1988/05/24City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MA/qAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
SENIOR PLANNER: Greg Hastings
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:00 p.m. on May 20, 1988 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball
Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No.
40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership, O.C.S.C.C.
No. 46-96-59; Espino Barros vs. Garza, et al., CV87 2962.
b. To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.6.
c. To discuss personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its Attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
e. To consider such other matters as are orally announced by the
City Attorney~ City Manager or City Council prior to such recess
unless the motion to recess indicates any of the matters will not be
considered in Closed Session.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:02 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.
(1:54 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Stephen Mather, 1st Presbyterian Church, gave the
Invocation.
532
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tem Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Senior Citizen's Day in Anaheim, May 28, 1988,
Flag Day in Anaheim, June 14, 1988.
Mary Atwell accepted the Senior Citizen's Day proclamation.
119: PRESENTATION - MISS ANAHEIM: Earline Jones, Executive Director of the
Miss Anaheim Pageant presented the new Miss Anaheim, Kathy Kurtz.
Mayor Bay and Council Members personally greeted Miss Kurtz who was presented
with roses and also wished her well in the upcoming pageant, the next step on
the road to Miss America.
119: DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and Presented to Tom Vance, the City's
Risk Manager, congratulating him on becoming president of PRIMA, the Public
Risk and Insurance Management Association, a nationwide organization.
MINUTES: It was the Council consensus that approval of the minutes from the
meeting of April 2~, 1988 and the Adjourned Regular meeting of May 3, 1988
(held May 10, 1988) be deferred one week since they were just submitted to the
Council.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,647,389.27, in
accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the followin~ resolutions on
the Consent Calendar were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 88R-204
through 88R-207, both inclusive)
Counciiman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAG~2i/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 88R-204 through 88R-207, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against tb~ City and action taken
as recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Lee A. Schlosser for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 7, 1988.
533
City Hall, AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Casey Gill for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about January 16,1988.
c. Claim submitted by Rosa Carillo, 0maly Maldonado & Amalia Chavez for
bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
February 4, 1988.
d. Claim submitted by Rojelio Carrillo, Jr. for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 4, i988.
e. Claim submitted by George Dewey for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 4, 1988.
f. Claim submitted by Delma Gonzales, Wences Gonzales, 'Carlos Sosa,
Maria Sosa, Julietta Gonzales for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 4, 1988.
g. Claim submitted by Suzette Gregory, Jon Gregory, Virginia Gregory,
James Lauzon for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about February 4, 1988.
h. Claim submitted by Margaret Torres for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about ~'ebruary 4, 1988.
i. Claim submitted by Jadila Uribe for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 4, 1988.
j. Claim submitted by David Edward Beiter for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 1, 1988.
k. Claim submitted by Marlene Bridges .for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 28, 1988.
1. Claim submitted by Daryl C. Hall for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 30, 1988.
m. Claim submitted by Richard Fernandez for property damage sustained
purportedly due to action~ of tha City on or about April 5, 19§§.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment
Commission meeting held April 20, 1988.
AJ. 107: Receiving and filing the Building Division Statistical Report for
the month ending April 30, 1988.
A4. 156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and
Cleaz'ance Analysis Report dated May ~, 1988.
AS. 158: Authorizing the payment of $4,505 to the owner Larry R. Haupert for
the cost of replacement of the sign located at 750 North Anaheim Boulevard,
which is in the right of way for the North Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening
Project.
534
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 24~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
A6. 158: Authorizing the payment of $51,340 to Larry R. Haupert for
modifications to his building located at 740 North Anaheim Boulevard to remove
a portion of his building that is located within the new right of way for the
North Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening Project.
A7. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 12665 which is located on the
north side of Mohler Drive, east of the intersection with Country Hill Road,
and approving the Subdivision Agreement with Trider Corporation of Newport
Beach, subject to approval of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
A8. 155: Approving a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA findings for
certain actions relating to the Hilton Hotel enclosed parking facility,
located North of Convention Way, approximately 800 feet west of Harbor
Boulevard.
A9. 175.123: Approving license agreements with Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company, permitting the City to
construct, maintain and operate 12,000 volt three phase power lines over the
tracks and premises in conjunction with the Sharp Substation expansion
project. A consideration fee of $400 is to be paid to Santa Fe and $1500 to
Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Al0. 175.123: Approving an increase in legal fees, for services provided by
the Law Firm of Spiegel and McDiarmid, in connection with rate cases before
the Federal Energy Regulating Committee (FERC), (effective July 1, 1988).
All. 123: Approving an agreement with S. Leonard Auerbach and Associates, at
a cost of ~60,500, for professional theatrical consultant and design services
for the master planning and design of sound and lighting improvements for the
Pearson Park Amphitheatre.
Al2. 123: Approving the Affordable Housing Agreement with Tung-Ming and Anna
Y. Y. Chang, Kuo-Kang and Chih-Ying Chang, Kuo-Chi and Lo-Ying Chang, and
Kuo-Wei and Ting-Ji Chang, owners of 404-420 North Lemon Street, for 3 out of
24 affordable units.
Al3. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to the Anaheim Public
Improvement Corporation in the amount of ~42,400 for Genesys Human Resource
Planning System Software, to provide reports and analysis of the City's
personnel structure.
Al4. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation for an additional amount of $795.14
bringing the revised purchase order (PO 46189G) total to $15,795.14 for one
used passenger vehicle for the Chief of Police.
Al5. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by
the Director of Finance for nine months ended March 31, 1988.
Ai6. 124: P~ESOLUTION NO. 88R-204: A tLESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-188, APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND
535
City Hali~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
DIP. ECTING EXECUTION OF CERTAIN LEASE FINANCING DOCUMENTS, APPROVING A PURCHASE
AGREEMENT, APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY
OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFERING AND SALE OF CERTIFICATES OF
£AKTICIPA~ION, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT
THERETO. (Certificates of Participation - Parking Facilities Refinancing
Project - not to exceed $60 million.)
Such Resolution will, in addition to the above:
124: Approve a variable interest rate, and approve the form and authorize the
Mayor, the City Manager, or the Finance Director to execute and the City Clerk
to attest to the lease agreement, sublease agreement, trust agreement,
Reimbursement Agreement, and the Remarketing Agent Agreement.
124: Approve the form and authorize the execution of a Certificate Purchase
Agreement with Security Pacific Merchant Bank and Bank of America National
~rust and Savings Association as Trustee.
124: Approve the form and authorize distribution of a Preliminary Official
Statement, an Official Notice of Sale and an Official Bid Form relatin~ to the
financing.
i24: When prepared, authorize the execution and distribution of a Final
0fficial Statement.
124: Authorize the Mayor, the City Manager, the Finance Director and the City
Clerk. to execute such other documents as may be necessary and appropriate in
connection with such financing.
Al7. 128: Approving agreements with Seidler-Fitzgerald, Financial Advisors,
and Jones Hall Hill & White, Bond Counsel for the Sale of 1988/89 Tax and
Revenue Anticipation Notes, ~10,000,000.
128: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-205: A RESOLUTION C~LLING FOR BIDS FOR NOTES,
APPROVING THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT, OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE AND
BID FO~4, A_ND AUTHORIZING NAD DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RJZSPECT THEF~ETO.
128: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-206: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF
ANAHEIM PROVIDING FOR THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988/1989 AND THE
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF 1988 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES THEREFOR.
128: Approving Official Notice of Sale, and Official Statement.
Al8. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-207: 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.
Al9. 153/117/152: Approving the revised Employees Deferred Compensation Plan
Document, and authorizing the City Treasurer as Pian Administrator to execute
all participation agreements on behalf of the Employees and other eligible
officials and officers, except that any agreement for the City Treasurer shall
be executed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
536
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88R-204 through 88R-207:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-204 through 88R-207, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
123: SETTLEMENT AGREE~NT - ANAHEIM HOTEL PARTNERSHIP AND SUNBELT SAVINGS
ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: City Attorney White. The Council today received a
draft of a proposed settlement agreement relating to existing litigation with
the Anaheim Hotel Partnership. This document is currently in draft form and
will be subject to final negotiation of language as well as some exhibits.
There is a need to act on the matter that has arisen since the time of the
posting of the agenda on last Friday.
Councilman Bay moved to determine that need to take action upon the following
matter arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda; thereofre, waiving the
72-hour posting requirement pursuant to Government Code Section
54954.2(b) (2). Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: Councilman Pickler moved that the Council (1) find and determine that
the sale and conveyance of real and personal property as more particularly
described in that certain settlement agreement and release by and among the
City of Anaheim, Community Center Authority, Anaheim Hotel Partnership, &
Sunbelt Savings Association of Texas, without advertising for bids, is in the
best interests of the City and, (2) waive the provisions of Section 1222 of
the City Charter for the reasons stated. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
123: Councilman Pickler moved that the Council approve that certain
settlement agreement and release by and among the City of Anaheim, Community
Center Authority, Anaheim Hotel Partnership, and Sunbelt Savings Association
of Texas, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement and
release and all other deeds, instruments and documents necessary to carry out
the terms of said agreement and release. Gouncilman Bay seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
129/107: DISCUSSION - FIRE SPRINKLERS: (1) To consider enacting an ordinance
requiring fire sprinklers in all existing buildings fifty-five (55) feet or
taller by January 1, 1992, and/or also, in all newly constructed industrial
and commercial buildings, and/or in all multi-family dwellings consisting of
two or more (R-3) units and, (2) to consider a requirement for fire sprinkler
systems in newly-constructed single family dwellings to be included in the
proposed 1988 Uniform Fire Code.
Fire Chief Jeff Bowman referred to his report dated May 17, 1988, recommending
that the Council consider enacting ordinances covering the four following
areas: (1) an ordinance requiring fire sprinklers in all existing buildings
537
City Hall, An-hmim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
fifty-five (55) feet or taller in the City of Anaheim by January 1, 1992;
(2) an ordinance requiring fire sprinklers in all newly constructed industrial
and commercial buildings in the City of Anaheim; (3) an ordinance requiring
fire sprinklers in all multi-family dwellings consisting of two or more (R-3)
units; (4) consider adopting the 1988 Uniform Fire Code when presented, and
including therein a requirement to include newly constructed single family
dwellings as occupancies requiring fire sprinkler systems.
A discussion followed the recommendations and Page 2 and 3 of the report
clarified Fire Department's position on each of the recommendations (report
made a part of the record). Chief Bowman then narrated an extensive slide
presentation which covered all of the areas of concern with regard to fire
sprinklers and how many of those problems and concerns could be mitigated and
reduced by the installation of fire sprinklers.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to address the issue.
Mr. Gerold Bushore, 548 South West Street. He is concerned with the costs
that will be added to new homes if sprinklers are required. He favors the
idea that with single-family dwellings that it be optional whether or not
sprinklers are installed. It should not be mandated.
Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates. His understanding is that the Council
today was merely going to receive the staff report and then give the
development community an opportunity to provide input. They would like to
have the opportunity to sit down with the Fire Chief and discuss the matter.
Mayor Bay. He likes the idea of options as well. There should be a public
hearing and more detail given before the Council makes a decision on the issue.
Councilman Ehrle. He would like to direct the City Attorney and staff to
draft an ordinance relative to commercial and industrial buildings, but he is
not ready to take any action at this point regarding single-family dwellings
before receiving more input and additional data.
City Manager, Bob Simpson. There is a current ordinance requiring sprinklers
in buildings of 6,000 or more square feet or any building of 3 or more stories
in height. There are two different things at issue, retrofitting existing
high-rise buildings and second, any consideration for having sprinklers either
as an option or as a requirement for single-family residents. He would
suggest that the Council charge staff with going out and negotiating with the
development community or any other interested parties and bringing back to the
Council an ordinance that is acceptable to all rather than debating the matter
in Council Chambers. It is an emotional issue and it will continue to be.
Issue staff the same charge as the Council did when the current high-rise
ordinance was passed which was without any dissenting vote from any
organizations or associations. If staff cannot deliver that again, they will
not pass the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that staff be charged with negotiating with tt~e
development community or any other interested parties and subsequently bring
back to the Council an ordinance that is acceptable to all. Councilman Hunter
538
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay asked for clarification that the motion is
charging staff with going out and looking to retrofitting the high-rise
buildings and the second part was relative to single-family dwellings.
However, there was no mention of multi-family.
City Manager Simpson. That will be included as part of the residential
ordinance. Multiple family is considered residential. He further answered
for tha Mayor that he believes it illogical and not economically feasible to
try to retrofit anything other than high-rise buildings. Staff will come back
with an ordinance that is acceptable to all concerned and one that he believes
Council can live with. He further confirmed that the retrofit would involve
those buildings over 55 feet but new construction only in multiple-family and
new construction only in single-family. Fire sprinklers are required at
present in buildings more than 3-stories high. The 55-foot distinction is for
complete life support systems.
Councilman Bay. He feels the motion covers too much for him to be able to
support it at this time. It is for a retrofit in one case and new
construction only in two other cases but it does not address industrial and
commercial buildings that are 6,000 square feet that were built before the
existing ordinance.
Fire Chief Bowman. He clarified that he is suggesting that if an ordinance is
drafted that it include all four areas recommended in his May 17, 1988 staff
report.
Councilman Ehrle. He also agrees that the recommendation is too broad at this
time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amended as follows: That staff
is charged with negotiating with the development community or any other
interested parties and subsequently will bring back to the Council an
ordinance that is acceptable to all; ordinance to include the four
recommendations stated in the May 17, 1988 report from the Fire Chief.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter, Kaywood and Pickler
Ehrle and Bay
None
Mayor Bay. He urged as the information becomes available, that it be given to
the Chamber of Commerce and the business community.
127/114: PETITION INITIATIVES - ADMISSIONS TAX AND MOBILE HOME PARK RENT
STABILIZATION: Councilman Pickler stated that he would like the Council to go
on record in opposition to the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization initiative which
has been filed with the City.
539
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter. He reiterated his previous comments that it is
inappropriate for the Council to take any such action.
Councilman Pickler moved that the Council go on record in opposition to the
petition initiative regarding Mobile Home Rent Stabilization. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Hunter gave further comments relative to
his opposition emphasizing that the issue is not even on the ballot at this
point. He will be willing to express his view if the issue eventually becomes
a ballot measure. For a governmental body to get together and vote on an
issue before it is even on the ballot has a "chilling" effect and he feels it
is prior restraint.
Council Members gave additional input relative to the issue specifically
relating to the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization issue at the conclusion of
which, Councilman Ehrle stated he will not support a stand in opposition at
this time; Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that a successful
initiative would undoubtely bring an end to Mobile Home Parks in the City of
Anaheim.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion regarding the petition
initiative on Mobile Home Rent Stabilization:
~oll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter
ABSF2~T: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Councilman Pickler moved that the Council go on record in opposition to the
petition initiative regarding the establishment of an Admissions Tax in the
City of Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Ehrle stated he does not believe the
Council should take a position at this time even though, as he has stated in
the past, he is in opposition to an Admissi0ns Tax.
Councilman Hunter. When the issue first arose he sent telegrams the first day
he heard about it to Disneyland, the Angels, Rams, etc. stating his
opposition. However, he is not going to vote on this motion either for the
same reasons previously expressed on the other initiative.
After additional discussion between Council Members, a vote was then taken on
the foregoing motion:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
540
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24, i988, 1:30 P.M.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Melody Burtt, 320 North Park Vista, Space #57, Anaheim. She is a mobile home
owner who is not on a fixed income. Her space rent has gone from 3285 to $535
thus far and she has a problem calling that reasonable. She then read letter
dated May 24, 1988 from the Anaheim Political Action Committee (APAC) signed
by herself as Vice-President of the Committee. The letter quoted statements
made by Council Members relative to the people's right to walk an initiative
and subsequently to let the voters decide an issue. Being aware of the
Council's view on the matter, A_PAC is questioning why the matter has again
come up on a Council agenda.
Dale Swift, 501 East La Palma Avenue. He intends to walk the petition on the
Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization. He will see to it that people are aware
of how the City Council stands on the issue.
Betty Ronconi, 1241 South Walnut. She is a member of Anaheim HOME. The
sponsors of the petition initiative on the Admissions Tax. Their intentions
are not dictated to them by anyone. Tourism is a great industry. An 8%
Admissions Tax is very nominal and it would make such a difference in the City.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:50 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:07 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-45 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: Anaheim City Council
200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION/fLEQUEST: Area generally bounded by Anaheim Boulevard to the west,
Cypress Street to the south, The Union Pacific Railway to the east and La
Palma Avenue to the north excluding the area bounded by Wilhelmina Street to
the north, Sabimm Street to the west, Sycamore Street to the south and the
Union Pacific Railway to the east; also excluding those properties fronting
onto A~aheim Boulevard and 1~ Parma Avenue; also excludimg portions A, B and C
described as follows: Portion (A), 3 properties comprising approximately 0.87
acre located at the northwest corner of Claudina Street and Wilhelmina Street;
Portion (B), 7 properties comprising approximately 1.29 acres located at the
southwest corner of Adele Street and Emily Street; Portion (C), i5 properties
consisting of approximately 2.09 acres located on the north side of North
Street from the alley west of Claudine Street to Olive Street. Petitioner
requests reclassification of the subject property from RM-1200, C~, ML and CG
to RM-2400 or a less intense zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-95 granted Reclassification
No. 87-88-45; approved EIR Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested b~ Mayor Bay at
the Council meeting of May 3, 1988, and public hearing scheduled this date.
541
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICEREQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin May 12, 1988.
Posting of property May 13, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 13, 1988.
PL~2qNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 11, 1988.
Mayor Bay.
He set the item for a public hearing because the
Reclassification came through on the Planning Commission
Informational Calendar prior to the Council voting on the
General Plan Amendment for the area. The General Plan Amendment
(GPA No. 227) was adopted on April 10, 1988 and it changed the
General Plan to more or less agree with the subject
Reclassification.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Keith Olesen, 321 North Philadelphia, Chairman of the Central
City Neighborhood Council.
He has a question relative the properties currently zoned
RS-7200 which were not intended to be upzoned to RM-2400. It
was RM-1200 being brought in line with RM-2400. This was
included in the General Plan Amendment and excluded from the
Reclassification. It was specifically deleted along with the
areas that were deleted when they designated the area along the
railroad track and along North La Palma. The other change that
was made that is reflected is that the PDC zoning be allowed to
remain PDC (Parking District Commercial). It was addressed at
the Planning Commission level.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
She believes the definition and the legal description in the
resolution of the Planning Commission is the same as the action
Council took on the General Plan Amendment. Referring to the
posted map, everything in the dark blue color which is RM-1200
will be rezoned KM-2400, blue is industrial and that will be
rezoned, the bright orange would be rezoned and the pale orange
piece as well. Relative to the PDC zone which is Parking
District Commercial and which allows apartments, there are two
pieces and those would remain as is. The lots fronting on La
Palma Avenue bmve been excluded as well.
Mayor Bay.
His understanding is then that the RS-7200 will remain even
though upzoned to an intent to RM-1200 for many years; Annika
Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She answered that was correct
and it is not included in the resolution. She also clarified
that the area is totally down-zoned with no up-zoning included.
542
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Judy Olesen, 321 North Philadelphia.
There are two properties, one at 310 North Philadelphia and one
on the corner of Claudina and Sycamore that are in the process
of being developed to RM-!200. She wants to know if those would
be the last RM-1200 developments that will be allowed in the
area.
Mayor Bay.
He asked staff, assuming the Reclassification is approved today,
how many developments are in process that could be through the
process prior to the 30 days it takes to enact this item.
Annika Santalahti.
She believes that there are four or five addresses that had a
potential for building permits and that one or two would have
required Commission action. That has not been taken and will
not be taken. Those properties all have a good likelihood that
within the next month and ten days they could very well have
building permits.
Sally Horton, 226 North Claudina.
On the PDC zone the Planning Commission's intent was to have it
remain PDC but change the zone from RM-1200 to RM-2400 because
apartments are allowed in that zone and they wanted to allow
only KM-2400. It does not sound like that is what is happening.
Annika Santalahti.
Thm PDC is a zone that she does not believe in i7 years they
have placed on a piece of property. It was one of the original
zones in Anaheim. She thought that particular zone actually
allows RM-1200 development by right. She would like to verify
that it is not surrounding multiple-family standards.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Annika Santalahti.
There are two parcels that are zoned PDC. That zone
specifically allows RM-1200 development under RM-i200 standards
and they could develop as such.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked if they could change those to RM-2400 at this time.
Annika Santalahti.
Public notification did not indicate that was to be a part of
the action today. They are not included in the change or in the
public notice.
Judy Olesen, 321 North Philadelphia.
The Planning Commission pulled that out of the area because they
did not want to take the Parking District away from Anaheim
543
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Boulevard. At that time, because it was PDC zoning and very
limited, the intent was, if the Reclassification is approved, to
redefine the PDC zone so it would go up only to RM-2400 and not
RM-1200 but it would have to happen after all of the other
actions took place.
Mayor Bay.
He clarified that was not part of the public hearing today.
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-208)
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-208 for adoption, approving
Keclassification No. 87-88-45. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLOTION NO. 8~R-208: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF
ANAHEiM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-45.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickier and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-208 duly passed and adopted.
179; POBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2997 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
Piaya Investments
314 S. Brookhurst, Suite 200,
Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT:
Dhiren Shah
13144 Carmel Street,
Cerritos, CA 90701
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 328 North Stanton Avenue.
request is to construct a 3-story, 55-unit motel.
The
544
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
PLANNING CO~ISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-100 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2997; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HFARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of May 3, 1988.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin May i2, 1988.
Posting of property May 13, i988.
Ma~ling to property owners within 300 feet - May 13, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 11, 1988.
COUNCIL CONCER/~S:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The property was described as being a "box like .... flat-roofed"
structure. She is concerned that would give a very cheap
appearance. This has occurred before where the developer has
been willing to change the appearance so that it looks better.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Dhiren Shah, 13144 Carmel Street, Cerritos, CA 90701.
It is individual whether a flat or pitched roof looks better.
It also does not mean that flat roofs leak more than any other
roofs. They are the owner/builder and will do a first class job.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She reiterated her concern is the appearance of the "box like"
structure that makes it appear cheap. Sometimes a mansard roof
is enough to change a building's appearance.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
The elevation is posted on the Chamber wall.
submitted.
No renderings were
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickier, 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
545
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - May 24, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
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-209)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 88R-209 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2997. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-209: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2997.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickier and Bay
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-209 duly passed and adopted.
155/179: PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273 (PREV.
CERTIFIED) AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 88-05:
A~PLICANT: OWNERS:
Presley of Southern California
Attn: David Graf
17991 Mitchell South,
Irvine, CA 92714
AGENT'.
Elfend & Associates
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
REQUEST: Petitioner requests approval of Specimen Tree Removal Permit
No. 88-05 in order to remove a remaining total of 42 Specimen Trees (for a
total of 96 specimen trees in all - originally approved by the Planning
Commission on April 25, 1988, for the removal of 20 Specimen trees).
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 816 acres located north of Canyon Rim Road
and east of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the north by East Hills Planned
Community (Bauer Ranch), on the east by Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace
Ranch) and The Summit (formerly Oak Hills Ranch), on the southeast by Irvine
Company property on tb~ west by the original Anaheim Hills Planned Community
and further described as the Highlands at Anaheim Hills.
PUBLIC NOTICEREQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin by developer.
Posting of property May 13, 1988.
546
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated May 10, 1988 from the Planning Director, Joel Fick.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court,
Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
Presley of Southern California, the developer, has agreed to
provide a two to one ratio of trees in excess of Code and have
worked out a comprehensive mitigation plan with the Department
of Fish and Game which will not only provide for over 675 Arroyo
and Black Willow Trees but also provides a monitoring program to
make sure the trees grow to a height indicative of those being
removed. Not only is there replacement, but monitoring and a
complete program for removal of those trees which was
anticipated when the Specific Plan was approved.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response, he closed
the public hearing.
City Attorney White.
He recommended that approval include the finding that
responsible and practical development of the property on which
the trees are located requires removal of the trees which are
the subject of the application.
ENVIRONM~qTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED: Environmental
Impact Report No. 273 was previously certified by the City Council on June 23,
1987 in conjunction with the approval of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills
Specific Plan (SP87-1). The Environmental Impacts and mitigation measures
associated with Specimen Tree Removals and the development of the subject
project area for residential land uses as part of the Highlands at Anaheim
Hills Specific Plan Development Area were addressed through the certification
process for EIR No. 273.
Councilman Bay moved therefore that the initial study indicates that no
additional impacts above those covered in EIR No. 273 would result from the
proposed removal of an additional 42 specimen trees (now totalling 96 specimen
trees) and~ therefore~ the previously certified EIR No. 273 is adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation for the revised subject
request. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay moved to approve Specimen Tree Removal No. 88-01 covering 42
specimen trees which, added to the 54 specimen trees previously approved to
be removed, totals 96 specimen trees. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
114: NO QUORUM ANTICIPATED - JULY 5, 1988: Councilman Pickler stated at this
time it seems unlikely that a majority of the Council will be present on
Tuesday, July 5, 1988. Therefore, he is recommending that there be no Council
meeting that date.
547
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
C~uncilwoman Kaywood. Since it is the first Tuesday of the month when night
meetings are scheduled, she is suggesting that the night meeting be held on
July 12, 1988.
Councilman Pickler moved that it be determined it is un_likely a Council quorum
will be present on July 5, 1988 and that July 12, 1988 will be the date for
the July night Council meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
179/114: SIGN PROLIFERATION - COMMERCIAL-RECREATIONAREA: Request by Mayor
Pro Tem Pickler to discuss sign proliferation in the Commercial-Recreation
area. Council to discuss possible enforcement measures. Submitted was report
dated May 20, 1988 from the Planning Department/Code Enforcement section which
listed six steps which would be necessary to take to obtain the information
requested by Council at the Council meeting of May 17, 1988.
Councilman Pickier. The program as outlined by the Code Enforcement Manager
will be a beginning in cleaning up what can be corrected in the CR area which
he feels is a necessity. Further, he has not had an opportunity to discuss
the issue of utility poles in that area with the Public Utilities Director,
Mr. Hoyt.
Councilwoman Kaywood. In looking at the number of hours necessary to be
devoted to the project, she is concerned that this time will be taken away
from other important projects and she does not want to see that happen.
Mayor Bay. The report made it clear that the newly authorized Code
Enfozcement Officer position which will be filled in July, 1988 could be
assigned to the area to complete the study.
Councilman Ehrle. He suggested that a Task Force be formed to include the
Hotel Industry and the Visitor and Convention Bureau where the Task Force
would not only talk about signs, but also implementing some of the progressive
projects outlined by Jack Lindquist at a recent meeting such as double decking
ingress and egress out of Harbor Boulevard and other innovative improvements.
Mayor Bay. Councilman Ehrle's suggestion is broadening the subject
considerably. The request is to take a look at signs in the CR area - what is
illegal and what is not which had been done to some extent in the past.
Utility undergrounding was a recent subject of the Public Utilities Board and
it is being discussed at that level aggressively. The Board may be making a
recommendation to the Council. The subject at hand is strictly sign
proliferation and whether existing signs are illegal or not. If illegal, the
signs are to be cleaned up. Council's approval is necessary for the
approximate $7,000 cost to complete the program.
Councilman Bay moved to accept staff recommendations and report dated May 20,
1988 from the Planning Department/Code Enforcement Section and that the
actions contained therein be implemented. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
548
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
179: SIGN ORDINANCE - CRAREA: Councilman Pickler. He feels there is a need
for a new sign ordinance in the subject area and staff should be directed to
draft an ordinance that would be effective in limiting signs in the CK area to
monument signs only.
Mayor Bay. He does not disagree but if they are going to put "teeth" in an
existing ordinance, he feels it is necessary to go through the public hearing
process. Perhaps a motion to ask staff as they go through the study just
authorized (see the foregoing action relative to sign proliferation in the CR
Area) they could start to make recommendations on how the.sign situation can
be improved and give staff time to look at a modified ordinance. Staff will
not have the facts until the study is complete. What Councilman Pickler is
saying he would like staff to also start looking at a proposed ordinance
change that would tighten up the sign ordinance.
City Attorney White. Legally there is no problem with taking action to remove
existing signs installed illegally or in adopting a new ordinance that will
apply to new construction. However, any ordinance that will require removal
of non-conforming signs legally constructed will require the payment of
compensation just as with billboards; Councilman Pickier confirmed that he was
thinking only of new signs.
No further action was taken at this time regarding the modification of the
existing sign ordinance.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4928 - REVIEW AND APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTIONS: (Revision A), Amending section 18.03.080 of Chapter 18.03 and
'subsections .050 and .070 of section 18.12.080 of Chapter 18.12 of Title 18 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the review and appeals of Planning
Commission actions. This matter was discussed at the meeting of May 10, 1988,
and the ordinance introduced at the meeting of May 17, 1988.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak, there was no response.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 4928, Revision A for adoption.
to Resolution Book.
Refer
ORDINANCE NO. 4928: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.03.080 OF CHAPTER 18.03AND SUBSECTIONS .050AND .070 OF SECTION 18.12.080
OF CHAPTER 18.12 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING
PROCEDURES.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated this will stop any one
Council Member from setting a public hearing unless there is a second or, if
not, that Council Member can set the public hearing if they pay the fee for
doing so. She presumes this ordinance is aimed directly at her. If someone
calls her and she reviews the item and agrees that a public hearing should be
set but no other Council Member agrees, the timing is critical since it is the
last day an item can be set. If the deadline passes, then the item will pass
as the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator approved or denied it.
T~s will be stifling the voice of the people and not allowing the democratic
process to continue.
549
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988, i:30 P.M.
Councilman Ehrle. He sees this as a "housekeeping" issue. Everything that is
warranted will get a second. Whoever makes the motion, the Council Members
will review the matter and one of the four remaining Council Members can
second the motion just as is done with other business.
Councilman Pickler. He is going to oppose the ordinance. He feels as a
Council Member he should have the right to set something for a hearing as well
as being able to have something placed on a Council agenda. He realizes that
Consent Calendar Informational Items are not to be discussed unless set.
Perhaps they could briefly discuss some questionable items that will help in
making determination. He emphasizes he still feels one Council person should
be able to set an item for a public hearing.
Mayor Bay. He does not feel the revision to the ordinance will have a thing
to do as far as trying to lessen the voice of the minority position. What it
will do is to stop the abuse of a singular minority position that encourages
setting up public hearings for political posturing. It is a waste of time not
only with the people involved with the hearings and the flow time before they
can proceed with the process, but the cost of staff time and everything else
to set an item when it is obvious that across the Council there is already
generally a consensus agreeing with the decision made by the Planning
Commission or Zoning Administrator. It is his opinion if there is something
that is important enough or if there is considerable question over a decision
made by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator that the Council
questions and wants to debate, then there will be two or more votes to set
it. Councilman Pickler's comments relative to being able to discuss the issue
at the time it comes to the Council on a Consent Calendar and then to set it
or not set it is not the intent. The City Attorney has informed the Council
that such discussion should take place only during a public hearing or not
take place at all.
Councilwoman Kaywood then refuted statements made by the Mayor especially with
regard to political posturing. She considered it to be an "amazing" ordinance
showing the new Council majority in action.
Councilman moved to waive reading of the ordinance in full. Councilman
Pickier seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no commenting that it
is extremely important that the ordinance be read in full.
Since the motion to waive reading in full was not a unanimous vote wt~ch is
required, City Clerk Sohl read the ordinance in full.
A Roil Call Vote was then taken on the Ordinance:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
Kaywood and Pickler
None
The }[ayor declared Ordinance No. 4928 duly passed and adopted.
55O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
179:
C1.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION - MEETING OF MAY 5~ 1988:
VARIANCE NO. 3785, CATEGOKICALt~ EXEMPT~ CLASS-3A
OWNER: ROBERT C. LUNDSTROM & MARY A. LUNDSTROM, 939 South Lake
Summit, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 1125 South Tamarisk Drive
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 33-foot
high to chimney and 29.5 foot high to roof peak single-family
residence.
V~riance No. 3785 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, DECISION NO.
ZA88-23.
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled for a later date.
C2.
VAR~IANCE NO. 3786, CATEGORICAI3.Y EXEMPT, CLASS-3E
OWNER: LOBEL FINANCIAL CORP., ATTN: GARY LOBEL, 2528 W. Woodland
Drive, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 1237 South Brookhurst Street
Waivers of (a) minimum front setback and permitted encroachment and
(b) maximum fence height to construct a 6-foot high wrought iron
fence with gate adjacent to Brookhurst Street.
Variance No. 3786 APPROVED IN ?ARY, by the Zoning Administrator,
DECISION NO. ZA88-24.
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by the applicant
and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled for a later date.
C3.
VARIANCE NO. 3789 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER: HARBORANAHEIM ASSOCIATES, ATTN: BRENT R. OGDEN, JR., 4040
MacArthur Blvd. #314, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 1150 North Harbor Boulevard
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit a fast food
pizza restaurant (Checker Board Pizza).
Variance No. 3789 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, DECISION NO.
ZA88-25.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITk%MS:
C4.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0006, CATEGORICA]J.Y
EXEMPT - CLASS-3: Request by Orda W. Smith and Michael W. Smith to
construct an approximate 1,450 square-foot addition with waiver of
minimum front setback (25 feet required; 21 feet proposed) at 1288
East Vermont Avenue.
Administrative Adjustment No. 0006 APPROVED by the Zoning
Administrator, DECISION NO. ZA~8-27.
551
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MiNUTES - May 24, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
C5. TEPdiINATING PROCEEDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 581: Terminating
all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 581 and
declaring Resolution No. 64R-696 null and void, as requested by G. Clinton
Pooley, Carma M. Pooley and Mary E. Pooley. Subject property is located at
the northeast corner of Bali Road and Western Avenue.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-210)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-210 for adoption, refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-210: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALT. PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 581 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 64R-696 NULL ANO VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickier and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-210 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4929: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4929 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4929: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND AMENDING
VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RM~ATING TO SENIOR
CITIZENS' APARTMENT PROJECTS.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4930: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4930 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4930: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND AMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS OF VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE
~NAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE KELATING TO PARKING KEQUIKEMENTS AND DEFiNITiONS OF
CONVENIENCE MARKEYS.
179: REPORT - HEIGHT VARIANCES IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR: To receive the report
requested of Planning Staff dated May 24, 1988 and to consider the
recommendation to further investigate and pursue the Scenic Corridor building
height issue by assembling additional data, distributing information and
soliciting input from interested Anaheim Hills residents, builders and
professionals in the field, subsequently presenting associated findings to the
Planning Commission and City Council. The height variances were discussed
with the Planning Commission at the joint workshop of May 10, 1988.
552
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Robert Zemel, Chairman, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. He wants to be
certain there is public input before any c~anges are made to the Scenic
Corridor overlay zone ordinance and that in the meantime, the Zoning
Administrator, Planning Commission and staff be instructed not to issue
anymore variances. Because there is no opposition to some variance requests
does not mean that a variance should be granted. There should be no more
approvals until such time as the law is actually changed, if it is changed,
and then the new law can be followed. The law as it stands now should be
followed and variances not given at will.
Mayor Bay. He assumes Mr. Zemel is asking for a moratorium on approval of
variances until the law is changed or sustained as it stands; Mr. Zemel
answered yes.
Planning Director, Joel Fick. Several weeks ago, staff was asked to inventory
the variances that had occurred in the canyon area and report back. The
May 24, 1988 report is the result of the research. He then briefed portions
of the conclusions and findings outlined in the report (see Page 4 of the
report). In light of the information gathered, staff would like to do a more
exhaustive and complete survey and subsequently take the matter back to the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
Mayor Bay. He has been concerned for some time that the general 25-foot
height as a rule of thumb even though redefined as roof peak rather than
chimneys was an important issue to clarify. It is past time they attempted to
clarify the ordinances so that the Council understands what it is doing and
not doing to development in the Hills.
Councilman Bay moved that staff recommendations as stated in report dated
May 24, 1988 from the Planning Department/Zoning Division be approved and the
recommendations contained therein implemented.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she is very concerned
about the proliferation of requests for height variances as reflected in the
report. She would like to see that none are able to hurry through the process
before the report is completed.
Councilman Hunter. Such a clarification will help the Council to be more
policy makers than technicians. Once a policy is put in place, then the
Council should stay with it with no exceptions.
Councilman Ehrle. He agreed.
will help everyone involved.
deviation.
Additional work and a further clarification
Once the rule is set there should be no
Mayor Bay. He does not agree that an ordinance can be so perfectly written
that no variances will be requested or allowed, l~ere will always be
exceptions and variances to deal with but the intent is that those will be the
exceptions rather than the rule.
553
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She does not agree that the 25-foot height limitation
is unrealistic and too restrictive. For 20 years or more magnificent homes
have been built in the Hill and Canyon area that have adhered to the 25-foot
limitation.
Planning Director, Joel Fick. He clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that to
§mtber the additional data and information with a report back to the Council
could be accomplished within a couple of months.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that there could be 50 requests for height
waivers during that time and she does not want to see such waivers being
granted during the time of the study. She asked if it were possible to make
the change quickly regarding the Scenic Corridor overriding the underlying
zone.
City Attorney White then briefed the current status of the situation regarding
heights in the Hill and Canyon area. Currently the law is that the roof-line
has to be at or under 25 feet but a chimney can be higher. At the same time,
the Council requested an ordinance be prepared to memorialize that
interpretation although it is legally not necessary to do so. Therefore, if
the roof-line is at or under 25 feet even with higher chimneys, a person can
pull a building permit. If the roof-line is higher than 25 feet, it requires
a variance. It cannot be done as a matter of right. He also clarified that
it never has been the law nor is it now that variances are approved simply
because there is no opposition.
Mr. Zemel. He again requested that the City Council direct staff to follow
the law which he understands would include variances as the exception and not
the rule. At this time he feels mixed messages are being given to staff.
They are opposed to decision being made just because there is lack of
opposition or the right opinions do not get down to the Council. A vote was
then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114/127/172: BOND MEASURE FOR THE CRITICAL INTERSECTION PLAN: Councilman Bay
moved that the Council set for discussion for the meeting of ~'uesday, May 31,
1988 the possibility of placing on the November, 1988 ballot a Bond Measure to
support the proposed critical intersection plan.
Before action was taken, Mayor Bay stated that the critical intersection plan
has not yet been submitted to the Council but he has followed closely the
proposals that have gone through Planning Commission hearings and taken note
of the serious opposition that has been encountered from the business
community. While he supports the need for the improvements at critical
intersections, it is time to start considering other than just the businessmen
involved at each of the intersections. He would like to have Council
discussion on the possibility of bonds to help support and accelerate critical
intersection actions in the City with the help of bond money. Councilman
Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Bay stated that the Council needs to be brought up to date on where the
critical intersection project stands in the present process.
554
City }~11, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 24, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
City Cierk Sohl reported that the General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2i0)
covering the critical intersections is scheduled for a public hearing at the
night meeting to be held July 12, 1988.
142/127: AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER: Mayor Bay. He is concerned that in
the City Charter it requires an absolute unanimous vote of the Council to
accomplish the technicality of waiving reading in full of ordinances and
resolutions. He thereupon moved that the Council set for discussion the
possibility of placing on the November, 1988 ballot a measure amending the
City Charter provision requiring a unanimous vote merely to waive reading of
an ordinance or resolution in full. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated that the Council should also be
looking at some of the other things in the Charter of minor technical nature
causing them a great deal of time at Council meetings. He would like the City
Attorney to look at other such technicalities contained in the Charter.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session to discuss the balance of
the items as announced earlier in the meeting by the City Attorney.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:59 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Counci]mmn Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:02 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CIl~f CLERK
555