Loading...
1988/04/12City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler, Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS': None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti SENIOR PLANNER: Mary McCloskey PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: me To confer with its attorneys regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 46-96-59; A T and T Communications of California Inc. vs. State Board of Equalization et al, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 500802. be To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6 c. To discuss personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957. de To confer with its Attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). 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. Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CAI{RID. (12:00 noon) AFTER KECESS: Mayor Bay called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (2:15 p.m.) INVOCATION: Rev. Louis Rohr, Trinity United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Fred Hunter led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 378 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. 119: PRESENTATION: City Clerk Leonora Sohl stated that there are a number of employees participating in the new orientation program who are present in the Chamber audience. At the second meeting of each month, new employees will be introduced and after their names are announced, will be asked to stand and remain standing until all have been introduced. At the conclusion of announcing the names of the 24 new employees they were welcomed by the City Council. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and authorized by the City Council: "You've got the power; Register and Vote" week in Anaheim April 18-22, 1988. Victims' Rights Week in Anaheim April 17-24, 1988 Boys and Girls Club Week in Anaheim April 12, 1988 Laurie Redfearn accepted the Victims' Rights Week Proclamation and Bob Sklar and Paul Marsh accepted the Boys and Girls Club Week Proclamation. 119: DECLARATION OF APPRECIATION: A Declaration of Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Cynthia King, assistant to the City Manager, recognizing the pivotal role that she played as project leader in bringing the best scoreboard system in the country to Anaheim Stadium. The project required almost three years of tireless effort and work. Mayor Bay and Council Members personally thanked Ms. King. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held March 15 and March 29, 1988. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,164,566.20, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 88R-146 through 88R-148, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 379 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Al. 104: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Paul Gardner Corporation of Ontario, California, in the amount of $66,290 for the construction of street lighting systems, Street Lighting Assessment District 1984-i. The area is bounded by Harbor Boulevard, South Street, Indiana Street and Water Street, plus Citron Street between Water Street and Santa Aha Street. A2. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Spear Pipeline Construction of Orange, California, in the amount of $397,180.50 for Three Valve Service Vault Modifications. A3. 123/106: Approving a contract with UMA Engineering, Inc. to perform survey work on Super Street Beach Boulevard at a cost of $20,000 and authorizing the appropriation of $20,000 in Revenue Account 01-3167 and Expenditure Account 01-263-6310. A4. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (CHESTNUT STREET 86-5A) (Declaring the intention to abandon portions of Chestnut Street and Helena Street for the completion of Phase I of the Anaheim City Center, and setting a public hearing date of May 3, 1988 at 8:00 p.m.) A5. 151: Approving the request from Gill Electric, Inc., for Caliber Motors, to allow the encroachment of a telephone conduit under Brasher Street to connect offices on the east and west sides of the street. (Encroachment License No. 88-1E.) A6. 123: Approving a Subdivision Agreement for Parcel Map No. 87-395. The parcel map concerns property located at 2940 East Coronado Street, and contains 9.38 acres divided into 12 parcels with the developer being Red Gum Business Park. A7. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4920 (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM tLEVISING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT STOPPING OR PARKING VEHICLES ON ANY PORTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD. (Amending Sections 14.32.189 and .190 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to prohibit stopping at any time on both sides of Beach Boulevard from the north tO the south City limits) . AS. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $11,024 for 200 "load leveler" temperature activated outdoor switches to control central air conditioner compressor with fixed duty cycle. A9. 152/177: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-147: A RES0LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Authorizing the Director of Community Development to approve and execute documents such as purchaser agreements, deeds of trust, loan documents, reconveyances, and rescissions of liens and covenants which are necessary to implement the affordable housing program) 380 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Al0. 123: Approving an agreement with the East Anaheim Bobby Sox League #A-041, a youth softball organization, to build and maintain a concession building at Rio Vista Park. All. 123: Waiving Council Policy 401, Selection of Professional Consultants, and approving an agreement with Dan L. Rowland and Associates at a cost of $48,680 to provide architectural services for the rebuilding of Fire Station 9. Al2. 175/106: Authorizing an additional expenditure of up to $10,000 to provide continued legal assistance for the Water Advisory Committee of Orange County (WAC0) participation in the Bay-Delta hearings being held by the State Water Resources Control Board. Al3. 175.123: Approving the Nuclear Fuel Conversion Contracts with Sequoyah Fuels Corporation and Eldorado Resources Limited for Nuclear Fuel conversion services for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 for the period 1988 through 1995 and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the contracts. Al4. 107/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4921 (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 15.16 OF TITLE i5 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE 1987 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO. (Adopting the 1987 Edition of the National Electrical Code and certain amendments thereto, and amending certain sections of Chapter 15.126 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Upon adoption of the ordinance, a resolution setting forth local conditions justifying amendments to the 1987 Edition of the National Electrical Code will be submitted. Public hearing date of May 10, 1988, 3:00 p.m. was set to consider the Electrical Code) Al5. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0FANAHE~ ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. Roll Call Vote Resolution Nos. 88R-146, 88R-147 and 88R-188: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~MBEXS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickier, Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-146, 88R-147 and 88R-148 duly passed and adopted. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY BOARD: Appointment to the Community Center Authority Board to fill the vacancy created by the recent passing of Burr Williams. The vacancy was posted on March 10, 1988. This matter was discussed at, and continued from, the meeting of March 29, 1988 to this date. City Clerk Sohl referred to her recent memo which was submitted to the Council concerning the names given her by Council Members whom she contacted to confirm their interest in serving on the Community Center Authority (CCA) 381 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988~ 1:30 P.M. Board should they be appointed. Shortly before the meeting, Councilman Pickler requested that she contact Bill Taormina, Paul Kott and Aldon Esping. She was able to reach Misters Taormina and Esping who both indicated they would be willing to serve but she has not heard from Mr. Kott. Councilman Ehrle. He recommends a one week continuance. He knows all three gentlemen mentioned and would like to hear the response of all. He also knows Mr. Riley and Piersall and feels they too are excellent choices. Councilwoman Kaywood. She expressed her concern with the continuance. The CCA Board has a meeting on Monday night and it is critical that they have a full Board. Jim Riley was the City's Fire Chief for many years and Thorny Piersall was the City's Public Works Director at the time the Convention Center was built and during the two additions. Councilman Pickler. He does not feel in any case that in one week someone will be able to grasp the whole concept and favors a continuance. MOTION: Councilman Ehrle moved to continue the appointment to the Community Center Authority Board to fill the vacancy created by the recent passing of Burr Williams for one week. Councilman Pickier seconded the motion. Councilmembers Kaywood and Bay voted no. MOTION CARRIED. 162/150: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE - INTERNATIONAL MUSIC OLYMPICS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the fee of $202.09 for rental of the Show Wagon at Pearson Park in May of 1987 as requested by Mr. John Schroeder, Chairman of the International Music Olympics in his letter dated March 31, 1988 with the funds to be appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund to the Parks and Recreation account. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 115: DISCUSSION OF THE FLYING OF THE POW/MIA FLAG AT THE CIVIC CENTER: Discussion concerning the flying of the POW/MIA flag at the Civic Center, pursuant to the requests received from the public. Initial discussion began at the meeting of March 8, 1988 and was continued to March 29, 1988, at which time an ordinance restricting flags to be flown from the Civic Center flag pole was rejected. City Clerk Sohl referred to letter dated April 11, 1988 from Ann R. Haug, POW/MIA Chairman of VFW Anaheim Post 3173 requesting that the subject flag be flown at the Anaheim Civic Center during the month of September. Councilman Pickier moved that the POW/MIA flag be flown at the Civic Center during the month of September, 1988 and that a proclamation be generated to be presented at that time. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Mike Ports, Southern California Plastering Institute, 9700 Flair Drive, E1 Monte. He is addressing the Anaheim Convention Center Betterment III contract and the concerns of the Orange County Trades Council. The current low bid for the project was submitted by Taylor-Woodruff. Their major concerns are: (1) the architect's estimate on the project was $40,000,000 and the iow bid was 382 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. $29.4 million. This is a prevailing wage project and their concern is that the same architect who "missed the bid" by 25% will be the person telling them whether or not prevailingwages will be adhered to by subcontractors. For the most part, the contractors and subs are union but some are non union as well as out-of-area non union. This raises safety issues and willingness to pay prevailing rates. The bid date was March 31, 1988 and the award date April 18 or April 19, which does not give them much time to investigate the background of listed subcontractors. Improprieties have been uncovered regarding listed subcontractors and there are also unlisted subcontractors, and some listed with less than full names or addresses, which is in violation of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code. He is asking the Council for any help they can give in addressing the situation. City Attorney Jack White. Anaheim has voluntarily adopted a Prevailing Wage Resolution requiring all City projects to be bid in accordance with prevailing wages. The project is being administered and awarded by the Community Center Authority (CCA) and not the Council. As a matter of law, as a Joint Powers Authority the CCA is required to solicit bids which pay prevailing wages and these will be paid. It is up to the City's architect and City staff who will be monitoring the project on behalf of the CCA to determine that prevailing wages are being paid. If there have been violations to the Subcontractor Listing law, there is a procedure in State law as to how these should be addressed. It is not appropriate for the Council to address the matter at this time. The City Council has no jurisdiction to entertain any grievance held by an individual or a trade union since the contract is being handled by the CCA. He advised that any alleged violations be reported to the City's Project Engineering Office which has the responsibility for monitoring the project. Dr. Oskooi, Ophthalmologist, 1801 West Romney Drive. In April of 1986 when he moved to the City he did not receive any welcome packets telling him of his civic duties and neither did his landlord tell him he needed a City business license. On January 15, 1988, he received a letter saying that he owed the City $25 for a license fee. He immediately complied and sent in the ~25 and the application. Instead of receiving a license, he received another letter demanding that he pay ~240 minus a $25 credit. He must pay for three months of a full year fee and a 100% penalty, another year full fee and penalty and this year part of a full fee and a 100% penalty again. He then explained the contacts he made with the City but no one has been able to help him. He feels it is wrong. Future business people who come into Anaheim should know what they are facing or they should not be penalized. This sets a precedent. City Attorney White. Dr. 0skoot had contacted the City Clerk's Office and the City Attorney's Office and was told that the Business License Ordinance does not contain any provision authorizing the tax penalty or interest to be waived by any staff member or the Council. He asked to be agendized as a regular item and was told it would not be appropriate because the Council has no such Jurisdiction. 383 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Bay. The Brown Act does not permit the Council to be able to do anytk~ng on the matter today. If the Council wants to put the item on the agenda next week or a future week, that is possible. However, he does have a concern that there are unbending ordinances where there is no room for any appeal. Councilman Pickler. This is the first time in his six years on the Council that such a situation has occurred. There is no intent to penalize any individual or firm. He does not feel this warrants any action by the Council at this time. Mark Daniels, 3181 West Del Monte, Anaheim. He reported that on March 26, 1988, his mother was attacked in her house while taking a nap, by a man with a knife. He wanted to inform people that such things happen here as much as anywhere else. People should lock their doors and be more aware of what is going on in their neighborhoods. James Bonsteel. He gave some recommendations relative to timekeeping practices that might be instituted in order to keep better track of some City employees' time. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:00 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:16 p.m.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-31, VARIANCE NO. 3735 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER/ ~T: 13222 Chapman 4201 West Chapman Avenue Orange, California 92668 AGF2ff Andrew Homes 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, #680 Newport Beach, California 92660 Att: Mike Nawar LOCATION/REQUEST: The project location is 2100 South Lewis Street. The request is for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or less intense zone, to construct a 162 unit, 3 and 4 story affordable apartment complex with Code waivers of: a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, b) maximum structural height, c) maximum site coverage, and 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. The public 384 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. hearing took place on March 1, 1988, where extensive input and discussion were heard. The public hearing was then continued to this date giving the developer an opportunity to scale down his project and address some of the concerns expressed. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 31, 1988 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 and subsequent report dated April 11, 1988 which addressed the changes in the original plan, which changes were being presented to the Council this date. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Mr. A1 Marshall, Newport Pacific Development, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach. There have been two excellent meetings with the neighborhood wherein they addressed questions and concerns which have resulted in the revised plans presented to the Council today. Narrating a slide presentation, Mr. Marshall again described the site and the proposed development. The number of units has been decreased from the 162 originally proposed to 131 units under the RM-1200 zone. There is no longer a request for affordable housing or a density bonus. The buildings have also been set back a greater distance, the height reduced, exteriors redesigned to give a more residential appeal, and a relocation of the drive. They have also located their office and recreational building up front in order to control any type of on-ground movement, or trash or anything that would be inappropriate or that would interfere with the single family residential. The buildings which were three stories over parking are now two stories over parking. There are also no views to the single family residential homes and they are over 150 feet and in some cases 170 feet away from the neighbor's property line. At no point is there any buildin~ within 150 feet of single family. They have also changed the rear buildings so that the ends of the buildings are facing the bus depot. Since no apartments will be facing the depot, no balconies or windows will be exposed to fumes, gas or noise from the buses. Trash trucks will not enter the project but will pick up off the street as illustrated in the slides. It is important that the entry to the project be well maintained since that entry is across from the single family homes. Other slides showed renderings of the project, the floor plan, line of sight to the single family homes, etc. The size of the units has been increased to 633 square feet for the three bachelor apartments, 700 square feet for the 64 one bedroom units and 883 square feet for the 64 two bedroom units. They feel they have now answered all of the concerns expressed by the neighborhood. 385 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Magdy Hanna, Newport Pacific Development, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach. He reiterated that they have met with the neighbors who worked with them very cooperatively. The neighbors realize that they are doing a good job in providing a quality project. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Stewart Couch, 2149 Anchor, Anaheim. The developer did incorporate several of the things the neighbors had suggested. They have polled their members and the neighbors are still opposed to apartments. Mr. Hanna has said that under Anaheim's Codes, there is no way he can build condominiums. The City needs to find a solution to provide more owner-occupied homes. He understands this issue is scheduled for the April 26, 1988 agenda. With a little effort from the Council and Mr. Hanna, they can move forward. A condominium project is something the neighborhood wants. The proposed complex will still be the highest south of 0rangewood and the most dense project in the area. They will go on record, if they are forced to accept apartments, that they will accept Mr. Hanna's project as proposed. However, in their acceptance, they would like Mr. Hanna and the City to try to work together to see if it can be changed to condominiums. They would like the Council to delay the project until staff submits the new report which is in process. He also gave his comments as to how they might change the project to owner-occupied condominiums. Councilman Pickler. He concurred with Mr. Couch and asked if there was a way to approve the project but with the stipulation that they be condominiums and be assured that would happen. City Attorney Jack White. The function of the Planning Commission and Council under Zoning law is to review the proposals of the property owner to determine whether their project will be permitted or denied. There is no way to compel someone to develop property in a way other than the way they choose to do so. The Council has the prerogative to deny a project but cannot force someone to build condominiums. There is also no way of zonir~ the property to a condominium zone that will guarantee it will be condominiums as opposed to apartments. There are two parts to the application, the Reclassification and the Variance. Once the property is rezoned, it can be built in any manner consistent with the Code. The other is the Variance, and as a condition of the variance, the Council could require that the project be condominium ownership and a covenant recorded on the property in order to exercise the Variance. The only assurance the developer could give, in order for the project to be built the Council could require it to be built as condominiums as opposed to apartments, but they could not guarantee the project would be built. 386 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood. There could be no guarantee that the units would not turn into rentals with no condominium owner-occupants. She feels the only choice is to approve or deny the project before them. They cannot wait until there is a new ordinance. Condominiums also require additional parking that apartments do not. It would not be possible to get 131 units on the property and there could be no control on how many rentals there would be in any case. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Magdy Hanna. Ail he had been building since 1976 was condominiums which he likes very much. He would like to see the City consider condominiums under the RM-3000 zone. With something between the 1200-2000 zone, he would be willing to build condominiums in the City because it would be very profitable. It brings pride of ownership. He reiterated that that is all he built before but then the price of land increased dramatically. On this project under RM-3000 it would only be possible to build 55 or 60 units. With the price of land being so high it would not be possible to build. After a discussion among Council Members, Mr. Hanna and staff relative to the issue of the feasibility of providing condominiums instead of apartments, Councilman Pickler suggested that the project be approved with the idea that Mr. Hanna within a month could find out which direction the City was going to take relative to zoning on condominiums vs. apartments to see if he could then provide a project with home ownership. Mayor Bay. He pointed out that on the subject project it is not practical or feasible to change it at this time unless Mr. Hanna would choose to redesign the entire project. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Stewart Couch, answering Councilman Pickler, stated that Mr. Hanna says he is willing to 100k at condominiums a month from now. They should approve the project and see what Mr. Hanna can do at that time. He can come back and ask for a change if he has found a way to do it. After further Council comments, Mayor Bay stated that he does not believe they are going to place a commitment on Mr. Hanna to go back and redesign his project, delay it, and have him come back with a new condominium project. He does have hopes, however, that they can start to do something to make condominiums more economically feasible to develop. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration 387 City Mai1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-149 and 88R-lS0) Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Annika Santalanti, Zoning Administrator. The project would now be subject to revised plans, revision 2 of exhibit nos. 1 and 3 for a 131 unit, RM-1200 zoned project with waiver of maximum structural height only. It is revision no. 2, posted on the Chamber wall, and one of the conditions pertaining to that will have to be modified. She was also contacted by the Traffic Engineer and asked that if approved, an additional condition be added to the Reclassification that the owner shall dedicate all access rights to Orangewood Avenue to the City and a temporary access will be granted subject to approval by the City Engineer. Apparently the developer is withdrawing his proposal for affordable units. MOTION: Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 88R-149 and 88R-150 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 87-88-31, RM-1200 zoning granting Variance No. 3735 subject to Revised Plans, Revision 2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 3 including the additional condition relative to the dedication of all access rights to Orangewood Avenue with the temporary access to be granted subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-31. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VAR/ANCE NO. 3735. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88R-149 and 88R-150: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER§~ COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-149 and 88R-150 duly passed and adopted. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 239 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 REQUEST/LOCATION: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing redesignation from Medium Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential. The subject study area is approximately 13.7 acres bounded by Center Street to the north, West Street to the east, Broadway to the south and the Santa Aha Freeway to the west. 388 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of new Exhibit B, General Plan Amendment No. 239, at their meeting of February 29, 1988 under Resolution No. PC88-68; approved EIR Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in the Anaheim Bulletin March 31, 1988 Posting of Property March 31, 1988 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1988 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 29, 1988 and also report dated March ii, 1988 from the Planning Director containing supplemental information. Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner. The General Plan Amendment was initiated as a result of an expression of the neighbors living in the area after a reclassification was proposed and denied on Center Street in January of this year. The Planning Commission and the Council denied the Reclassification and the GPA was subsequently initiated. She then briefed the staff reports regarding site location, a description of the property and a summary of the characteristics of the 71 lots within the subject study area. She pointed out that the February 29, 1988 staff report presented only one alternative, Exhibit A, reflecting low-medium density residential land uses for the entire 13.7 acre study area. Staff subsequently prepared an analysis and recommended alternate Exhibit B (see report of March il, 1988) to continue the medium density residential designation in the area bounded by Center Street, Walnut Street, Broadway and the Santa Aha Freeway and to redesignate the area bounded by Center Street, West Street, Broadway and Walnut Street to low-medium density residential land uses. The Planning Commission recommended Exhibit B. Before concluding, she also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the area adjacent to Center Street to the north where it is now Commercial General (C-G) would remain C-G under the General Plan. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Harry Knlseley, owner o£ the properties at 1104 and 1114 West Center Street. He is present today to clarify whether or not it is proposed that the property on the south side of Center Street (the 1100 block) is to remain C-G. Mary McCloskey. She clarified that the Planning Commission is recommending that that property be reclassified'to the RM-2400 zone. Mayor Bay. Mr. Kniseley's position then is depending on the Council's decision today on what amendment they are going to approve, he (Kniseley) does not know whether or not he has a problem. Whatever the Council does, Mr. Kniseley is saying he does not want to lose the C-G designation on his property in that area. 389 City ~1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Harry Kniseley. He first confirmed his position was as the Mayor stated. He is speaking solely for the ll00 block on the west side of Center Street. Eight out of the nine neighbors in that block want the zoning to'remain C-G and not changed. The houses in that block are well maintained. It still might become feasible in the not too distant future for Commercial. Presently the C-G zoning is worth nothing. The real reason for wanting to retain it, it is the only form of protection or insurance against apartments. A developer would have to get a reclassification and have a public hearing for apartments. Robert Morris, owner of the property at il00 West Center Street. He is the one person who did not sign the petition to have the property retained as C-G. He wants to improve his house as the neighbors have done but under the current zoning it would cost him between $500 to $1500 to get a variance to make any exterior improvements. He has no problem with C-G but would like to see the houses given a blanket variance as conforming structures so they can make improvements. He has no garage which he would like to build. He does not care which way it goes but if it remains C-G, there should be some kind of variance to enable the residents to make improvements to the exterior of their homes. Myrna Beach, 203 South West Street. She also owns a house at 125 South West Street. They already have apartments and multiple units in the area. It is becoming more congested with too many people crowded into an area. She is for the amendment and down-zoning and does not want to see any more dense units going into the area. She is not opposed to allowing the south portion of Center Street to remain C-G. Mrs. Butrovich, 201 South Walnut. She has a different concern. Walnut Street backs up to Cherry. There are several proposals for widening the Santa Ana Freeway. She does not know how much of Cherry Street is going to be taken in that event. She is questioning whether they are taking into consideration what is going to happen to South Broadway and Walnut when the Freeway is widened. It will take that corner and several apartment buildings to the south of Broadway. There will be many families without homes because the City does not want any more apartments. Dave Pritchard. He owns the properties at 1119 and 1123 Chestnut. He wants the property to remain as it is now designated - medium density residential. It used to be in Anaheim a person could buy a piece of property and depend on the zoning being there. He does not know where it comes from that somebody can say the property should be rezoned without contacting the people. He questioned who wants it rezoned. He wants it to remain the same. He suggested that they consider leaving the property on the east side of Chestnut as it is now designated and if the people on the other side going to Broadway 390 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. want their property redesignated that would be fine. He would appreciate the Council leaving his property alone. He does not live on the property but he recently bought the two properties with the thought that he would like to build a nice unit on them. He does not like to be told he cannot do that. June McIntyre, 917 West Sycamore. She has no property in the area. She commented on the fact that there is very little freeway property that will be available in Anaheim. Currently the City is considering Anaheim Plaza and what can be done to assist it. Part of the subject property is freeway property. By putting low to medium density on it, they are perhaps going to lose a valuable piece of property that could become something attached with the Plaza and that general area. She hesitates to see it change from what the rest of the property might be. Almost immediately there will be people wanting to build units. Victor Vazquez, Jr. He owns the property at 1310 West Center Street and represents the property at 1302 West Center and 210 South Walnut. He agrees with Mr. Pritchard. There is no reason to change the General Plan for that area. It has been working well. The Planning Commission decided to split it in half leaving half medium density and changing the other side to low-medium density. They did so because eventually the I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) will be widened and what will then happen is that the Freeway will move closer to low-medium density residential. If they want to do long range planning, then they should leave that area alone because the Freeway is going to get closer to West Street. He then asked when reclassification of the area was scheduled to be heard. Mary McCloskey. Relative to the I-5 widening process, the EIR process and the actual alignment of the Freeway are being finalized but are not known at this time. The Planning Commission felt in leaving portions of that, it would be a transition area between the Freeway as it is ultimately widened and low-medium density homes easterly of Walnut. ~he Planning Commission has initiated a reclassification and staff intends to bring that to the Planning Commission on April 25th if the subject General Plan Amendment is approved today. It would then come to the Council and go through the normal ordinance process which would take approximately two months. Victor Vazquez. He is opposed. The Freeway will eventually be widened. If a count was taken in the area, they would find that the majority are rental properties. He then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that they are planning to build four units at 1310 West Center Street and four units at 210 South Walnut Street and the properties were bought with that intention. Mr. Pritchard bought his property for the same reason, so that he could build units on it. They are building not just to rent their units. They are also owner-occupants. 391 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Mayor Bay. As Mr. Pritchard had stated, for many years in Anaheim when property was zoned on the General Plan people made some very important economic decisions based on that General Plan. He (Pritchard) made a strong point about property rights and that the zoning is very crucial to the value of the property. He (Bay) does not take down-zoning lightly and he feels strongly there should be no amendment to the General Plan in this area. Councilman Hunter. Ail of the residents on the 1100 block of South Center Street have indicated that they want the designation to remain C-G. He agrees with the Mayor relative to the proposed amendment, it is not the people who asked that the zoning be changed. He favors leaving the area zoned as it is at the present time. Councilman Ehrle. He is also opposed to any change at this time and does not favor changing a General Plan that people have counted on. Councilwoman Kaywood. If they do nothing at this time she presumes the 1200 zoning allows people wanting to put in high density apartments to do that. Her understanding is the residents wanted to be redesignated so that they can have single family homes. The south portion of Center Street can remain commercial. Otherwise, they will be allowing the 1200 zone to stand and allowing apartments to go in and she is opposed to that. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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 bass of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a si§nificant effect on the environment · Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CAI{RIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-151) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-151 for adoption denying General Plan Amendment No. 239. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENY~qG GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 239. 392 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-151 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes (4:58 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (5:05 p.m.) 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-34, VARIANCE NO. 3741 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLiCANT/OWNER: Vivian Ida Paulson and Mildred M. Moore 25i7 Highway 35 Valley Park Manasquan, New Jersey 08736 Jerome R. Drukin 1425 East Lincoln Avenue, Suite Q Anaheim, California 92805 LOCATION/REQUEST: Property located at 111 and 115 South Harding Avenue, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400 or a less intense zone with waivers of a) maximum fence height, b) minimum building site area per dwelling unit and c) maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 6-unit "affordable" apartment complex. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-61 granted Reclassification No. 87-88-34; Resolution No. PC88-62 granted Variance No. 3741; approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARJR4G SET ON: Review of the Planning Commission's decisions was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of March 15~ 1988 and public hearing scheduled this dat~. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 31, 1988. Posting of property March 31, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1988. PLANNING STA~F INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 29, 1988. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Jerry Drukin, Agent, 1425 East Lincoln, Anaheim, was present to answer questions. 393 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned the project is breaking another residential neighborhood into apartments. She feels three bedroom, two bath units at 1278 square feet each will likely get six adults in one unit - 2.5 spaces a unit for parking will be inadequate. Jerry Orukin. He first gave a chronology of events on the development of the subject property. It is currently general planned as medium density employing RM-1200 or some less intense zone. He felt the RM-1200 would be reasonable as a buffer to Lincoln but it was not. At the Planning Commission hearing, the community was present and made it clear that RM-1200 was too much for that portion of land. He then scaled his project down to six units after meeting with the neighbors a second time. He also eliminated access from the alley which the neighbors did not feel was appropriate and created an even better buffer from the commercial and the activities in the alley to the other occupancies on Harding, that being the eight foot block wall along the alley. He came up with condominium style units with garages making a very desirable type project. There is no tandem parking, and it is a relatively low density type of project. He has also set the buildings back about 25 feet whereas the Code requires only 15 feet. Pat Fitkin, 408 South Beach Boulevard. She submitted color coded maps of the area to the Council showing surrounding land uses which she also briefed. Attached to the map were copies of photographs showing a two-story, multi-family unit at 122-124 South Topanga which was located to the rear of the subject property. Jerry Drukin. He explained that the area is a transitional one and many of the older homes on Harding have been converted to duplexes and multiple family uses. Dwelling units on Grand are over 200 feet away from his structure. This development will not impact Grand Avenue. The lots are in a unique physical location in the block. Relative to the concern that he algo not tie into the private water district serving the houses on Harding, he stipulated at the Planning Commission that he would bring in City water from Lincoln to serve his property and if it is not too expensive he will bring in a larger line. He has filed an agreement with the Housing Authority on the affordable units. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Pat Pauk, Gallagher Properties, Huntington Beach. She represents the seller who is in a nursing home back east. The property has been on the market for about a year. It is vacant and has been boarded up. It has been a nuisance in the community. It will be an improvement in the neighborhood to have attractive buildings on the property. 394 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Anne Druiff, 123 South Grand. She owns the duplex at 124 Harding. She has no objection to a six unit complex or even two stories. Her concern is with the size of the units. If three bedrooms, there will undoubtedly be children. The recreation space for children will be inadequate. The children will then play on the sidewalk or street. It is a busy corner. Safety is her concern. Mark Daniels, 318i West E1 Monte. He does not object to the fact that the area needs to develop with the times; however, it is too much to ask from a street that size to put that much development in such a small area. More traffic will be generated and it will be a detriment. He would not object to a duplex on each of the lots. Tom Davis, 121 South Grand. He objects to the two stories. Other proposals have been made for projects that were two stories. All the other units around are duplexes and they would like to keep it that way. There are many older homes on Harding and when the owners pass away, people will buy the properties to build larger complexes. If this one goes, within five years there will be three or four more. Recreational space for children is about the size of a large patio. There is a tremendous amount of traffic on the street. They do not need larger complexes in the area and would prefer duplexes. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Jerry Drukin. He either rebutted or countered the comments made by those in opposition. He emphasized that under their apartment management they will maintain a very high quality development. Occupants on Harding have not expressed a great deal of opposition. The property's unique physical location makes it hard to compare it to any other parcels on the street. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilman Pickler. He feels that with density bo~uses they allow too many units to be built. He favors affordable units but feels the extra density does not enhance an area. The adjacent lot will want to do the same thing and then an area becomes inundated. Councilwoman Kaywood. There could be 18 adults living in the complex and it only has 15 parking spaces and also will allow children under the age of two. If this project is approved, they can expect to see the rest of the street and maybe the whole area go the same way. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, 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 395 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRI~O. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-152 and 88R-153) Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-152 for adoption approving Reclassification No. 87-88-34 and Resolution No. 88R-153 for adoption granting Variance No. 374i approving the findings of the City Planning Commission and subject to the conditions imposed. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROViNG RECLASSIFICAYION NO. 87-88-34. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VAR/A~CE NO. 3741. Roil Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88R-152 and 88R-153: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Bay NOES: COUNCIL MF~ERS: Kaywood, Pickler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-152 and 88R-153 duly passed and adopted. : PUBLIC HEARING- VARIANCE NO. 3755 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS/APPLICANT: Louis L. Neuman and Alice I. Neuman 526 North Citron Anaheim, California 92805 AGENT: Mohammed Shashaani 9 Coventry Newport Beach, California 92660 REQUEST/LOCATION: Property is approximately .04Z acres south and west of the southwest corner of Diamond Street and West Street at 115, 117 and 117 1/2 NorthWest Street with requested Code waivers of a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit and b) maximum building height to construct a 16-unit, 3-story, "affordable" apartment building under authority of Government Code Section 65915. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-66 granted Variance No. 3755; approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayor Pro Tem Irv Pickler at the meeting of March 15, 1988 and public hearing scheduled this date. 396 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIK~TS MET BY: Publication in the Anaheim Bulletin March 31, 1988 Posting of property March 31, 1988 Mailing to property owners within 300 Feet - March 31, 1988 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 29, 1988. APPLICANT'S STATEM~qT: Mr. Mike Yamin, for Mr. Shashaani, was present to answer questions. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilman Pickier. He received calls from residents expressing concern that too much is being proposed on too little property and the fact that the project is three stories. He feels 16 units is too much for the property. Mike Yamin, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 740 Newport Beach. The zoning for the property is RM-1200 and qualifies for 15.375 units. They have asked to raise the .375 for one affordable unit. The construction is high quality, aesthetically pleasing and will have extensive landscaping on West Street. Exposure on West Street as shown on the posted rendering is two stories. The property to the south will be a shopping center to be built by the owner of the project. To the west is RM-1200, to the north RM-1200, to the east across West Street is the Anaheim High School parking lot. They are about 400 to 500 feet from any single family zoning. The project will be very attractive and will replace five buildings presently on the property that are approximately 70 years old. It will be an upgrade to the neighborhood. He confirmed on Council questioning that two stories will be facing West Street and three stories will be to the rear facing the alley. Parking is underneath the building. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Margaret Carter, 1224West Pearl Street. It is a high density traffic area. The intersection of Lincoln Avenue and West Street is ~eavily traveled. It will make an already existing problem worse. She questions whether the recreation area will be ~ufficient for the 16 units proposed. The major concern is relative to the increase in population density that will occur without any regard to the impact on the area as a whole. It is a matter of quality of life. She submitted a petition containing approximately 43 signatures of residents in the Pearl Street area who are in opposition. Gall Berkowitz, 221 North West Street. She quoted from a newspaper article a statement made by Mr. Caldwell, Chairman ofthe Anaheim Neighborhood Association, who stated that, "apartments can deteriorate quickly and attract unsavory 397 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. transients". She has seen an increase of transients in the area. There are a lot more transient people in Anaheim walking the neighborhoods from downtown Anaheim. The project will increase the already serious traffic problem on West Street. Three story units are very unattractive, especially with parking so visible off West Street. Hazel Warner, corner of Carlton and Pearl (1945). She has seen many changes in the area. Many residents have stayed with their homes because they have great pride in the area. She is concerned with the proposed height of the project. The developer only wants to go down one foot for the garage. The five houses on the property now are nicely kept. People with small incomes live in the area but they take care of it. She would like to have the area left as is for a while longer and not allow developers to build three stories. Too many units are being proposed. June McIntyre, 917 West Sycamore. She is concerned with the affordable unit being proposed. ~e project is too dense. People are trying to upgrade the area. If this project is allowed, it will be a detriment to that trend. Packing too many people in apartments will not help the area. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Dave Prichard, resident at North and West Street. He is disturbed to think that there are people who want to spend $1.5 million in their area and it seems to be questionable. They should be welcomed and urged to go forward. Relative to the project, he questions the driveway coming out on to West Street. If it comes out on to Diamond some of the traffic could also go the other way and get back out to Lincoln. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Mike Yamin. Regarding density, they are not changing the zone or askin~ for high density. The property is zoned RM-1200 and they are just asking for one affordable unit. The setback is a minimum of 20 feet from West Street. They are only planning one level of parking and not two. The driveway goes from the alley to the property and not to West Street. They will enlarge the alley. He clarified that there is going to be a shopping center on the Lincoln frontage and ten more feet will be dedicated on Lincoln so that Lincoln will be enlarged to allow for a right turn lane. Councilwoman Kaywood. It stated in the conditions that the Variance was granted with stipulation to lower the parking garage an additional 1-1/2 to 2 feet. She asked if that would be visible from West Street. 398 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Mike Yamtn. Parking will not be seen from West Street or Diamond Street. The only exposure is from the alley side where the three story will be. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. ENVIRONM~iNTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-154) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-154 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3755, upholding the findings of the City Planning commission and subject to conditions imposed. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-154: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3755. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 88R-154: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler, Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-154 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUB!,!C MEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2987 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMF~T: OWNER/APPLICANT: Alfred Escobasa 895 South East Street Anaheim, California 92805 AGENT: Jamshid Zaman 16116 Dickens Street Encino, California 91436 REQUEST/LOCATION: To permit a drive-through restaurant with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces required at 895 South East Street. 399 City Mm1 1, Anmheim~ C~!tfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12~ 1988, 1:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-67 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2987. requirement was also denied; approved EIRNegative Declaration. Waiver of Code HEARING SET ON: The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Jerome Buckmelter on behalf of his client Mr. J. Zaman, agent. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in the Anaheim Bulletin March 31, 1988. Posting on property March 31, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1988. PLANNING .STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission of February 29, 1988. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Jerome Buckmelter, Planning Consultant, speaking for his client, Mr. Jamshid Zaman, Agent. The reason the project was denied at the Planning Commission level was due to the fact that the owner was counting on his architect to represent him, but the architect was unable to be present. The owner could not represent himself adequately. There were also two people in opposition who presented a petition. Their reasons for opposition, in his opinion, were not valid. He submitted a set of photographs which depicted the subject property, surrounding land uses and the general area. His client is not responsible for the unsightly condition of the property and the project will correct that problem. A restaurant at that location will serve not only the residents, but also the large industrial area surrounding it. There are no restaurants in the immediate vicinity. The project will especially serve the industrial community and prevent traffic from going through the residential area. He then further described surrounding land uses working from a map of the area. The drive-through will be a 4500 square foot restaurant with 70 seats, 68 parking spaces and a line for cars to queue to accommodate 13 cars. The building will be over a one half million dollar investment. There are several other uses they could have on the property instead of the proposed use, as a matter of right. This will be a transitional use. Traffic was a concern and one of the reasons for denial. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and concurs that it will not create an impact on traffic. The number of parking spaces used at the peak hour would be 52. The facts support that the use will not create an adverse impact on the community. This use would be the least detrimental to the neighborhood. They are requesting the Conditional Use Permit and will accept any reasonable conditions the Council may wish to impose. 400 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN OPPOSITION: Brian Thomas, 1206 East Hampshire Street. He lives across the street. He had previously submitted a petition in opposition (previously made a part of the record). The people who are going to be right next to the restaurant in the commercial buildings do not want the restaurant either. His petition contained 155 names and the reasons for their opposition were also listed. He also had submitted a letter from the Superintendent of the Anaheim City School District, Meliton Lopez, expressing concern over the fact that the corner of East Street and Vermont is heavily used as a street crossing for many children attending Roosevelt School and the potential traffic hazard a drive-through restaurant may cause (letter dated February 25, 1988 previously made a part of the record). He then briefed the reasons for the opposition of the residents of the area as listed on the petition - overwhelming danger to their children and lives, no special favors should be granted, congestion on their streets, excessive noise and trash. Bob Albin, 1207 East Topaz. The property has been an eyesore. They have put up with a lot of traffic. It is quiet on weekends. If the restaurant is allowed they will have problems with the increased traffic and will then have to put up with traffic seven days a week for 17 or 18 hours a day. It will not enhance the property value of the residential area. It is ail residential on the east side of East Street and they would like to keep it that way. Cal Pebley, 609 Tudor. He has owned the industrial buildings in the area for 28 years and for all that time his tenants have been able to go somewhere to get lunch. There are many restaurants only 1/2 mile away. There is no need for a restaurant in the area. Property was taken from him to widen East Street. There is no parking on East Street so that two lanes of traffic can be accommodated. Vermont is only one lane going each way. The street is overcrowded now. He estimates over 200 City trucks a day travel that street going to and from the City facility. If they disagree with the Planning Commission recommendation of denial, for safety reasons, they should not be allowed to come off Vermont. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Jerome Buckmelter. He countered or refuted the concerns expressed by those in opposition. The proposed use is one which will be compatible. They will be a part of the solution regarding traffic since people will not be driving the area to find a restaurant. There is also no need for children to cross a secondary highway at that location since it is industrial in that area. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. 401 City Hall, Anoheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Ehrle. He could not disagree more with Mr. Buckmelter. East Street is not the place for a drive-through. He named the many places there are to eat in the immediate vicinity. The corner can be used for other purposes but not a drive-through. 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-155) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 88R-155 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2987, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-155: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PER_MIT NO. 2987. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 88R-155: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler, Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-155 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes (6:56 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meetin8 to order, all Council Members being present (7:05 p.m.) 185: PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 88-01 AND EIR 283: REQUEST BY: Woodcrest Development, Inc. (Developer) The Development Agreement to be considered is concerning the development of 325 acres located southeast of the southerly terminus of Weir Canyon Road and southwest of Santa Aha Canyon Road, bounded on the northwest by the East Hills Planned Community, on the northeast by Santa Aha Canyon Road, on the southeast by Oak Hills Ranch and on the southwest by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills; the property is further described as Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch). The development area consists of up to 1,119 residential units, 20 acres of commercial uses, 133 acres of general open space, including two public parks, a 19-acre junior high school site and a police substation. 402 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-88 recommended a determination that EIR 283, with Statement of Overriding Considerations by the City Council on February 8, 1988, in connection with Specific Plan No. 88-01 is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation required for the adoption of Development Agreement No. 88-01; Resolution No. PC88-89 determined that the developer has demonstrated eligibility to enter into Development Agreement No. 88-01; Resolution No. PC88-90 recommended that the City Council introduce and subsequently adopt an ordinance to adopt Development Agreement No. 88-0i. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in the Anaheim Bulletin April 1, 1988 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1988 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 28, 1988. Joel Fick, Planning Director. He briefed the March 28, 1988 staff report relative to the Development Agreement being presented to the Council today bringing to fruition an agreement to further govern the implementation of the previously approved Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan. The major provisions of the Agreement will require the developer to either construct and/or financially participate in numerous on and off-site public improvements to insure the provision of necessary public services. The term of the Agreement is eight years, commencing on the effective date of the authorizing ordinance for the Agreement. As proposed, it is the result of extensive negotiations between City staff and the developer and represents significant contributions by the developer in guaranteeing, enhancing and accelerating the provision of public facilities, improvements and services in the hill and canyon area. Frank Elfend, Elfend and A~sociates, Planning Consultant, Sycamore Canyon Project. He was present with representatives from Woodcrest who had worked with staff. He expressed sincere appreciation to the Planning Department, particularly Planning Director Joel Fick, Senior Planner Mary McCloskey and also Deputy City Attorney Joe Fletcher as well as City Attorney Jack White and City Manager Bob Simpson. The subject document represents several months of lengthy negotiations. They believe that the City, developer and community will benefit from the provision of public infrastructure improvements at an earlier date. Woodcrest has agreed to provide several essential public improvements at an earlier date to facilitate enhanced area-wide levels of service for police protection, fire protection and traffic and circulation. It will further insure the City that the parks are developed, open space will be provided, the project and area-wide water needs will be met and that the remaining 120 conditions of approval will also be implemented. He then discussed further what the Development Agreement will do and the financial commitment that his client is making as it 403 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. relates to the Development Agreement. In concluding, he stated that the Agreement requires the developer of the Sycamore Canyon Project to accelerate those essential public improvements at a cost in excess of $4,000,000. Before a single home is occupied, Woodcrest will have made an investment in the project in excess of $37,000,000. COUNCIL ACTION: There being no other persons who wished to speak Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Mayor Bay. This type of negotiation with the Planning Department and legal department shows a perfect example of cooperation that can occur between developers and the City for the good of the whole community. It is a managed development, managed by the City and the developer for the good of all. It is the kind of agreement that will make it impossible for a no-growth initiative to occur in the City of Anaheim as long as growth is managed well. Councilmembers gave their comments on the proposed Agreement and thanked those involved for the time and effort spent in bringing this Agreement to the Council today. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that previously approved EIR No. 283 with Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with Specific Plan No. 88-01 is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation required for the adoption of Development Agreement No. 88-01. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIe. ORDINANCE NO. 4923: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4923 approving Development Agreement No. 88-01, for introduction. ORDINANCE NO. 4923, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (i) APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND WOODCKEST DEVELOPMENT, INC., (ii) FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AidE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~ AND (iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYORAND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEH~F OF THE CITY. 185: PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT AGKEEMENT NO. 88-02, EIR 273, REQUEST BY PRESLEY COMPANY: The Development Agreement to be considered is concerning 816 acres generally located north of Canyon Rim Road and east of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the north by the East Hills Planned Community, on the east by Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) and Oak Hills Ranch, on the southeast by the Irvine Company property, on the west by the original Anaheim Hills Planned community and further described as The Highlands at Anaheim Hills. The development area consists of up to 2,147 residential units, 8 acres of commercial uses, a 5-acre park site, an 8-acre elementary school site and approximately 292 acres of open space. 404 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-91 recommended a determination that EIR No. 273 previously certified with a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the City Council on June 23, 1987, in connection with Specific Plan No. 87-01 is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation required for the adoption of Development Agreement No. 88-02; Resolution PC88-92 determined that the developer has demonstrated eligibility to enter into Development Agreement No. 88-02; PC88-93 recommended that the City Council introduce and subsequently adopt an ordinance to adopt Development Agreement No. 88-02. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIKEMA~TS MET BY: Publication in the Anaheim Bulletin March 31, 1988 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 31, 1988 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 28, 1988. Joel Fick, Planning Director. He briefed the Staff Report of March 28, 1988, also noting that the subject Agreement is similar to that addressed in the prior hearing (Development Agreement No. 88-01-Woodcrest). He is incorporating his previous comments by reference but will highlight the major differences between the two. He then briefed those differences as contained in the subject Staff Report. Since the project is larger, revenues generated in the phasing of the project are different. The length of term of the contract is ten years with a provision for a possible two year extension based upon performance. Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 1151 Dove Street, Newport Beach. The cooperation and assistance from staff was equally as commendable on this project. He then briefed the Council on the financial differences between this Development Agreement and the other Agreement (Woodcrest). In the case of the Presley Co., the Agreement will require Presley to accelerate the essential public service improvements as stated by Mr. Fick at an excess of $4,000,000. Before a single home is occupied on the Highlands project, Presley will have made an investment in the first phase of the project in excess of $32,000,000 and a total investment of $77,000,000. Putting both developments together (Woodcrest and Presley) there will be approximately $100,000,000 expended in costs prior to a single unit being occupied on those projects. It is a benefit to the City, community and the development community. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Mayor Bay. He feels just as strongly about the cooperation between the City and the developer on this project as on the other; Councilmembers concurred. 405 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Pickier moved to determine that EIR No. 273 previously certified with a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with Specific Plan No. 87-01 is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation required for the adoption of Development Agreement No. 88-02. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickier offered Ordinance No. 4922 for introduction regarding Development Agreement No. 88-02. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4922: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (i) APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE PRESLEY COMPANIES, (ii) FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND (iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYORAND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FORAND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. ZONLqG ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Zoning Administrator at the meeting of March 24, i988 (decision date of March 31, 1988), pertaining to the following applications, were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3759, CATEGORICALI.Y EXEMPT, CLASS 3. Michael B. Roach and Karen Z. Roach 5885 Trapper Trail Anaheim, California 92807 AGENT: Jim Youk, Custom Home Planner 1107 "E" Chapman Orange, California 92666 LOCAIION: 6944 East Overlook Terrace. The variance is for a waiver of maximum structural height to construct a two-st6ry, 36-foot 6-inch high, single family residence. APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, ZAB8-14. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3767, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3. Marilyn K. Salsbury and Glen J. Salsbury 249 South Hillcrest Street Anaheim, California 92807 LOCATION: 1130 South Tamarisk Drive. The Variance is for a waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 35-foot high single-family residence. APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, ZA88-15. 3. VAILIANCE NO. 3770, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1. OWNERS: Fred Palmieri and Judy A. Palmieri 110 Strada Place Anaheim, California 92807 406 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. AGENT: Randall Smith, DMS Construction 417 Associated Road, Suite A-250 Brea, California 92631 LOCATION: 110 South Strada Place The Variance is for a waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 1,332 square-foot, 30.5 foot high room addition to a single family residence. APPRGVED IN PART by the Zoning Administrator, ZA88-16. The Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by Mr. Palmieri and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2844 - EXTENSION OF TIME. Request from Savoy M. Bellavia, Vice President of Hutton Development, to grant a one-year extension of time (retroactive to November 25, 1987) to expire on November 25, 1988, to permit a gas station with a mini-mart and a car wash on approximately 19.7 acres of CL(SC) zoned property at the northwest corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road with Code waiver of minimum structural setback. Councilman Bay moved to approve the requested extension of time to expire November 25, 1988. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3611 - EXTENSION OF TIME. Request from Dennis Diamond, Project Manager for Young Lion Development, to grant a one-year extension of time (retroactive to February 3, 1988) to expire on February 3, 1989, to construct a 34-unit affordable apartment complex on property at 2240 West Lincoln Avenue, with certain Code waivers. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that approximately 45 to 50% of the parking spaces are tandem. Councilman Bay moved to approve the requested extension of time on Variance No. 36il to expire February 3, 1989. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED. 6. ORDINANCE NO. 4919 - LIMITATION OF TANDEM PARKING: Amending Title 18 Zoning of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to limitation of Tandem Parking. Councilman Pickler. He is going to vote no on the proposed ordinance. If they want to cut down on building, they can do that but not cut down the parking. He has no problem with tandem parking as it stands today. He also has no evidence that tandem parking has hurt any project or heard of any problems. Neither staff nor the Traffic Engineer has indicated it is not working. He feels they are rushing into something that is not necessary at this time. Councilman Hunter. He agrees with what Councilman Pickier has stated. 407 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 12, 1988, 1:30 P.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4919) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the Ordinance. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4919 for adoption, which failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Bay ABSENY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 108: AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 1001: Application submitted by Seiyu Yogi, 5035 Green Street, Anaheim, California, to permit a 50-machine arcade on property located at 2940 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite "C". The application was approved by the Planning Department on April 4, 1988. Councilman Pickler. He expressed his concern regarding the subject application with that many devices located in a shopping center. City Attorney White confirmed that it would require a public hearing to reconsider the application. Councilman Pickler thereupon set the matter for a public hearing which will be held at a later date. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:45 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 408