Anaheim is the ninth largest city in the state with 34 million visitors every year, along with the general population. He does not feel $1,200 a month for each Council Member running a city of theoretically 900,000 people, which 34 million visitors and residents figures to be on a daily basis, devoting 30 hours per week or more is too much. He ran for Council for one reason, to serve the community and not for the money. It is only a small compensation for his 253 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1~ 1988~ 6:35 P.M. time. He is also willing to ask the people if they think the Council should be paid more. They should be paid more, but that falls under the City Charter and not an administrative act such as the one they took. He will not back down for making an administrative decision granted to him by the State. Councilman Pickler. He has never denied the fact that the Council should be paid more money. Perhaps they should have initiated compensation for the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority starting at $50 for each meeting. He thereupon moved that the issue of the increase in compensation of Council Members for their duties as Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority Members be scheduled for discussion at the meeting of March 8, 1988. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 119: REQUEST TO FLY THE POW/MIA FLAG: Councilman Pickler moved that a discussion of the request to the Council to fly the POW/MIA Flag in front of City Hall be held at the Council meeting of March 8,'1988. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (7:55 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (8:06 p.m.) 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 224 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: General Plan Amendment initiated by the City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 REQUEST/LOCATION: To consider an amendment to the General Plan proposing the designation of a police station; subject study area is in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and Monte Vista Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 224, Exhibit A, as recommended by the City Planning Commission Resolution No. PCSS-2t; approved EIR - Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 18, 1988. Posting of property February 19, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 19, 1988. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 18, 1988. Joel Fick, Planning Director. Briefing the staff report, he explained that the request was initiated by the City Planning Commission at the request of the Chief of Police since currently the entire City of Anaheim is provided police service through the existing police facility located at 425 So. Harbor Boulevard in the downtown area of the City. The location will give a community service center effect 254 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. with the fire, police, park and future library in close proximity to the site. Placement of the substation at this location will enable an effective and multi-purpose command post location in the event of a disaster in the canyon area. In cooperatively working with the Sycamore Canyon developer, staff was able to locate a site specific on the Ranch. The Planning Commission recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 224, Exhibit A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 1151 Dove Street, Newport Beach. He is representing the Sycamore Canyon developer/Woodcrest and is indicating their support of the General Plan Amendment for the police substation. They have been working with City staff on the item since January of 1987. The relationship has been very positive and solution oriented. As the Council will recall, his presentation on the Sycamore Canyon Project included the proposed substation site within their land use plan located next door to the park site and Fire Station No. 10. Their only other comment would be to indicate they are actively working to make this a reality and look forward to continue working with staff to make the site a reality in the Hill and Canyon area. COUNCIL ACTION: There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-101) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 88R-101 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 224, EXHIBIT Roll Call Vote: 255 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1~ 1988~ 6:35 P.M. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-101 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Bay. There has been a great deal of discussion and a lot written about the slow growth movement and the initiative going on in the south county and county areas of Orange County. The action just taken is an example of the long-term planning that goes into development and particularly new development as it occurs in the City of Anaheim. Infrastructure, roads, circulation, parks, libraries - everything in the Hill and Canyon area where the Council has approved large developments over the past few months have included years of work and'pre-planning to see that there will be managed growth in the City. It is time that people in political office and those who feel strongly about the difference between managed and unmanaged growth should start to think about taking positions on the political issues. This is just one of many examples where the developers who have come in to develop the Hill and Canyon area have worked with numerous and sundry conditions that the City imposes upon those developers and they work cooperatively to see that the City does not have problems with infrastructure and the circulation and service problems. They are paying for that along with people buying those homes so it will not be a tax burden on the rest of the City. 179: VARIANCE NO. 3752 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Arnt G. Quist, Quist Incorporated Retirement Trust 3737 Birch Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, Ca. 97660 AGENT: E1 Centro Foods 693042 Tujunga Avenue, N. Hollywood, Ca. 91605 REQUEST/LOCATION: Waiver of required number of parking spaces to permit a take-out restaurant in a proposed commercial center at 300 South Anaheim Boulevard. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: Zoning Administrator Decision No. ZA88-02 approved Variance No. 3752. HEARING SET ON: Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of February 9, 1988 and public hearing scheduled this date. 256 9;. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 18, 1988. Posting of property February 19, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 19, 1988. PLANNING DEPARTMENT INPUT: See Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator dated January 28, 1988. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Mr. Arnt Quist. He is presently working with the City Traffic Engineer and staff and at this time is requesting that the Council continue the public hearing either for one week or if not in one week, then for four weeks. Mayor Bay. He first asked how many were present in the Chamber audience to speak to the issue and, if continued, would one week or four weeks be more acceptable. There were approximately five people present and the consence is, if the matter is continued, was four weeks. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue public hearing on Variance No. 3752 and Negative Declaration therefore to March 29, 1988. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-31, VARIANCE NO. 3735 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: 13222 Chapman 4201 W. Chapman Ave, Orange, Ca. 92668 AGENT: Andrew Homes 4000 MacArthur Blvd, #680, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Att: Mike Nawar REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: The request is for reclassification from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or less intense zone, and code waivers as listed below to construct a 162 unit, 3 and 4 story affordable apartment complex located at 2100 South Lewis Street; (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum side yard setback. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The City Planning Commission granted Reclassification No. 87-88-31, PC88-34, and granted Variance No. 3735, PC88-35; approved EIR - Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: The actions of the Planning Commission were appealed by Richard Del Guercio, Anaheim Insurance Leaseco, 649 South Olive Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90014, owners of property adjacent to subject parcel. Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 18, 1988. Posting of property February 19, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 19, 1988. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 18, 1988. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Richard Del Guercio, 649 South Olive Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90014. He is the owner the of the parcel of land which is a "notch" out of the corner of the parcel proposed for development. It is the Grey Line Tours site. It is served by a sewer line that they installed on the property in approximately 1971 at the time they owned the entire property. The properHy was subsequently sold to Dr. Schuller and it is currently in escrow for sale to the subject development company. One of the buildings proposed to be constructed might be constructed on top of that sewer line which is of concern to him and the reason for his appeal. He spoke with Mr. Nawar, the representative of the developer, who indicated at the time they were contemplating moving the building back 10 feet. As he understands it now, they have done so which solves part of the problem. The balance of the problem is at the time they needed the property, they may not have reserved an easement over the southerly 10 feet of the property in order to continue their sewer line. He is asking the Council to impose as a condition of the development that.a sewer easement be made available to them to continue the existing sewer line in place to serve the existing building. It would be an appropriate action and within the power of the Council to do so. Otherwise, they have no position regarding the proposed project itself. STAFF INPUT: City Attorney, Jack White. The only power the Council has to impose conditions are conditions that are generated by the public needs created from the particular development proposed. The City does not have the power to require one property owner to reserve a private easement to another property owner. He does not wish to give private legal advice but would refer Mr. Del Guercio to his own legal Counsel relating to what rights they may have with regard to the existing sewer and utility line that is there. Mr. Del Guercio. If the Council does not have the power to continue the approval with regard to the easement, he is asking that the Council inquire of the developer if he will do so. He has asked the developer but has not received either a yes or no answer which is one of the reasons he is present. Mayor Bay then asked to hear from the applicant/developer. Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. Magdy Hanna, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, Ca. They were initially not aware of the sewer line existing on the property line but became aware of it after the Planning Commission hearing. The mortuary actually owns the easement on the property. It does not show in the title report. They have since moved their building to allow for the 10-foot easement. He is not sure at this time if they are able to grant an easement to Mr. Del Guercio. There is an easement existing right now to somebody else. It will require the assistance of their Legal Counsel. If it can be done, they will be happy to grant the easement. Mr. A1 Marshall, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, Ca, Newport Beach Development. In his presentation, he described the property, the location and surrounding land uses supplemented by ~lides showing renderings of the proposed project as well as site plans. (Also see booklet with covering letter dated February 19, 1988 from Andrew Homes Inc., 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, Ca. which letter briefed the project called Manchester Court containing 162 apartment units - a description of the improvements, the five 3-story buildings above parking, the location, west side of Manchester Avenue, south side of Orangewood, street improvements - City proposals and recreational amenities of the project). As a result of the meeting with the residents, they have stepped the property back on the west in order to eliminate any intrusion to residential. It is a quality project and will be a major asset to the neighborhood. Magdy Hanna. There are limitations they have had to deal with relative to street dedications which includes the widening of Lewis Street and Orangewood Avenue. Another involves Caltrans plans to construct an overpass and underpass sometime in the future. They do not know what is going to happen in the next 10 or 15 years. They tried to mitigate any impacts. Their main concern is the privacy of the single-family homes and, therefore, the Dr0ject is setback the required 150 feet from the residences. The center of the building is oriented to the interior courtyard. They are also requesting some affordable units on the project. PUBIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Rita Johnson, 2303 So. Manchester. She first reported that she is one of the owners of the cemetery but did not receive public notice of the hearing. She is for the project but some of her concerns are relative to vandalism. She would like to see an 8-foot block wall vs. 6-foot built prior to construction of the total project. There are condominiums on the opposite side of the property where there have been problems of trash being thrown over the walls. According to the plans she saw she could not find any trash bins 259 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. on the south side of the project. Those living on that side will have a long distance to walk to dispose of trash. She also has a copy of the grant of easement for the sewer line if anyone needed that. She is concerned about that as well. It was first determined by a show of hands that approximately 50 to 60 people were present in opposition to the proposed project. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: The following people spoke in opposition to the apartment project for the reasons indicated below. Harold L. Webber, 2165 So. Manchester, Manager of Greyline Tours. Greyline has leased the property since February of 1980. The lease will run through February of 1997. They operate every day of the year except Christmas with coaches coming in at 5:00 a.m., start up at 6:30 a.m. and running until 8:00 a.m., leaving at 8:00 a.m. to pick up passengers, returning with them and then leaving at 9:00 a.m. on tours. Construction of the project on the east end of the property will be about 5 feet from the existing wall. The buses will be parked only about 10 feet away from the east end of the proposed apartments where they generate noise and fumes. They have enjoyed a fairly good relationship with their neighbors but he is not certain they could maintain that posture if apartments are 10 feet away. He is concerned over the problems that might result. Ann Raney, 2121 Anchor Street, Anaheim. The high density of the complex will create a big school population increase of 324 students. (See extensive testimony given by Mrs. Raney at the Planning Commission meeting of January 18, 1988). She referred to letter from Dr. Mel Lopez, Superintendent of the Anaheim Elementary School District, who expressed concern relative to overcrowding of schools in that area. Based on her testimony relative to the impact the project will have on schools and the bussing that would have to take place because of the high density, she urged the Council to oppose the project. Linda Hilton, 2136 Anchor Street, Anaheim. On Anchor Street, they have had problems not with trash but with parking. When the buses are parked behind their homes, the fumes settle on the other side of the wall. The project is too high a density and not compatible with single-family homes. Three and 4-story units will tower over single-family homes. There will be visual intrusion on the residences from the apartment balconies on the south. There are no play areas in the complex for children. There are already problems from existing apartments. Those living on Spinnaker and Anchor are concerned their residential streets will have overflow parking. (There were pictures posted on the Chamber wall to which she 08 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1~ 1988, 6:35 P.M. referred in her presentation). There is an apartment project presently being constructed across the street. There is too much density in that one intersection and corner. She then explained traffic and circulation problems that now exist in the area which will worsen with the proposed project. Foot traffic is also increased on their residential streets as well as vehicular traffic. There is a loss of security for their neighborhood. Her single-family neighborhood is being squeezed out of Anaheim. She urged denial of the project. She then submitted petitions containing 223 signatures of neighboring residents opposing the proposed project (made a part of the record). Gary Raney, 2121 Anchor Street, Anaheim. He opposed the project primarily from the standpoint of density. (See Mr. Raney's extensive t~stimony given at the Planning Commission meeting of January 18, 1988). They have been opposed to apartments from the start. The developer did grant some of their wishes when they met. Only 3.62 acres are available for development and after required dedications, only about 3 acres will be developable and the maximum allowable number of units under those circumstances is 109. Mr. Raney thereupon submitted a summary sheet (Summary of Plan review proposed for Reclassification No. 87-88-31 - by neighborhood group - information developed from Planning Commission staff report dated January 4, 1987 - made a part of the record). He briefed the figures contained in the report which the neighbors feel justify denial of the project because the facts show that it is too dense. Stewart Couch, 214 Anchor Street, Anaheim. He submitted an exhibit, a copy of which was posted on the Chamber wall, to each Council Member - a map of the area showing by color coding existing land uses between Katella Avenue to the north, Chapman Avenue to the south, State College Boulevard on the East and Harbor Boulevard on the west, i.e., existing apartments, apartments under construction, proposed apartments, homes, mobilehome parks, etc. It illustrates that the area is one of high density. Accompanying the map was a comparison showing the differences between the apartment project under construction just across Orangewood Avenue from the subject property and consisting of 160 units and the project being proposed consisting of 162 units. He briefed the data contained in the document - made a part of the record. It showed, among other differences, that there are no provisions in the subject project for fire, paramedics or trash pickup turn-around on the property. The project is much too dense and the Reclassification and Variance should be denied. Mr. Calderon, Anchor Street. He is the former manager of Melrose Abbey. He agrees with what everyone in opposition has said. He is concerned with safety 261 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. and crime that can be perpetrated in underground parking and elaborated on those concerns noting that the project has subterranean parking. Cliff Rothrock, 2131 Spinnaker, Anaheim. The issue is quality of life. There needs to be a re-examination of the proposed project. The residents cannot send their children to Ponderosa Park even now because of the problems at that park. He agrees with those who have spoken in opposition. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: A1 Marshall. He either rebutted or countered some of the concerns expressed by the residents relating to measures that were taken to mitigate ambient noise, the issue of uHder/overcrowding of schools, site intrusion - which they feel is non-existent, parking, greenbelt areas and play areas. Magdy Hanna. Apartment dwellers are not criminals. The rent structure will be approximately $800 a month for 2-bedrooms, 2-baths, management will be on site, tenants will be screened, the property is layed out so that there will be accessibility for emergency vehicles from Orangewood and Lewis Street, the project is also fully sprinklered. He also confirmed for the Mayor that relative to Mrs. Johnson's request, they would be willing to raise the wall planned for the site bordering the cemetery from 6 feet to 8 feet although it would require an additional waiver. A1 Marshall. He then explained for the Mayor relative to the trash bins located on the north side of the property with none on the south, the residents requested that those be moved to the north side. There will be on site trash management as well as on site security in their parking areas. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilman Pickler. More than anything else, the density of the project is too high - there is too much condensed into one small area. Magdy Hanna. He would like to hear Council's concerns and what they would like him to do. He would then go back to the drawing board and design a project everybody can live with. Councilwoman Kaywood. She expressed her concern with the amount of tandem parking being proposed. 262 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. He has not calculated what the percentage is. At the request of the Planning Commission, staff has been working on an ordinance to limit tandem parking to 25% of the total count which will be submitted to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. COUNCIL ACTION: After a brief discussion with staff regarding dedications, Mayor Bay Closed the public hearing. Councilman Hunter. The Council should deny the project. It is his opinion the whole system needs to be reviewed. This is the third consecutive week when the Chamber has been filled with residents and the Council is asking that developers scale down their projects putting the Council in a posiHion where they should not be. Another concern is that the Planning Commission approved the project on a 7-0 vote but yet everybody in the Chamber agrees that the project is too dense. Putting more density into that particular area will be a problem. He is going to move to deny the project and does not want a scaled down version to come back to the Council for the Council to make the decision on how many units a developer should have or to have to redesign the project. That should be decided at the Planning Commission level. The Council should make it clear that they are either going to grant or deny a project instead of having the project presented to the Council at a public hearing and if there is a possibility that it will be denied having the developer request a continuance of the Council and to resubmit revised plans. Subsequently, the Council gets lobbied and he does not want to be placed in that position week after week. He is not going to do it anymore. There should be some policy that the Council is not going to continue hearings to allow a developer to come in and scale down his project and then come back to the City Council. Councilman Ehrle. He drove the entire area this afternoon. He congratulated the residents on their comprehensive presentation. He does not go along with the no growth philosophy for the City of Anaheim but believes that growth will and should take place that is reasonable and logical. The construction industry is one of the bases of the foundation of the economy. He is concerned that this is the third or fourth project the Council is being forced to send back to the drawing board. Developers are wanting to build a great number of units on smaller pieces of land. Either (1) the land is too expensive or negotiations are not taking place appropriately between the developer and seller of the property to get it to the right place or (2) the City's Codes are out of date in keeping with the economics of 1988 which might have to be evaluated and it is something they should do and (3) the developers are going to have to come in with lesser 263 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1988, 6:35 P.M. and larger individual unit sizes and perhaps charge higher rents per month to have the higher quality neighborhoods they are looking for. It is important to abide by what the residents of the City want. He is also for denial of the project and that it go back to the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood. Quality of life is important. Packing more people into smaller spaces is not positive. The project is too dense and it is something the neighbors do not want nor can live with. She thereupon moved that the project be sent back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Bay. Four Council Members have said they are going to deny the project. He is speaking for the develHpment. He warned his colleagues and the people if they start changing the rules of development and influencing their approval or denial by popular vote they are doing some real gambling on the future development and planning for the City. He knows how the residents feel because he has done the same before being on the Council. Because a large number of people protest a development and because the density is too high, Council is to immediately conclude it is a bad development and that crime comes only from apartments. In his opinion they have better control on people and density of people in apartments than they do in single-family homes. He personally does not believe the development is a problem. It is over 150 feet away from single-family residences. He voted against Mr. Hanna's last development and was ready to vote against a Young Lion development because the Codes were not met. The 2-story apartments in this case are more than 150 feet away from single-family. He then asked the City Attorney if the project is referred back to the Planning Commission how that would work. City Attorney White. There is no procedure to refer the project back to the Planning Commission. The Council's options are to approve it, deny it or continue the hearing. If the project is denied and the applicant wishes to revise the plans, he would have to file a new application that would automatically go to the Planning Commission. The Council cannot by motion refer it back. Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing for six weeks to April 12, 1988 to give the developer the opportunity to revise plans for a scaled down project. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler expressed his hope that the developer would also go back and work with the Community. 264 Cit~ Ha. ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1~ 1988~ 6:35. P.M. Councilman Hunter. He is going to vote no because of his concern as previously expressed. That Council will again be placed in a position of having to decide whether the developer's project should be 162 units or 136 or 109. The project should be denied and the developer start the process again through the Planning Commission. Councilman Bay. He agrees with Councilman Hunter. It is time for the Council to either reject or approve developments as they are presented. If they continue to go back and forth unit the Council 'redesigns" a project because of pressure from the meetings, the situation will go on and on because all developers will do the same. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ~SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Kaywood and Pickler Hunter and Bay None ADJOSRNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:10 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK Councilman Hunter seconded the 265