Loading...
1988/11/15City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 15. 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: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahtt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:15 p.m. on November 10, 1988 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Bay called the meeting to order at 12:00 noon. 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 Motel Partnership, O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59. b. To discuss labor relations matters 54957.6. Government Code Section 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 unl~ tha motion to r~ee~ indieat~ any of tha matt~r~ will not considered in Closed Session. AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (1:36 p.m.) INVOCATION; A Moment of Silence was held in lieu of the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE; Councilman William D. Ehrle led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING MAYOR SAGAWA AND THE DELEGATION FROM ANAHEIM'S SISTER CITY - MITO, JAPAN: June Lowry, President of Anaheim's Sister City Committee introduced and presented Mayor Sagawa, Mito, Japan, who headed the Delegation to Anaheim. 1048 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Sagawa expressed his great pleasure at being in the beautiful City of Anaheim once again. Their Delegation consists of 45 people including Mr. Yutchi Hataya, Chairman of the Sister City Committee of Mito, as well as City Councilman, City officials and citizens of Mito. He expressed gratitude to Mayor Bay, the City Council, citizens and especially Mrs. Lowry for having exchange students from Japan visit Anaheim last summer, for having organized the visit to Disneyland for disadvantaged children of Mito, and for the special honor given to Mr. Hataya in being named honorary Mayor of Anaheim. Mayor Bay, on behalf of the Council and the City, welcomed Mayor Sagawa and the Mito Delegation. He is happy that the Delegation accepted the invitation and that of Disneyland to celebrate a special 60th Birthday, that of Mickey Mouse. He again expressed deep appreciation for Mr. Hataya's most generous contribution to the Anaheim Museum. 119; PRESENTATION - 60TH BIRTHDAY OF MICKEY MOUSE: Mrs. Donna Berry, President of the Anaheim Arts Gouncil, along with Mayor Bay, presented a plaque to Carolyn Long, Disneyland Ambassador, saluting Mickey Mouse in honor of his 60th Birthday and designating Mickey as the Anaheim Arts Council's first Art In Public Places Recognition Award. 119; DECLARATION OF COMMENDATION: A Declaration of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Harold Bastrup, retired Anaheim Chief of Police commending the Anaheim Police Explorer Post #174, Boys Scouts of America for its many contributions to the safety and well-being of the Anaheim community during its 25 years of existence. Mr. Bastrup was accompanied by Rick Martinez and Barbara Wills, one of the present explorers of the Post. 119; DECLARATION OF COMMENDATION; A Declaration of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Herman Siegmund, on being selected as the Coca-Cola Grad for the Southwest Region. Mr. Siegmund is recognized for his outstanding community service volunteer work and will be honored in Atlanta in November at the Annual Employees Community Services Award Luncheon. 119; PROCLAMATIONS; The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and authorized by the City Council: Hospice Weeks in Anaheim, November 15-30, 1988, U.S. Open Swing Dance Week, November 25-30, 1988, Family Week in Anaheim, November 23-29, 1988. Pastor Harry Stief accompanied by Janet Horne and Karen George accepted the Hospice Week proclamation; William Perron accepted the Family Week proclamation and Jack Bridges accepted the United States Open Swing Dance proclamation. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. 1049 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15. 1988, 1:30 P.M. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,769,827.51, in accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE; The titles of the following resolution and ordinance on the Consent Calendar were read by the Assistant City Manager. (Resolution No. 88R-404 for adoption, and Ordinance No. 4974 for introduction) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution and ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, 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 Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-404 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4974 for introduction. Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: a. Claim submitted by William Edward Smith for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 20, 1988. b. Claim submitted by Lawrence D. Tessel for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 12, 1988. c. Claim submitted by Hamilton S. Cloud D.D.S. for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 17, 1988. A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held October 20, 1988. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission meeting held October 26, 1988. A3. 167: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Traffic Signals at Broadway/Glementine and Broadway/Melrose by Paul Gardner Corporation, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. A4. 150: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Pearson Park Security Lighting Improvements by VSE Electrical Contractors, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. A5. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-404: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (WHITE STAR AVENUE AND BLUE GUM WAY) (Setting a public hearing date of December 20, 1988, at 3:00 p.m. Abandonment No. 88-6A.) 1050 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1;30 P,M. A6. Item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and action. A7. 123: Approving the amended Santiago Library System Joint Powers Agreement to incorporate certain procedural changes, and authorizing the Library Director to act on behalf of the City. AS. 123: Approving an agreement with Planning Research Corporation for four years and eight months, in the amount of $67,148 for the first year (with incremental increases for the following three years and eight months) to provide services for the Computer Aided Dispatch and Computerized Records Management Systems at the Police Department. A9. 123: Approving an agreement with Riverside Promotions, at a cost of $20,000 (to be reimbursed from gross gate receipts) for a Latino Festival, "Gractas '88" to be held at La Palma Park on November 23 through November 27, 1988. Al0. 175.123: Approving the Extension of License Agreement (for a period of five years) with the City of Orange for a radio receiver and antenna installation at Linda Vista Reservoir. Ail. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to Computer Service Company Division, in the amount of $219,420 for eighteen traffic controllers and cabinets. Al2. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 12996 and the Subdivision Agreement with the developer, Woodcrest Development, engineering being provided by Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. Tract No. 12996 is located southerly of the existing terminus of Weir Canyon Road. (This item was continued two weeks as requested by staff) Al3, ORDINANCE NO. 4974 (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. (For benefit enhancements to local fire fighters hired on or after February 10, 1984) Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 88R-404: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-404 duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED. 1051 City Hall, Apaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1;30 P,M. 155; GRADING PLAN AND SUPPLEMENT TO EIR NO, 186 - TRACT NO, 13092; (Item A6 from above Consent Calendar.) Recommendation to reject the appeal of the proposed grading plan incorporating the "Supplement to EIR No. 186" for Tract No. 13092 (Country Hill Estates) approved by the City Engineer on October 24, 1988. The subject property is located in the Mohler Drive Area between Old Bridge Road and Country Hill Road. Submitted was report dated November 8, 1988 from the Director of Public Works/City Manager, City Engineer, Gary Johnson, recommending that the appeal be rejected. Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the subject appeal request be continued for 3 weeks to the night Council meeting of December 6, 1988. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 114/152/105; PROCEDURES AND RULES OF ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS; Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-405 for adoption, adopting the procedures and rules of order for the conduct of City Council meetings, submitted under memorandum dated November 4, 1988 from the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 88R-405: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING PROCEDURES AND RULES 'OF ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay referred to Page 4, Section E under Rules of Order, "All Council Members present at a meeting when a question comes up for a vote shall vote for or against the measure unless he/she has a legal reason to abstain from voting." In his opinion, there are many other reasons other than a legal one for abstaining from voting on an item. There are instances where Council Members like to explain their vote and why they are abstaining. It could be that a Council Member has not made a decision regarding an issue and does not want to lend the power of their vote pro or con. He would like to see E changed accordingly to allow an abstention regardless of whether it is a legal reason or not. City Attorney White. The Council can just change the shall to should and remove the word "legal" from the third line (Page 4 Section E - first sentence) or delete the entire sentence. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution amended as articulated by Mayor Bay that the word "legal" be omitted from the first sentence Section E Page 4 under Abstentions. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-405 duly passed and adopted. 1052 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1;30 P.M. 114/152/105; CODE OF ~THICS - CITY COUNCIL AND CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; Adopting a code of ethics for members of the City Council and all City Boards and Commissions. The discussion was initiated by Councilman Ehrle at the Council meeting of October 25, 1988, and subsequently the City Attorney was requested to submit information to the Council for consideration. Submitted was report dated November 4, 1988 from the City Attorney, Jack White, attached to which was material for Council review as well as a draft ordinance for consideration and possible adoption. Councilman Ehrle offered Resolution No. 88R-406 for adoption, adopting a code of ethics for members of the City Council and all City Board and Commissions as presented by the City Attorney under report dated November 4, 1988. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 88R-406; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A CODE OF ETHICS FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALL CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to different portions of the Code of Ethics adopted by the City of Sunnyvale and San Jose and questioned why certain items in those codes were not included in the proposed Code for the City of Anaheim. City Attorney Jack White explained that both Sunnyvale's and San Jose's codes (1968 and 1967 respectively) predated the California Political Reform Act of 1974 which pre-empts and supersedes the provisions referred to. That is why he deleted those portions. Those are now pre-empted by state law. He recommends that they not add to Anaheim's code things already covered under state law. After a further brief discussion between Council Members and the City Attorney relative to the proposed Code, a vote was taken on the resolution and confirmed that the Code is being adopted as presented by the City Attorney with no changes. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-406 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, City Attorney White confirmed for Councilman Ehrle that to his knowledge, Anaheim is the first City to adopt such a Code. 179; ORDINANCE NO, 4957 - PERMITTING BILLBOARDS BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN CERTAIN ZONES: Amending Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit billboards by conditional use permit in certain zones of the City subject to certain specified regulations. This matter was discussed at the meeting of July 26, 1988, and the subject proposed ordinance introduced at the meeting of August 23, 1988, and continued to this date. 1053 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 15. 1988, 1;30 P,M. Councilman Pickler stated he recollected that the Council was only going to require a CUP for any billboard requested in the City and that was the only action. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4957 for adoption. ORDINANCE NO, 4957; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING, AMENDING AND REPEALING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BILLBOARDS. Councilman Pickler then continued he had no problem with requiring a CUP but what is before the Council today is somewhat different than the Council's action. Mayor Bay. He specifically recalls the discussions where the Council finally came to agreement that there be no freeway billboards allowed and that there be a reduction in the current eight billboards allowed per intersection to four. Councilman Pickler. He recalls that the reduction of boards at intersections was discussed but he does not believe that they specifically limited billboards to four per intersection. Councilwoman Kaywood. She referred to Item 5 on Page 1 of the City Attorney's report where it indicates limiting the billboards to one per corner and four per intersection. There could be instances where there could be two boards and four maximum and she would not have a problem with that. Councilman Pickler. The conditional use permit will give the Council the right to have a billboard wherever they think one should be. If five or six, they could do that. Anyone wanting a billboard has to apply for a CUP which gives the Council the control they are looking for. City Attorney White explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that if new billboards are permitted only by CUP then regardless of whether development standards are met or if there are development standards or no development standards remaining in the Code, the Council would then be in a position to approve or deny the permit for the new billboard baaed upon the criteria in the Code for approving CUP's whether or not compatible with development. He will do whatever the Council wishes but the reason for the proposed ordinance in the form it is in, with some exceptions, it is very similar to the ordinance originally drafted and presented to the Council in January 1986. At that time the Council was considering freeway billboards and had provisions that would have permitted freeway boards by CUP as well. Various changes were made to the ordinance over the next 2 1/2 years. When the Council did finally vote to eliminate consideration of freeway billboards, all he did was remove that provision from the ordinance and give it back the way it had been for the last 2 1/2 years. Councilman Pickler. He has not had sufficient time to review the ordinance and would like to have the matter continued for three weeks to December 6, 1988. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. 1054 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 15. 1988. 1:30 P,M. Before a vote was taken, additional discussion followed between Council Members regarding the issue as well as the motion for continuance at the conclusion of which a vote was then taken and carried by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler and Bay Kaywood None Councilwoman Kaywood stated when the billboard ordinance came back to the Council which included freeways, the big issue was to reduce the number of billboards at inner city intersections. It now seems the Council is not willing to do that. If the Council is going to say that billboards be by CUP and only that, it does not change the situation very much since there could be eight boards at intersections. It would be for any new billboards coming in to the City and not involve any of the boards already in place. Mr. Frances Nutto, 621 Jambolaya. He read from a prepared statement dated November 11, 1988 (later submitted and made a part of the record) wherein he referenced and briefed the four suggested changes regarding billboard regulations which he made in January. He asked that the Council not adopt the proposed ordinance and that the adoption of his changes would avoid legal and enforcement problems, allow non-conforming billboards to be gradually removed by attrition, save money for the City and gradually improve aesthetics within the City. ~08; DISCUSSION pOSSIBLE OMISSION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (SCGC) FROM THE BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE; Discussion of the possible omission of Southern California Gas Company from the Business License Ordinance Ordinance No. 4950. Submitted was letter dated August 5, 1988 from E. John Amador,. Gas Company District Manager, requesting such an omission. This matter was discussed at the Council meeting of August 23, 1988, and continued to this date. Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from the City Treasurer and to clarify why the Gas Company was included in the first place. City Treasurer, Mary Turner. In August when the business license tax ordinance was presented for Council consideration, no exemptions were included in that ordinance per the consultant. Staff's recommendation was that every business in the City would be assessed a business tax. The Gas Company is of the opinion because they were previously exempted and were paying a franchise fee to the City that they should have a special exemption under the new ordinance. Staff does not recommend that. Franchise fees are provided as a rent for the use of public streets. If the Gas Company had to pay for that public right-of-way, it would cost a great deal of money. There are two separate issues in staff's opinion - the franchise fee for use of public streets and a business tax for doing business in Anaheim. 1055 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 15, 1988, 1;30 John Amador, District Manager, Southern California Gas Company. The Gas Company has been exempt from the Business License tax since 1978 when the Council voted that exemption, the reason being because the Gas Company would pay a franchise fee. They are paying a substantial amount of money to the City based on gross receipts to do business in Anaheim. He feels an additional tax based of those same gross receipts is unfair. There has been a comparison between the phone company and Southern California Edison. Even though Edison pays a business license tax and a franchise fee to the City, the Gas Company is the only regulated public utility serving all the citizens of Anaheim who pay a franchise fee. The Telephone Company is franchised by the State and not the City and serves all citizens of Anaheim. Edison has one customer, the City of Anaheim. The Gas Company is unique. They are not looking for special treatment but fair treatment and are willing to pay their fair share. Their opposition is to paying a tax based on gross receipts. He explained for Councilman Ehrle that they pay a franchise fee to all cities in their servicing area. They are the largest gas distributor in the world. There are approximately 50 to 60 other cities where they do pay a business license tax but none are based on gross receipts but a flat rate in all of them. That makes the City of Anaheim unique in charging a business license tax based on gross receipts. If the Gas Company pays a business license tax to Anaheim based on gross receipts, that one tax would be more than all 50 or 60 cities combined where they pay a business license tax. City Attorney White explained that the measure of the payment under the franchise is measured by gross receipts attributable to the franchise. It is a complicated formula but basically pipelines going through the streets and the amount of revenue generated by the gas flowing through those pipelines, that is measured as being the gross receipts and then the franchise fee is imposed based upon that. Business license tax is not measured that way but on the amount of sales generated within the City. While they use the term gross receipts, it is not exactly the same type of measurement. It is not the same thing being measured twice. Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the City not create an additional exemption and approve the staff recommendation that there be no omission or exemption granted to the business license tax ordinance as requested by the Southern California Gas Company. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay expressed his concern over the precedent that may be set and the possibility of other utilities asking for exemptions based on this one. Councilman Ehrle. He feels this is an exception to the rule and the Gas Company has been exempted since 1978. They are willing to pay their fair share on a flat rate consistent with other cities. This is not setting a precedent but an exception. He is going to vote against the motion and exempt the Gas Company as requested and put them on a flat rate basis. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion; Councilman Ehrle voted no. MOTION CARRIED. 1056 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15. 1988. 1:30 P,M. 185/128/155: DISCUSSION - POLICY AND DIRECTION - MELLO-ROOS FINANCING: Discussion of policy and direction regarding the utilization of Mello-Roos Financing for the three ranch developments (Sycamore Canyon, The Highlands at Anaheim Hills, and The S,,mmtt of Anaheim Hills) in east Anaheim Hills. This item was discussed at the meeting of November 1, 1988, and determined to be continued to November 29, 1988. At the Council meeting of November 8, 1988, Mayor Bay made a motion which was subsequently approved that discussion be accelerated to this date. Mayor Bay. He does not believe the issue is whether they should use Mello-Roos financing or not. The issue is to direct staff to come back to the Council with what they want included and put before a public hearing in initiating Mello-Roos financing. It is important that the Council agree on what the limitations will be. He is concerned with taking Mello-Roos and turning it into a "giant" new tax on the future residents of Anaheim Hills covering all the infrastructure that is going to be done or has been done in that area. The basic policy in effect is that when there is going to be new development in the Hills as the City expands, that new development will not have to be subsidized by current residents of the City in any way with all costs to be picked up by the developers or people who buy the homes. The question is not how they are going to do Mello-Roos financing, but how much - the total infrastructure or the true shortfall. His memory of the hearings on the Ranch developments taking place is that there was no question about storm drainage or streets other than specific differences in the streets and general usage like Santa Aha Canyon Road. It was always intended that the City would take a portion of that cost. However, he does not remember any discussions about the City paying for Serrano. The developers committed to putting in Serrano across their portion of the development. If there is any change in acceleration as to when Serrano gets built, to him that portion of Serrano and only that portion of the cost would still be negotiable within the shortfall - the other shortfall talked about was not having sales tax coming in from a shoppi~g center that does not exist, and also fire and police costs. In concluding, Mayor Bay stated if they are going to set up a Mello-Roos financing district, he feels strongly the financing should be limited to the negotiated differences on Santa Aha Canyon Road, the acceleration of Serrano if it was accelerated from the original agreement, and to carry the shortfall of police and fire. Anything else to him was beyond what was even talked about being negotiable. Councilwoman Kaywood. Anything that has been historically funded by other previous developers in the area, she would not consider a Mello-Roos or anything else. It is part of the cost of doing business and part of how the developers will determine the cost of the sales price of their homes. She asked what would be over and above anything that was not in the development agreements. Assistant City Manager, James Ruth, pointed out that the staff report identified those projects which they thought were of community-wide benefit, i.e., the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road, the Police Substation and possibly Serrano plus the shortfall. 1057 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1;30 P,M. Councilman Hunter. His understanding is that the Development Community and staff entered in good faith to work to establish some type of community facility's district to finance the cost of these public improvements and services, police and fire and that is the shortfall. The key to Mello-Roos is that so long as the financing benefits the community and is community-wide in nature such as the new police station at Weir Canyon, the new fire station, Serrano, the widening of Santa Aha Canyon Road - all those benefit the entire community they call Anaheim Hills. To do a Mello-Roos which would be no new tax whatsoever on existing property owners to make up the shortfall, and that is the way to go to get the infrastructure done to accelerate it so that the entire community will benefit. He feels that is all they are looking at - the shortfall on projects that benefit the entire community. Mayor Bay. There is only one road in his opinion that is spread on and that is Santa Aha Canyon Road. The extension of Serrano is totally necessary for the development of the three Ranches. What they need to do is settle what issues remain open and direct staff to set up the hearing process in order to establish a Mello-Roos District. Councilman Ehrle. He feels that the Council today is to give direction to staff that there is a consensus to proceed with Mello-Roos; Mayor Bay disagreed. It is not the consensus, but it is either going to be the consensus to proceed with the Mello-Roos with specific limitations or not. It is necessary to define those limitations and then start the actions, or is the Council going to start the actions without defining the limitations. City Attorney White. It needs to be made clear that the Council is not committing today to establishing one or more Mello-Roos districts. That will be the result of the public hearing process. What Council is really doing today is giving staff direction to come back at a later time with detailed information as a result of which hearings will be held and those decisions will be made as to the establishment of one or more districts and secondarily, what is included in the amounts. The Council is giving direction to staff how they want it structured and to, bring that information back to the Council. All the experts on Mello-Roos financing are present today to answer questions. Mayor Bay. Another thing to be settled today is the question of the formation of landscape districts to be formed in lieu of homeowners associations; City Manager Ruth emphasized that staff would like direction on that issue as well. Councilman Bay moved that a landscape district NOT be formed in lieu of homeowners associations for maintaining open space and slopes. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay emphasized that the policy that has been established and used is one that he feels should be continued and done as with all prior hills developments, that of homeowners associations maintaining open space and slopes. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1058 C~ty Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15. 1988. 1:30 P.M. After further discussion between Council Members and the City Attorney, Mayor Bay stated he would like to know specifically if the Council, by consensus prior to public hearings, can set limitations on what is to be covered and what is not in a Mello-Roos financing. David Tossick, Special Tax Consultant to the City, 2070 Business Center Drive, Irvtne. In his opinion, direction could be given to staff to consider a certain level of shortfall or not. Staff would then come back with a Resolution of Intention and then a public hearing at which a Resolution of Formation would have to be adopted. Whatever the Council came up with in direction would then be reviewed at that point. It could be turned down due to whatever occurs at the public hearing. If half the landowners come out and protest, the Council could not go ahead with the program no matter what they came up with today. The public hearing would be the deciding factor as to whether or not to go ahead with whatever it is the Council recommends today. In the Resolution of Intention where a number of alternatives can be presented, the Council will pick the alternatives and go forward with whichever one at that point the Council felt most appropriate. At the public hearing which would occur 30 to 60 days later, the Council would have to adopt a Resolution of Formation and take public testimony before going ahead with whatever alternative was decided on. There are a number of review points ahead of the line for the Council after whatever they come up with today. He also explained in the Resolution of Intention the Council will have a maximum bonded indebtedness amount set up and also a maximum tax structure. Once they have gone through the Resolution of Intention, and the Resolution of Formation, which is the public hearing, the Council could move down - lower the bond amount and lower the taxes, but they could not be increased. He confirmed that at the time of the Resolution of Intent the Council has to declare the maximum bonding figure and if raised, they would have to go through the process all over again. John Doyle, Partner, Stone & Youngberg, 1049 Linda Glen Drive, Pasadena. There ~ould be an assessment district financing and the maximum term is 40 years by statute. He has seen districts up to 10 years. Under Mello-Roos, there is no maximum or minimum. The marketplace usually determines what the maximum maturity will be. In all of the terms they have participated in, it has always been the intent of the City Council or governing agency to have the maximum time. That way, they can take full advantage of the tax exempt feature. Mayor Bay. He is looking for short-term bonds because he does not like a long-range tax placed on anybody. MOTION: Mayor Bay thereupon moved that staff be instructed to start working on the alternatives of recommending a Mello-Roos financing for the shortfall primarily defined as recurring police and fire costs added in the new development area, the portion of the Santa Aha Canyon Road widening and improvement, the acceleration of Serrano, if that acceleration is above and beyond what was committed to in the hearing, the shortfall of the lack of sales tax and the police substation. 1059 City Hall, Anaheim, C~ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15. 1988. 1;30 P,M. Before action was taken, Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated for clarity, the development agreement specified only those facilities that were directly community-wide in nature. They referred to a specific section in the development agreement and those included three improvements Santa Aha Canyon Road, the Serrano-Weir Canyon extension because that was accelerated by the Development Community, and the police substation. The Mayor is also correct in his comments that the conditions of the project did require construction at some level or some point in time. The Ranches were approved at varying points in time and many of the approvals actually preceded the development agreements. The conditioning of the projects established some level of improvements for all of the items being discussed. For example, they required a per dwelling unit payment for Santa Aha Canyon Road and an undetermined fair share payment also for the police substation. Mayor Bay. He knows there is also a clause stating where it was agreed they would look in good faith at the possibility of Mello-Roos financing but it does not mean they are going to look at Mello-Roos and then dump everything on the taxpayer but give a fair look as to where some would be shared and some should not be. It is well understood everything being discussed was already committed to in writing by the conditions of the development on all three Ranches. What they are talking about is coming back in good faith and saying there are certain areas within those agreements although they were already agreed to be.paid for that go beyond those developments. The degree is the key. He is trying to define the items open to negotiation. Councilman Hunter seconded Mayor Bay's motion. Mr. Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, Newport Beach. Mello-Roos has a benefit to the City and the existing taxpayers. He was prepared to come back on November 29, 1988, the date on which the subject was scheduled for discussion. He has not had the opportunity to provide information to the Council or to discuss it with staff. He has been working with staff for almost a year. The wording in the development agreement does not preclude consideration of other infrastructure requirements from a Mello-Roos district. It seems that a general policy decision has been reached, that Mello-Roos is a benefit. It is a matter of what is to be included and he feels it is unique not to allow them to present what those other facilities are. They feel it would be reasonable or the Council to give direction to staff to move forward with a Mello-Roos district and that the police substation site, Serrano, Santa Aha Canyon Road and the revenue shortfall be included but that there also be a consideration of other items such as Fire Station No. 9 which the projects were burdened with and which is going to serve all of Anaheim Hills. There are some storm drain facilities which are also going to benefit the overall area as well as water facilities. All he is suggesting is that they be given an opportunity to present their requests, why they feel some of the improvements are of a community-wide benefit, and have an open dialogue on those. They want to have the opportunity to present those other items to the Council. They had a meeting with the City Manager and were supposed to get back with what the Development Community would like to have included but that meeting did not take place. There may be other items but they have not ever had an opportunity to present those. They are asking for the time to present those to the Council. 1060 City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15. 1988, 1;30 P,M. James Ruth, Assistant City Manager. Staff has been working diligently with the developers for about a year. He suspects many of the issues that Mr. Elfend has alluded to today have been considered by staff and the Council has their recommendation identifying those projects they thought were of community-wide significance and benefit. If there are others, staff would be most willing to look at those. He believes that is not inconsistent with what the consultant Mr. Tosstck said today that through the review and hearing process those issues can be brought forward and considered at that time. It would not be inconsistent with the action the Council considered earlier - to move ahead with Mello-Roos but give staff parameters and if those have to be expanded to look at those in the public hearings and come back with a rationale to the City Council. Councilman Hunter suggested an addendum to the motion that was offered which included the items enumerated by the Mayor but also adding - "and any other improvements that would be community-wide in nature." Either that or offer a whole new motion. Mayor Bay. He pointed out, that addendum would settle nothing. In his opinion, if they want to add any other items different from the existing policy in the Hills, he would go along with that but not to say any other items that might be community-wide. He would like to go back to the motion he made and if there are amendments, he wants to hear those. James Ruth. His understanding is, the development agreements may already restrict what Mello-Roos can address. Joel Fick. He referred to Page 2 of the staff report which quoted some of the precise wording of one of the development agreements and effectively all three are structured the same way. The development agreements were negotiated in advance of any information being available for Mello-Roos districts. He then read pqrtions of the last paragraph of the staff report, Page 2. What the agreements say - the City in good faith would take a look at that and the three improvements that were identified in the agreements that were community-wide in nature. That is why staff has had meetings with the developer. They have looked at a whole array of improvements including some mentioned such as drainage improvements. Mayor Bay. That is what the amendment says - that the City would look and the City has looked. As his motion now stands it includes a fair share of the Santa Aha Canyon Road widening and improvement, the shortfall for lack of a sales tax, the recurring costs of fire and police personnel, the item that was added but that he still had doubts about but added - the acceleration of Serrano. Otherwise, he does not recall any good faith commitment at all by the Council other than those four subjects and that is why they are the subject of his motion for staff to consider those and what it is going to take in Mello-Roos taxes added to the cost of those homes to pay for a fair share of those items. Going beyond that with water utilities, storm drains and Fire Station No. 9, he feels those issues are and have been totally resolved. 1061 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1;30 P.M. Gary Johnson, City Engineer. Staff and the developers had an extensive discussion and it was not specifically limited to those items covered in the development agreements. The Development Community did submit an extensive list of projects that they wished to have considered for Mello-Roos financing. What the Planning Director is citing is that the development agreement limits the good faith obligation on what they are considering financing with Mello-Roos and what he feels they are looking for policy direction on. Does Council want staff to look at all three of those or the incremental cost of what is the additional cost to accelerate vs. the staged development - full cost, or come back with more of a shopping list but restricted to those three items plus the fiscal shortfall. Joel Ftck, Planning Director. He clarified that relative to the development agreements with the point Mr. Elfend was making does not limit the Council to consideration of just those items. It says those are the items the City would in good faith look at. Mr. Elfend was correct in representing that the development agreement does not limit City consideration just to those items. A vote was then taken on the motion restated as follows: That staff be instructed to start working on the alternatives of recommending a Mello-Roos financing for the shortfall primarily defined as recurring police and fire costs in the new development area, a portion of the Santa Aha Canyon Road widening and improvement, acceleration of Serrano if that acceleration is above and beyond what was committed to in previous hearings, and the police substation. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None Before %oncluding, Councilman Ehrle asked for clarification that if it is found there are other issues brought up which would be of general interest in the Hill and Canyon area can those be considered or not. James Ruth. At the public hearing process the Council could consider those if they so chose. Mayor Bay. The way he understands his own motion, it sets forth the key broad limitations of the work the staff is going to do as they start to work on going through the steps of setting up Mello-Roos to cover those costs. He is not adding that to his motion because it is already settled. RECESS; By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:20 p.m.) Chairman Bay reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of a public hearing (4:31 p.m.) See Minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency dated November 15, 1988. AFTER RECESS; being present. The Mayor called the meeting to order, all C~unctl Members (4:32 p.m.) 1062 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1:30 P.M. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3062 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company 1000 Lakewood Blvd., Downey, CA 90240 AGENT: Tait and Associates Inc. Attn: Richard Tait 800 N. Eckhoff St., Orange, CA 92613 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 3101 East La Palma Avenue. The request is to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales, fast food service and off sale of beer and wine with waivers of (a) permitted encroachment of trash enclosure into required front yard area and (b) minimum landscaping adjacent to interior boundary lines. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3062 was denied by the Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC88-27~; Waiver of Code Requirement was denied by the Planning Commission; approved EIR - Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Applicant, Richard Tait and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 3, 1988. Posting of property NoVember 4, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 3, 1988. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 26, 1988. City Clerk Sohl announced that the applicant submitted a letter requesting a continuance of the public hearing but he did not mention a specific date. Mr. Richard Tatt, 800 N. Eckhoff Street, Orange, CA 92613. He is requesting a continuance, the reason being he had hoped to have prepared a exhibit showing the location of ~BC licenses issued in the area but he has not obtained that information. He had also wanted to provide the Council with site plans and other exhibits showing or presenting their case prior to the hearing but not all exhibits are yet available. He would like to have the hearing continued until some time in December. Mayor Bay asked if anyone was present to speak on the issue; there was no response. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 3062 to Tuesday, December 13, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 1063 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1:30 P.M. 179; PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3067, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 3 AND 5: APPLICANT: OWNER: Enrique Basurto and Antonta Basurto 1515 E. Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1515 E. Broadway. The request is to permit a 536 square-foot "Granny Unit" with waivers of (a) minimum side yard setback, (b) minimum rear yard setback and (c) minimum number of parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3067 was granted by the Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC88-269; Waiver of Code Requirement was granted by the Planning Commission; project determined to be categorically exempt. HEARING SET ON: A Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Pickler at the meeting of October 11, 1988 and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 3, 1988. Posting of property November 4, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 3, 1988. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 26, 1988. Mrs. Antonia Basurto, 1515 East Broadway was present to answer questions. In answer to questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mrs. Basurto stated that her 75-year old father is living there now and the granny unit is being built for him. It is the existing work room in the garage now, when the granny unit is no longer needed for her father, they are not considering it for a rental. COUNCIL ACTION: There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council ratified the determination that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3 and 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 1064 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1;30 P.M. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-408) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 88R-408 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3067, subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 88R-408: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3067. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-408 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO, 0014 - CATEGORICALS3 EXEMPT. CLASS-5: REQUESTED BY: Puru Patel 2029 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1734 South Harbor Boulevard. The request is to expand an existing hotel with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: Administrative Adjustment No. 0014 was approved by the Toning Administrator under Decision No. ZA88-62; determined to be categorically exempt. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Pickler at the meeting of 0ctober 25, 1988, and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 3, 1988. Posting of property November 4, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 3, 1988. Mr. John Swint, 707 West North Street, was present to answer questions. Councilwoman Kaywood. There is a total shortage of parking and a lot of traffic in the area. She is concerned with the requirement being 173 spaces and 156 proposed which includes small car spaces. People will park wherever they can and will even take up two small spaces will create even more of a shortage. 1065 City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 15, 1988, 1;30 P.M, Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The parking spaces are well within the 25% allowable under the Code. The parking variance is for only 17 spaces. There appears to be adequate parking available on the site as evidenced by a parking study conducted in conjunction with the development. He has carefully examined the site. All spaces are within easy reach of the units and it is a good distribution of parking. Relative to the 8-foot wide small spaces, the City's ordinance originally was 7.5 X 15 and that was changed to 8 feet X 15. Mr. Swint. He designed the project with 182 single rooms and 10 suites. He had all the parking necessary. The small car spaces were at 7.5 feet and since he was issued a building permit, the Code was changed to 8 feet and, therefore, he lost some room. There is no expansion and also the building is not existing but it is under construction. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council ratified the determination that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-409) 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-409 for adoption, approving Administrative Adjustment No. 0014. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 88R-409; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0014. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-409 duly passed and adopted. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: James Gelsinger, 1004 Mayflower Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92801. He expressed concern about wasted water in Anaheim as well as surrounding cities. As 1066 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 15, 1988, 1:30 P.M. advised by Code Enforcement, the way to correct the situation is to call the apartment owners or managers where it is evident water is being wasted. If calls were made nothing has been done. Next year there may be a shortage of drinking water. He is asking that the Council implement a process similar to Los Angeles where they required the hotels to put in the water saver shower nozzles. They are then given a monthly quota. If they go over that quota they could be fined. He notes that most water is being wasted by apartment complexes. The Parks and Recreation Department also have sprinklers where the sprinkler water runs into the sidewalk and street. He then gave specific locations where he noted water being wasted. That water subsequently erodes City streets. Mayor Bay. He suggested that the information Just stated by Mr. Gelsinger be forwarded to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and that the PUB start looking at problems of water waste in the City. He also referred to areas where he has observed such waste. He feels a great deal of damage being done to City's streets is because of the lack of control on sprinkler systems and water waste. The PUB can make recommendations back to the Council and City Attorney. Perhaps an ordinance is needed to eliminate wasted water and water damage in the City. 179: ITEMS Ch - Gl4 FROM THE PLANNING CO~ISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1988 - INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS NOVEMBER 15, 1988; RECLASSIFICATION NO, 88-89-13, VARIANCE NO, 3855 AND NEGATIVE DEGLARATION: OWNER: MAHDI NAZARI, 1032 N. Acacia St., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: SADEGH GHASHGHAIE, 7982 E. Bauer Rd., Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1032 N, Acacia Street For a change in zone from RS-A 43,000 to RM-2400 or a less intense zone, and to construct a 2-story, 3-unit apartment complex with waiver of minimumwidth of pedestrian accessway. Reclassification No. 88-89-13 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-295. Variance No. 3855 Withdrawn by the Applicant. Approved Negative Declaration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3063 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: WONSON KIM and HAESOOK KIM, 11443 E. Stapleton Circle, Cerrttos, CA 90701 LOCATION: 1142 N, Brookhurst Street To permit a 1,456 square-foot convenience market CUP NO. 3063 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-296. Approved Negative Declaration. Letter submitted by owner, Wonson Kim, to amend condition of approval set for Public Hearing November 29, 1988. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the owner and a public hearing set for November 29, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. 1067 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1:30 P.M. C3, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3078, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 3 AND 5: OWNERS: JAMES ALLEN CANNADAY AND BETTY BETE CANNADAY, 512 Las Riendas Dr., Fullerton, CA 92635 ~OCATION; 701 S, Lemon Street To permit a 634-square foot modular "Granny Unit" with waiver of a minimum rear yard setback. CUP NO. 3078 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PG88-297. Waiver of Code Requirement DENIED by the Planning Commission. Decision of the Planning Commission appealed by the owner, James Cannaday, and set for public hearing November 29, 1988. The decision of the Planning Commisson was appealed by the owner and a public hearing set for November 29, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. C4, VARIANCE NO. 3854, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5: OWNERS: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, P.O. BOX 2679, TERM. ANNEX, Los Angeles, CA 90051 AGENT: HENRY KING, 17315 Studebaker Rd., Cerritos, CA 90701-1480 LOCATION; 5700 E. La Palma Ave, (ARCO AM/PM) To expand a parking area for an existing service station/convenience market with waiver of improvement of required setback adjacent to Imperial Highway. VARIANCE NO. 3854 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-298. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Members Kaywood and Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. C5. VARIANCE NO, 3857, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11: OWNER: LA PALMA BUSINESS PARK, THE KOLL CO. AND KOLL BUSINESS CENTERS. LA PALMA, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, 2970 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: JOHN BISHOP-FISCH BISHOP DESIGN, 220 Newport Center Dr., #220, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2900 E, LaPalma Ave, For a waiver of minimum distance between freestanding signs to construct a freestanding sign. Variance No. 3857 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-299. C6. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT, RECLASSIFICATION NO, 88-89-18, VARIANCE NO. 3858 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: CHARLES D. BOLERJACK AND DOROTHY A. BOLERJACK, 3625 Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: MICHAEL K. FRAZIER, 18200 Yorba Linda Blvd., #201, Yorba Linda, CA 92686 LOCATION: 3625 Savanna Street 1068 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15. 1988, 1;30 P,M. Petitioner requests reclassification of the subject property from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1,200 or a less intense zone with waivers of (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum site coverage and (c) minimum side yard setback to construct a 3-story, 12-unit apartment complex. Reclassification No. 88-89-18 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PC88-300. Variance No. 3858 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PC88-301. Waiver of Code Requirement DENIED by the Planning Commission. Approved Negative Declaration. C7, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3082 AND NEGATIVE DECI2%RATION: OWNER: JACK K. MANDELAND JUDITH M. MANDEL, 1301 Rtdgeway, Fullerton, CA 92631 AGENT: CHRISTOPHER HOSKINS, 100 W. Valencia Mesa Dr., Fullerton, GA 92635 LOCATION; 1681 W, Broadway To permit a church facility within an existing office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CUP NO. 3082 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-302. Waiver of Code Requirement GRANTED by the Planning Commission. Approved Negative Declaration. C8. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3081 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: BYUNG HWAN PARK AND DONG SOON PARK, 2712 Wyckersham Pi., Fullerton, CA 92633 AGENT: CHONG S. LEE, 4500 Campus Dr., #520, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION; 1523-31 W. Katella Ave, To permit a 7,160-square foot 6-unit commercial retail center with waiver of maximum structural height. CUP NO. 3081 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-303. Waiver of Code Requirement GRANTED by the Planning Gommission. Approved Negative Declaration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3079 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: Dr. R. S. MINNICK AND JAN W. MINNICK, 12264 Sky Lane, Los Angeles, CA 90049 LOCATION: Property is approximately 0,43 acres located at the southeast corner of Orangethorpe ~venue and Lemon Street. To permit an on-sale of beer and wine in a fast food restaurant. CUP NO. 3079 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-304. Approved Negative Declaration. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Members Kaywood and Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. 1069 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, 1;30 P,M. Ci0, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3083 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: BRISTOL COMPANY, 865 Comstock Ave., 17-D West, Los Angeles, CA 90024 AGENT: KENNETH L. BUTTS, 2133 Victory Blvd., Canoga Park, CA 91303 LOCATION: 2311 W. La Palma Avenue To permit retail sales in conjunction with an existing wholesale business. CUP NO. 3083 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PC88-305. Approved Negative Declaration. Cll, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 283 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3091: OWNERS: WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT, 17911 Mitchell Ave., Irvine, CA 92714 AGENT: FRANK ELFEND, 4675 MacArthur Ct., Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Property is approximately 30.2 acres located north of The Summit of Anaheim Hills easterly of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills, southerly of East Hills and west of the future extension of Weir Canyon Road southerly within the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan Development Area. To permit a Townhouse model complex site. CUP NO. 3091 WITHDRAWN by the Applicant. C12, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 283 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3092: OWNERS: WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT, 17911 Mitchell Ave., Irvine, CA 92714 AGENT: Frank Elfend, 4675 MacArthur Ct., Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Property is approximately 23.5 acres located north of The Summit of Anaheim Hills. easterly of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, southerly of East Hills and southwest of the future intersection of Serrano Avenue and further described as Tentative Tact No, 12993 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1) Development Area 4), To permit a single-family model complex site. CUP NO. 3092 WITHDRAWN by the Applicant. C13, WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO, 543, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3049 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: WILKEN WAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ATTN: RICHARD T. BROWN, 6775 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92504 LOCATION; 400 West Wilken Way To construct a 1 to 8-story, 416-unit "affordable" senior citizens apartment complex (formerly 1 to 8-story, and 440-units) with waivers of (a) maximum fence height adjacent to local streets, (b) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, and (c) maximum structural height. Petitioner requests waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses. 1070 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1988, ~;30 P,M. CUP NO. 3049 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PC88-306. Waiver of Council Policy 543 DENIED by the Planning Commission. Waiver of Code Requirement DENIED by the Planning Commission. Denied Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: C14, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 2845 AND VAgIANCE NO, 3603- REQUEST~ FOR REVIEW OF REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: The Vanderbilt Group, applicant, requests review of revised Plans for recommendation to City Council. Property is parcels 8 and 9 of parcel map No. 86-333 is a portion of 19.7 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. Revised Plans were approved by the Planning Commission. Councilman Bay moved to approve the revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2845 and Variance No. 3603 as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: ITEMS C15 C17 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1988 - INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS NOVEMBER 17, 1988: C15. RECLASSIFICATION NO, 88-89-19, VARIANCE NO, 3862 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 13760: OWNERS: ROGER L. WILLIAMSON AND BONNIE S. WILLIAMSON, 3450 E. La Palma, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: SALKIN ENGINEERING CORPORATION, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, #2, Orange, CA 92666 LOCATION: Property is approximately 30,7 acres on the south side of Avenida De Santiago, approximately 650 feet south of the centerline of Tamarisk Drive, For a change in zone from RS .... 43,000 to RS-HS-22,000. To establish an ll-lot singi~ family subdivision with waivers of (a) required lot frontage and (b) minimum lot frontage. Tentative Tract No. 13760 APPROVED by the Planning Commission. Reclassification No. 88-89-19 and Variance No. 3862 have a 22-day appeal period and will appear on the Council agenda of November 29, 1988. No action taken by Council. C16, RECLASSIFICATION NO, 88-89-20, VARIANCE NO, 3865 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13705: OWNERS: JAY BROWN AND HELEN BURROWS, 1949 Ninth Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: CATHERINE LIN AND WILLIAM LIN, 193 W. King Avenue, Brea, CA 92621 1071 City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15. 1988. 1:30 P.M. LOCATION; 1949 Ninth Street For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200 or a less intense zone. To establish a 7-lot, RS-7200, single-family residential subdivision with (a) waivers of required lot frontage and (b) minimum lot width. Tentative Tract No. 13705 APPROVED by the Planning Commission. Reclassification No. 88-89-20 and Variance No. 3865 have a 22-day appeal period and will appear on the Council agenda of November 29, 1988. C17, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273 (PREV. CERT.) THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP87-1) FINAL SITE. PLAN REVIEW FOR PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12701 (125 UNITS) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 12701 APPROVED by the Planning Commission. End of the Planning Commission Items. MOTIONS CARRIED. 179: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO, 542 - SOUND ATTENUATION: Petitioner requests waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to Sound Attenuation. The property is located at 1235 N. Gilbert Street. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The request to waive Council Policy No. 542 was denied by the Planning Commission. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the owner, Steven Fisher and letter 'dated November 14, 1988 and the appeal scheduled to be heard by the Council this date. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Referencing the drawing posted on the Chamber wall, she explained that there is existing development around the subject property. When staff reviewed the information submitted, the sound study that the petitioner had to have required a 338-foot long 9-foot high wall along the freeway. His submittal for some reason was for a 195 foot wall at 9 feet. The commission was concerned with the whole thing and thus denied the request. The staff recommendation at the time was that for 338 feet, he have the 9-£oot wall instead. She believes there is revised information and the petitioner should make his presentation. Steve Fisher, 9161 Gordon Avenue, La Habra. He was remiss when he submitted the information for the Planning Commission hearing. He Has since obtained an addendum to the sound study which shows the impact that a 195-foot, 9-foot high wall would have on the development which he believes were distributed to the Council. The difficulty of the development has been because of the unusual shape. It is a flattened out triangle and the longest leg is adjacent to the freeway. In order to completely satisfy the sound requirements, he would have to construct a 12-foot high wall the entire length of the frontage (338 feet). His proposal is to construct a 9-foot wall from the westerly boundary to where the carports begin. The carports themselves would act as an additional barrier. The reason he is not extending the wall to the easterly or southerly portion is that it will not do any good. His request will only 1072 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, ~988, 1;30 P,M. impact the small triangular area in front of apartments A, B and C. It does not involve a living area but mainly a walkway area. It is a matter of five CNEL difference or 70 CNEL instead of 65 which he further intends to eliminate by plantings and landscaping. He is not asking for a waiver of interior noise levels. He is going to meet the 45db inside. Mayor Bay. If the petitioner agrees to a stipulation that the rental agreements contain the fact that there is a five difference in the CNEL, he would agree to the petitioner's request. A similar stipulation regarding sound was added to a recent project approved that the potential renters/buyers be made aware of the sound ratings. Mr. Fisher stipulated to informing renters of the difference in sound readings. MOTION; Councilman Bay moved to waive Council Policy No. 542 Sound Attenuation as requested with the stipulation by the developer that rental agreements will note the five CNEL difference in the affected area of the development. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 134; RESOLUTION NO, 86R-502 - NUNC PRO TUNC; Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-407 for adoption, amending the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designated as Amendment No. 220, Exhibit B, and most recently amended by City Council Resolution No. 86R-502, Nunc Pro Tunc. Refer to Resolution Book. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-407) Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-407; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 220, EXHIBIT B, AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86R-502, NUNC PRO TUNC. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-407 duly passed and adopted. 179; ORDINANCE NOS, 4972 AND 4973 (ADOPTION); WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES; The titles of the following ordinances were read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance Nos. 4972 and 4973) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of Ordinances 4972 and 4973. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 1073 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 15. 1988. 1;30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4972 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4972: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone proper~y under Reclassification No. 87-88-23 located at 1011 West La Palma Avenue, from RS-A-43,000 to GL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4972 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4973 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4973: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 87-88-34 located at 111 and 115 South Harding Avenue, from RS-7200 to RM-2400) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler and Bay Kaywood None The May~r declared Ordinance No. 4973 duly passed and adopted. 114; NO COUNCIL MEETINGS DURING THE HOLIDAYS: City Clerk Sohl pointed out that public hearings were being set for December and it was necessary to know if meetings were going to be heard on certain dates. After a brief Council discussion, Councilman Pickler moved that the Council meetings scheduled for December 27, 1988 and January 3, 1989 be cancelled due to the holidays. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT; Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:23 p.m.) N. SOHL, CITY CLERK Councilwoman Kaywood seconded 1074 EXCERPT City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 15, 1988, 1:30 p.m. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer The following is an excerpt of said meeting as recorded in Book marked "Records of the Council, City of Anaheim": 114: NO COUNCIL MEETINGS DURING THE HOLIDAYS: City Clerk Sohl pointed out that public hearings were being set for December and it was necessary to know if meetings were going to be heard on certain dates. After a brief Council discussion, Councilman Pickler moved that the Council meetings scheduled for December 27, 1988 and January 3, 1989 be cancelled due to the holidays. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Leonora N. Sohl, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM