1987/04/21City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
VACA~{CY:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CT.RRK: Leonora N. Sohl
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
DEPUTY FIRE MARSHALL: Gall McCloud
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CIVIL ENGINEER - OFFICE: Jay Titus
PARK PLANNER: Richard Mayer
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 12:45 p.m. on April 17, 1987 at the Civic Center front lobby window,
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council to order at
12:17 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46.2; City of Anaheim
vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership, 51-93-18; City of Anaheim vs. County
of San Diego et al. Court of Appeals No. E002539.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:17 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (1:40 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Mary L. Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
315
City Hall, A-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
119: PRESENTATION - WRITE-ON - AUTHOR CIRCLE: The following Write-On Members
were presented with Authors' Circle members and given Write-on Pins which
officially inducted them into the prestigious Authors' Circle due to the fact
that the stories they had written about Anaheim had been published in a
nationally recognized trade publication: Kathy Corral, Joel Fick, Joan
Fundum, Rod Hallock, Mary McCloskey, Janet Mace, A1 Merriam, Jan Simpson, Lee
Sohl, Bill Talley, Doris Taylor, Cindy King, Start Kantor and Irv Pickler.
Mayor Bay and Council Members congratulated each personally for their fine
work.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS - CONVENTION CENTER EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR:
A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council
and presented to Alice Masterson, Wardrobe Assistant - Convention Center
Employee of the Year, 1986, for her outstanding performance, dedication and
willingness to work with others. Mrs. Masterson was accompanied by the
Convention Center's General Manager Lynn Thompson.
Mayor Bay and Council Members extended their appreciation and congratulations
to Mrs. Masterson.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Debbie Engel, Lead
Tour Guide and Lobby Director - Anaheim Stadium Employee of the Year, 1986,
recognizing her on-the-job excellence and professionalism. Ms. Engel was
accompanied by the Stadium's General Manager Bill Turner.
Mayor Bay and Council Members extended their appreciation and congratulations
to Ms. Engel.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Youth Temperance Education Week in Anaheim, April 19-26, 1987,
Victims' Rights Week in Anaheim, April 26-May 2, 1987,
Imagination Celebration Days in Anaheim, April 25-May 10, 1987.
Chris Webb accepted the Imagination Celebration Days proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council which will be displayed at a dinner to
be held April 25, 1987, commending Carl Karcher, on receiving the Mardan
Center of Educational Therapy Award for his outstanding dedication and service
to the community and to education.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held March 24 and March 31, 1987. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
316
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the A~enda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 32,234,777.22, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
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 Nos. 87R-142 through 87R-151, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Mark E. & Christie L. Reider for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 3, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by Eoger T. Sweitzer for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 2 through
January 9, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by John C. Dawson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 1, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Joy Haugen for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 26, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (Claim No. JF646-1327) for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
November 25, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by Joseph G. Lightnet for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987.
g. Claim submitted by John Stella for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 31, 1987.
h. Claim submitted by Colin M. McCrary for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987.
i. Claim submitted by DK Builders for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 13, 1987.
317
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
J. Claim submitted by June A. Fischer for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 20, 1986.
k. Claim submitted by Edward R. Lekawa for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987.
1. Claim submitted by Eddy R. Scott for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 17, 1986.
m. Claim submitted by Nabila L. Saad for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 2, 1987.
Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted:
o. Claim submitted by Debbie R. De Guia for personal loss sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 21, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission, Minutes of February 25, 1987.
b. 105: Special Community Services Board Funding Agency Presentation
Meeting, Minutes of March 26, 1987.
c. 105: Joint Meeting - Senior Citizens Commission, Community Services
Board, Minutes of March 12, 1987.
d. 107: Planning Department Building Division Report--March 1987.
3. Approving the following applications in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. 108: Dinner Dancing Place Permit, submitted by Myung Shik Yun, for
Kelley's Restaurant and Lounge, 713 So. Brookhurst Street, for dinner
dancing seven days a week, 9:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M.
b. 108: Public Dance Permit, submitted by Jesus M. Frias, to hold a
dance at the Anaheim Convention Center, on May 23, 1987, from 6:00 P.M. to
1:00 A.M..
4. 123: Authorizing a Traffic Signal Reimbursement Agreement with D & D
Development Company, Inc., at an estimated cost of $96,000 to be shared 50-50,
to install a traffic signal on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, opposite
Kingsley Street.
5. 179: Authorizing an extension of time for Variance No. 3504, to construct
a 19-unit affordable apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at
220 and 224 No. Olive Street, to expire on November 12, 1987.
6. 139: Opposing SB 553 (Russell) relating to eminent domain and authorizing
the Mayor to communicate said position to the elected officials in Sacramento.
318
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
7. 132/000: Authorizing the Department of Maintenance to submit a request to
North Orange County Municipal Court to increase the bail fines from $14 to $16
per citation in connection with the street sweeping program.
8. 123: Authorizing the Chief of Police to execute an agreement with the
Garden Grove Police Department, to allow participation of Garden Grove
motorcycle officers in the Anaheim motorcycle training classes at no cost.
9. 115: Approving an extension of time of 51 days for the Civic Center
Signing & Graphics, Account No. 75-252-7116, California Neon Products,
contractor, and assessing liquidated damages in the amount of $800 for 8 days.
10. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-142: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AMD DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTEUCTIONAND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Pearson Park
Picnic Shelter Improvements, Account No. 25-820-7107-20060; and opening of
bids on May 21, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
11. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-143: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCEAND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Wagner-Sunkist
Storm Drain Improvement, Account Nos. 43-791-6325-E1580, 51-484-6993-00710,
52-606-6329-08011 and 17-792-6325-E2440; and opening of bids on May 21, 1987,
2:00 p.m.)
12. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-144: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AMD DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Lincoln Avenue
Realignment, Phase II, Account No. 46-792-6325-E2200; and opening of bids on
June 4, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood explained that
the patterned concrete will not be used any place where pedestrians will
travel but will be an accent for safety areas as well as landscaped and median
areas.
13. 115: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FIN~r.T.Y ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(CITY OF ANAHEIM PARKING STRUCTURE SIGNING AND GRAPHICS). (Account No.
75-252-7116, Califormia Neon Products, contractor, and authorizing filing of
the Notice of Completion therefor)
14. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87E-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(SANTA ANA STREET STREET AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT). (Account Nos.
12-793-6325-E3950, 11-790-6325-E0590, and 52-606-6329-04945, Silveri &
LeBouef, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion
therefor)
15. ]53: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-147: A RESOLUTION 0F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-290 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN BY ADJUSTING THE MANAGEMENT SALARY STRUCTURE, ESTABLISHED
319
City Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
RATES OF COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CIASSIFICATIONS
DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (Adding the classification Parking
Authority Manager, X SR07, effective April 17, 1987)
16. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 878R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-334 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED TO THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 47. (Adding the classifications of Utilities
Conservation Specialist and Apprentice Substation Test Technician, effective
April 17, 1987)
17. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-080 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNI~EPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS WITH FULL-TIME
EQUIVALENTS. (Creating the classification of Part-time Legal Clerk, El080,
effective April 17, 1987)
18. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (87-3A). (Declaring its intention to vacate
a portion of the south side of Center Street, formerly Old Lincoln Avenue,
west of Philadelphia, Abandonment No. 87-3A, and setting a date for the public
hearing therefor - suggested date: May 19, 1987, 3:00 p.m.)
19. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-142 through 87R-151:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
O~e
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-142 through 87R-151, both included,
duly passed and adopted.
123/126: ANANEIM COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL AREA OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT STUDY:
Receiving and filing the Anaheim Commercial/Recreation Area Operations
Assessment Study, dated April 1987, prepared by BSI Consultants~ Inc.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer introduced Mr. Ed Ruzak, Project Manager, BSI
Consultants. The study was initiated by the City of Anaheim to improve the
overall performance in the CR area relative to traffic operations and parking
management.
Mr. Ed Ruzak first outlined the study, goal and objectives (see Page 1-1 of
the subject study) and then briefed portions of the extensive and detailed
report (report on file in the City Clerk's Office).
320
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the Anaheim
Commercial/Recreation Area Operations Assessment Study dated April, 1987.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
175: ANAHEIM STADIUM AREA WATER IMPROVEMENT FEE: Amending rates, rules and
regulations for the sale and distribution of water as adopted by Resolution
No. 72R-600, as amended, relating to the Anaheim Stadium area water
improvement fee.
The sub3ect item was withdrawn from the agenda by staff to be reconsidered in
May, 1987.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (CRC):
Appointments to fill two terms created by vacancies (Leo and Stanton). This
matter was continued from the meeting of April 21, 1987, to this date.
City Clerk, Lee Sohl announced that one additional application letter had been
received today and submitted to the Council.
Mayor Bay noted that there were at least 12 applicants expressing interest in
the two vacancy seats on the CRC with 7 letters having been received since the
first continuance. He suggested continuing the appointments for an additional
two weeks.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern that the last few meetings of the
Commission had to be cancelled due to lack of a quorum.
Councilman Pickler agreed to a one week continuance.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the two appointments to the
Community Redevelopment Commission for one week. Councilman Pickler
seconded. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3622 - VINCENT CALIFAN0: Request for a
rehearing by Vincent Califano regarding Variance No. 3622, to retain an
existing horse barn and corral on RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at 331
So. Yorkshire Circle, denied by City Council on March 10, 1987. An Affidavit
of Merit for a rehearing had been submitted to the Council.
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to deny the request for a rehearing relative
to the subject variance. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated that the Council had heard
extensive testimony at the public hearing of March 10, 1987.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion denying the request for a
rehearing. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
115: REQUEST TO CLEAR PORTIONS OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBER: Deputy Fire Marshal
Gall McCloud, noting the over-crowded conditions in the Chamber outlined those
areas that were available for standing. It was imperative not to impede any
emergency exiting should it become necessary.
321
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter assumed that the large number of people were interested in
the public hearing portion of the meeting, specifically the requested
Conditional Use Permit No. 2888 submitted by the Latter Day Saints Church. He
asked in the spirit of fairness that those in the Chamber give an opportunity
for those in opposition to also be seated. Otherwise, those opposed were not
going to be heard at all.
108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - NEW GENERATION PRODUCTION:
Councilman Pickler moved that relative to the subject request that the need to
act arose after the printed agenda was posted. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the Public Dance Permit submitted
by Nick Ramirez New Generation Productions to hold a dance at the Anaheim
Convention Center on April 24, 1987, from 8:00 P.m. to 1:00 A.M., in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held March 31, 1987, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3626 (READV.): Submitted by F. J. Ranshaw Enterprises, Inc.,
et al, to construct a 3750 square foot addition to an existing commercial
shopping center on CL zoned property located at 1112 No. Brookhurst Street,
with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-70, granted
Variance No. 3626 (Ready.), and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3650: Submitted by Walter W. and Christine M. Timoshuk, to
construct a two-story, 29-foot high, single-family residence on
RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 6925 East Overlook Terrace, with
Code waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-71, granted
Variance No. 3650, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2900: Submitted by Miraloma Avenue Partners,
to permit automobile detailing and preparation within an existing industrial
building on ML zoned property located at 2814 East Miraloma Avenue, with Code
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-72, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2900, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2903: Submitted by Chris Daglas, et al (Ali
Baba Food and Deli), to permit on-sale beer and wine in an expanded restaurant
on CL zoned property located at 100 So. Brookhurst Street, with Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-73, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2903, and granted a negative declaration status.
322
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 226~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-26 AND VARIANCE
NO. 3648: Submitted by Jay Burrows, Jr. and Helen Burrows, to consider an
~mendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, proposing a
redesignation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential or
Low-Medium Density Residential, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RM-1200, to construct a 40-unit, 2-story apartment complex on property located
at 1949 Ninth Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural
heigkt, (b) maximum site coverage, (c) minimum landscape setback, (d) maximum
permitted encroachment into front yard area.
The applicant withdrew his application.
6. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 3649: Submitted by Doris
A. Thames, a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200,to construct a 33-unit
apartment complex on property located at 3416 West Orange Avenue, with the
following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum site
coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-74 and 75,
granted Reclassification No. 86-87-27 and Variance No. 3649, and granted a
negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2113 (READV.)--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by
Orange County Water District, requesting an extension of time for Conditional
Use Permit No. 2113 (READV.), to retain a concrete and asphalt recycling
operation on ES-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located on the east side of
Richfield Road, south of La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-77, granted an
extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2113 (Ready.) to expire
September 22, 1988, and previously approved a negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2160--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Mr. &
Mrs. Ralph Alexander, (Sunwest Metals), requesting an extension of time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2160, to retain a recycling center on ML zoned
property located at 1874 So. Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-78, granted an
extengion of time to Conditional Uge Permit No. 2160 for a period of 90 days
to expire June 22, 1987, and previously approved a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2752--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Robert
Locke, (Tyre Shack), requesting an extension of time for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2752, to permit an automobile repair facility on CL zoned property
located at 2860 East Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2752 to expire January 6, 1988.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 851--TERMINATION: Submitted by Brent R. Ogden,
(Harbor Anaheim Associates), requesting to terminate Conditional Use Permit
323
l0
City Hall, Annheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
No. 851, to permit a walk-up restaurant at the southeast corner of Romneya
Drive and Harbor Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Variance No. 3617.
The City Planning, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-79, terminated Conditional
Use Permit No. 851.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2786--TERMINATION: Submitted by Erich J.
Cernich, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2786, to permit
a two-story self-storage facility on property located at 450 West Wilken Way,
with Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum required
public parking area, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2860.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-80, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 2786.
12. VARIANCE NO. 3371--TERMINATION: Submitted by Craig M. Clausen, requesting
termination of Variance No. 3371, to construct a commercial building on
property located at 2784 West Lincoln Avenue, with various Code waivers, as a
condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2765.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-81, terminated
Variance No. 3371.
13. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 3634: Submitted by Joseph
and Lois Clark, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct
a 49 unit affordable apartment complex on property located at 1234 Dale
Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum wall height (denied),
(b) minimum site area per dwelling unit (denied), (c) maximum structural
height (denied), (d) maximum site coverage (denied), (e) minimum structural
setback (denied).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-68 and 69,
granted in part for RM-2400 zoning, Reclassification No. 86-87-21 and Variance
No. 3634, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
End of Planning Commission Information Items.
179/142: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL LAUNDRIES AND/OR DRY
CLEANING ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C-R ZONE: Floyd L.
Farano, Attorney, representing the Steiner Corporation, submitted a request to
amend Section 18.48.050 of the Code, to permit commercial laundries and/or dry
cleaning establishments as a conditional use in the C-R zone. Also submitted
was an excerpt from the Planning Commission hearing of March 30, 1987 wherein
the Commission recommended approval of the subject request.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it was possible to allow this one only and not
open it up generally in the CR area.
324
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, answered that an application would be
processed under a CUP. When the application is filed staff would take a good
look at the surroundings. In this case, zoning has been ML up to now. She is
not aware of any other use similar to this at all and does not expect any one
new to come into the CE area wanting the use. It is pre-existing and that is
the reason for the request. If they are looking for other modifications, that
would require a public hearing. She would be surprised if anyone would want
to purchase this land in the subject zone for this use.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance amending Section 18.48.050 of the Code to permit commercial
laundries and/or dry cleaning establishments as a conditional use in the C-R
zone. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
179/142: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Charles Phillips, submitted a request to
amend Section 18.61.050 of the Code, to permit child day care facilities when
in conjunction with a pez~nitted primary use, as a conditional use in the ML
Zone (including Anaheim Canyon Industrial). Also submitted was an excerpt
from the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held April 13, 1987,
recommending that the subject Code Section be amended accordingly.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance amending Section 18.61.050 of the Code to permit child day care
facilities when in conjunction with a permitted primary use, as a conditional
use in the ML Zone (including Anaheim Canyon Industrial). Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Bay asked for clarification in the case of an
industry that wanted to set up its own child care facility, this is not a
child care operation run as a commercial operation inviting people to come in
from outside the area to use the facility. He wanted to make sure that
distinction is clear.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, the terminology proposed to be used
would require that it be part of an industrially permitted use. It does not
specifically say they could not serve other people that work in that project.
It would draw its clientele from an industrial area.
Mayor Bay. His concern, particularly in the northeast industrial area (NEIA),
the Council has a clearly stated policy about discouraging any type of
operation in that area that brings new commercial customers into the area. If
he is to vote favorably, the proposed amendment is going to have to contain
clarifying language that clearly states that these are tied in for support to
existing industrial uses. If it is along the line of a commercial day nursery
set up in that industrial zone, he does not want to see that happen.
Councilman Pickler. His concern is the same as the Mayor's. He does not want
to see people from residential areas dropping their children off at these day
care centers.
City Attorney White asked if the Council's concern is related to the canyon
industrial area or the entire HL zone. He could fashion an amendment which
325
24S
City ua!l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
would allow the use in the canyon industrial area, child care facilities which
exclusively serve one or more facilities which themselves are permitted uses
in the canyon industrial area. He wanted to know if the Council feels the
same limitation is needed in a code amendment for the remainder of the ML zone
or if that could be more open.
Mayor Bay. He does not feel it is necessary for the entire ML zone all over
the City but in the northeast industrial area. That area is supposed to be
the key job producing industrial area. He has no concern with being that
strict on the other ML areas.
City Attorney White. In the canyon industrial area ML zone, the amendment
will limit it to only those child day care facilities that exclusively serve
other industrial uses within the canyon industrial area.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked if the Code is set up for a particular
employer and another business down the street wants to use the facility would
that be permitted.
City Attorney White. In the canyon industrial area, if one business set up a
child day care facility for its employees, another employer could tie into
that and his employees could also be serviced by that facility.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion directing the City Attorney to
prepare the Proposed Code Amendment in accordance with Council discussion.
One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
123/150/106: CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA - REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT: Carmen
Luna, Chairperson, submitted a request for financial support in the amount of
$1,500 for the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta, to be held April 30 through May 3, 1987
and to approve holding of an ~m-teur boxing contest. Submitted was report
dated April 10, 1987 from Chris Jarvt, Parks, Recreation & Community Services
Department, recommending approval of an agreement between the City of Anaheim
and the Anaheim Cinco De Mayo Fiesta Committee for the promotion of the 17th
Annual Cinco De Mayo Fiesta, to consider a request from the Committee for
$1,500 in support of the Fiesta and permitting an amateur boxing contest as
part of the Fiesta.
MOTION~ Councilman Pickler moved to approve an agreement between the City of
Anaheim and the Anaheim Cinco De Mayo Fiesta Committee, approving the request
for $1,500 to support the Fiesta to be allocated from the Council Contingency
Fund and permitting an amateur boxing contest as part of the Fiesta.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
114: CITY OF ORANGE LETTER REGARDING LOMAROAD/IMPERIAL HIGHWAY CONNECTION:
Jess F. Perez, Mayor, City of Orange, requestingAnahetm's position on the
moratorium proposed by the ROAR organization to the City of Orange relating to
the connection of Imperial Highway and Loma Street. Submitted was report
dated April 14, 1987 from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Bill Sell,
recommending that the Council oppose a moratorium as proposed by the ROAR
Organization in the City of Orange and communicating its position to the
Orange City Council.
326
2 4,5
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Clerk Sohl announced that Mr. Frank Elfend requested to speak ou the
issue.
Mr. Frank Elfeud, Elfeud & Associates, 1151 Dove Street, Newport Beach. He is
taking exception to an item contained in the subject staff report, Page 1,
Item 2 which deals with the project his company is currently processing in the
City of Anaheim, the Highlands project. There is a statement in the report -
"Imperial Highway/Loma Road connection was initially planned to satisfy the
traffic needs for that area. Should this construction be delayed for any
reason beyond its expected installation, the Highlands Development that is
contemplated in Anaheim Hills would not be possible ." That matter has been
discussed in great detail with their Traffic Engineer who has indicated there
are no trips that have been assigned from the project to Imperial Highway or
the connection that is discussed. For public purposes, he would like to enter
that comment into the record. If this does become a consideration, that
comment would be ou the record although they have no reason to believe it will
be a problem.
Paul Singer, City Traffic Engineer. The entire EIR for Anaheim Hills was
based on the fact that Loma/Imperial will be extended as well as Serrano.
Should that not be the case, an amended EIEwould have to be prepared, traffic
assignments made and determination would have to be found on how the trip
distribution throughout the entire Anaheim Hills area will be impacting
traffic. While Mr. Elfend's consultant dealing with traffic specifically on
the Highlands area did not assign trips to Imperial Highway over to Loma, the
other trips from the Anaheim Hills area have been assigned to be trips that
would vacate capacity at the intersection of Anaheim Hills and Santa Aha
Canyon Road. The City not being able to avail itself of that "escape" route,
a new EIR would have to be prepared or at least an amended one to determine
what and how much constraint this would bring upon the entire development in
the Anaheim Hills area and that is why that comment appears in the staff
report.
Frank Elfend. He feels what Mr. Singer indicated is acceptable to them. If
the situation were to arise it would have to be restudied and a subsequent
determination made. That is different from the statement which makes a rather
blanket comment as it relates to this project. They are comfortable with Mr.
Singer's explanation and feel it is reasonable.
Mayor Bay. He assured Mr. Elfend that his remarks are on the record. He
noted also in the letter from Mayor Perez that it talked about declaring a
moratorium on the construction of Loma until a decision is reached with regard
to the alignment of the Eastern Transportation Corridor. He assumes, however,
that the resolution attached to the letter declaring the moratorium has not
yet been acted upon by the City of Orange. The resolution states, "resolved
that the City of Orange does hereby declare a moratorium on any plans for any
connection of Loma Street to Imperial Highway until the construction and
completion of the Eastern Corridor..." Those are two entirely different
statements because the alignment for the Eastern Transportation Corridor is
within months, but the construction and completion could be 5 to 15 years from
now. The recommendation in the letter from the City of Orange and what is
said in the resolution are two different things.
327
City Hall~ A-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the Council oppose a moratorium by the ROAR
Organization in the City of Orange and communicate its position to the Orange
City Council.
Before action was taken, the Mayor stated he would be glad to personally take
the message to the Orange City Council because his concerns are not only that
this particular extension which has been on the City's circulation plans and
Orange County's circulation plans for many years has been part also of all
regional and general planning throughout the Anaheim Hills area. Further, the
Eastern Corridor is projected to tie into the 91 Freeway and Gypsum Canyon and
run south from the Gypsum Canyon intersection to a number of routes still
under study. Most are well east and do not have any direct bearing on whether
the Loma/Imperial Highway connection is made or not. The Eastern Corridor
ties will be more critical to Weir Canyon Road, to Santa Ana Canyon Road and
to the 91 Freeway.
Councilman Pickler. He agrees with the Mayor. It was also imperative that
there be a representative at the Orange City Council meeting of April 28,
1987; Mayor Bay stated there should not only be a representative from the City
staff at that meeting but also a Council Member.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
150/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4823 - PROHIBITED CONDUCT IN PUBLIC PARKS -ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES: Amending Subsection 13.08.020.200 of the Code, relating to
prohibited conduct in public parks, alcoholic beverages.
City Clerk Sohl announced that Mr. Clyde Lowe wished to address the Council on
the subject proposed ordinance.
Mr. Clyde Lowe, 1742 East Sycamore. He has lived at 1742 East Sycamore near
Sycamore Jr. High School for 25 years. In the last 10 years there has been a
problem relative to drinking going on on the school grounds. He has talked to
the school, the City's Parks and Recreation Department, the Police Department
and has called the Mayor's Hotline and has gotten no action whatsoever. He
has been surrounded three times in the last six months by at least 15 to 20
latinos in front of his house because they are urinating at the curb. There
is a man in the trailer hired to watch the school. Last summer he stopped the
latino~ from drinking. Someone came back and shot his trailer and truck.
Other people would be present today but they do not want to come especially
the ladies that live there. It has been a problem for a long time.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the ordinance will give the City the
authority to enforce no drinking at the City's parks.
Councilman Hunter explained the old ordinance had to do with consumption, the
proposed ordinance deals with possession of alcoholic beverages and puts more
"teeth" into the current ordinance. He suggested that some type of meeting
could be set up between the principal and some liaison police officer to go to
Sycamore Jr. High School and work on the problem. Mr. Lowe stated he
approached the School District two weeks ago and recommended that parking not
be allowed on the Sycamore Street side for use of the school grounds but that
328
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
parking only be allowed on La Palma Avenue which would take care of a lot of
the problems. He does not want to prohibit soccer playing at the school but
the drinking.
After further discussion, City Attorney White clarified that the proposed
ordinance would only apply to public parks but not school property. If it is
a school activity using a City park the ordinance would apply but if it a City
park department activity using school property then the ordinance would not
apply. Sycamore Jr. High School is school property. He reiterated there is
no ordinance at the current time covering school property.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the City get together with the School
District and combine forces; City Attorney White recommended that the School
District be contacted before any action is taken.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4823 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4823: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
13.08.020.200 OF SECTION 13.08.020 OF CHAPTER 13.08 OF TITLE 13 RRLATING TO
PROHIBITED CONDUCT IN PUBLIC PARKS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4823 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed until public hearing time at
3:00 p.m. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (2:54 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (3:05 p.m.)
107: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVE-ON:
APPLICANT;
Sam Diflllpp0
1525 Dana Place
Fullerton, Ca.
92637
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Request is to move a fourplex from 1009 East Lincoln
Avenue to 514 East Broadway.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 26, 1987.
Posting of property March 27, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 27, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 19, 1987 from the
329
244
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Chief Building Official, Wayne West, recommending approval of the request
conditioned on compliance with the City of Anaheim Building, Plumbing,
Electrical and Mechanical Codes.
This matter was continued from the meetings of April 7 and April 14, 1987, to
this date.
Phlllip Silverman, attorney, representing Sam Difilippo, 620
South Euclid.
He is present today to request a continuance in order to review
the paperwork and investigate some irregularities that may be
present. He requested a continuance to June 16, 1987.
Mayor Bay.
He had a statement before him stating that over 50% of the
property owners have signed and submitted signatures in
opposition to the move-on. He asked to hear from the City
Attorney in that regard.
City Attorney, Jack White.
The list was checked and compiled by Annika Santalahti, Zoning
Administrator, who is present and can verify that she has
checked the signatures and there are signatures of by more than
50% of the property owners according to the Assessor's roles or
grant deeds of record that own property within 300 feet. Under
the Anaheim Municipal Code if that is true, it would require the
City Council to deny the permit being requested.
Phil Silverman.
He does not want to take exception but he would like the
opportunity to review the law stated as well as verify the
irregularities that he believes exist as they relate to the
petition itself.
Councilman Hunter.
He asked if it was the City Attorney's position if more than 51%
of the property owners object to the move-on that the City
Council has no alternative but to deny the permit.
City Attorney White.
If that is the fact, that is correct.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
She received from Donna Berry a number of pages of the
petition. Using that she went through the Assessor's books,
matched up names and when there were inconsistencies in the
Assessor's book, for instance, only listing the husband and
wife, Ms. Berry provided grant deeds to show the actual
ownership of record. She (Santalahti) verified everything that
is listed plus one more that was not on the list as matching the
Assessor's book and those names represent 61% of the property
OWIlers.
330
241_
Ci.t~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P,M,
Mayor Bay asked Mr. Silverman if that had been supplied to him.
Mr. Silverman answered no. He did have a chance to have a brief
look at it and it is in the process of being copied for him
now. He has not had a chance to read it, review it or comment
on it.
Mayor Bay asked that Mr. Silverman receive a copy.
Annika Santalahti.
She had Just given Mr. Difilippo a copy of the petition itself,
and they already have a copy of the word processing listing of
names,
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved first to deny the request for a continuance and
secondly that based on the information furnished to the Council today that the
request for a house move-on be denied finding that a majority of the property
owners in the area within 300 feet object to the moving of that structure onto
the property. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTON
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The house was moved without permission and has been sitting on
the property for over a month. She suggested that a time frame
be given for removal of the structure.
City Attorney White.
He recommended that the matter be formalized in a resolution by
the Council and a Roll Call Vote taken in that regard. That
resolution would then become final within a certain period of
time after it is mailed. Upon that becoming final as the Code
provides, the City would be in a position to take legal action
with regard to the house if it is still located on the property.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87K-152 for adoption, denying the house
move-on request. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 87R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO MOVE A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO 514
BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
EAST
Roil Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 871{-152 duly passed and adopted.
331
242
City Hall~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
179: PUBLIC HEA1LING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-38:
APPLICANT:
Corniche Development Corporation
1681 Loma RoJa Drive
Santa Ana, Ca. 92705
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Request to amend Condition No. 5 of Resolution No.
86R-438, granting Reclassification No. 85-86-38, for a change in zone from
RS-7200 to CO on Property located at 800 So. Harbor Boulevard.
HEARING SET ON:
Required when request for amendment to conditions are received.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 9, 1987.
Posting of property April 10, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 10, 1987.
City Clerk Sohl announced that a request for a continuance had been received
from the applicant Daniel O'Connor, President - Corniche Development, in his
letter of April 13, 1987 and that May 5, 1987 be the date of continuance.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 85-86-38 to Tuesday, May 5, 1987. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Ronald Bevins, Attorney, representing Daniel O'Connor, 300 South Anaheim
Blvd., Suite 910, stated that the property is graded and a fence constructed,
the problem being to obtain a building permit. He wanted to know if a letter
of credit could be posted for the ultimate improvements on Harbor and Helena.
Mayor Bay. He interjected and stated that the matter is now continued to
May 5, 1987 at the request of the applicant, and that no discussion will take
place at this time.
Councilman Pickler. He suggested that Mr. Bevins go to the Planning
Department where he could obtain assistance.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2888 AND REQUEST FOR
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVALN0. 87-01:
APPLICANT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
50 East Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a church on RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned
property located at 441 Fairmont Boulevard and request for approval of removal
of 145 specimen trees, with Code waiver of maximum structural height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-50 denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2888; approved EIRNegative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by Floyd Farano, attorney for
the applicant.
332
239
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRMMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 9, 1987.
Posting of property April 10, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 10, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 18, 1987.
At this time, Councilman Hunter announced that pursuant to Government Code
Section 87100 and 87103, as a Member of the City Council, he is declaring a
Conflict of Interest. He lives at 405 Bridgeview which is within 300 feet of
the proposed LDS Church.
Councilman Hunter left the Council dais. (3:26 p.m.)
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Floyd Farano, attorney for the LDS Church, 100 So. Anaheim
Boulevard.
The application requests authority to build a church at 441
Fairmont Boulevard. The project will require the removal of 145
specimen trees. There are 424 trees at present and the 145
proposed to be removed will be replaced with 480 additional
specimen trees or an increase of 79% of those presently on the
property. He represents thousands of Mormon people who have
contributed to purchase the land and to build the church.
Petitions have been signed by 3,280 residents of the City and
approximately 1,500 letters have also been submitted.
Approximately 40% or 1,300 of those who signed the petitions are
signatures of those living in the hill and canyon area east of
the Costa Mesa Freeway. Of the 1,500 letters, approximately 40%
of those were signed by people in the hill and canyon area.
Residents outside of the hill and canyon area have addressed
letters to the Council and responded by executing signatures on
a petition. They have done so to demonstrate that there is
Citywide support for the propriety of the request. Special
petitions by neighbors who live within 500 feet of the Mormon
Church at Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road have been submitted
along with a separate set of signatures for the Mormon Church at
Rio Vista in the City.
Mr. Farano had previously submitted letter/report dated
April 17, 1986 outlining the presentation to be made before the
Council today. He thereupon briefed the Council on the
following (also see letter/report dated April 17, 1986 with
Exhibits and reports attached thereto): A description of the
project which included Exhibits 1 and 2; aerial photographs of
the subject property and vicinity; land use - square footage of
the church building, driveways, parking area; the land to be
left in it natural state; visual effect - visual effect of the
church on the area, line of sight outlined in Exhibit 5
(Exhibit 4 was an aerial map overlay compared with Exhibit 5);
ratio of building to park/drives to landscaped and natural areas
333
240
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
(Exhibit 6); artists rendering (Exhibit 7); traffic on Fairmont
Blvd. (description and accidents that have occurred on the
road); proposed uses of the church facility; single-family
residences on the property vs. a church, and mitigation of
traffic factors. Exhibit 8 showed the current Mormon population
east and west of Imperial Highway and south of the Riverside
Freeway and Exhibits 9 and 10 had to do with the environment and
traffic respectively.
Mr. Farano also reported the following: 11.3 acres of land are
involved; church building, 24,864 square feet (.57 acres or 5%
of total land area) property to be left in natural state 3.55
acres; landscaped area, 3.75 acres; driveway and parking, 3.25
acres (29%); parking spaces, 308; 65.5% of the land will be left
natural or landscaped, and 34.5% will be building, driveways and
parking. Sunday services will be from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
with an average of 75 to 111 vehicles for each of two services.
No more than 225 to 250 vehicles will be on property during the
entire time divided into two separate services. During the
balance of the week there will be some activity - scripture
readings, Boy Scout meetings, women's auxiliary which will bring
25 to 30 cars onto the property during evening hours. There
will be a semi annual conference for approximately four hours on
two given Sundays which will bring 250 - 275 cars onto the
property.
Mr. Farano also submitted photographs of other Mormon churches
to demonstrate the appearance of the church itself (churches at
Bastanchury and Osmond, Yorba Linda, Ohio Street and Yorba Linda
and a church under construction in Cowan Heights in a custom
home site area). He also briefed the Exhibits previously
mentioned (Exhibits 1 through 8) particularly noting that
Exhibit 8 which contained red dots showing the current Mormon
population reflecting a need for the proposed church. A short
video was also shown taken at the subject property to show the
size and contour of the land and its visibility from surrounding
residences. The closest house to the church building itself
would be 360 feet away.
In concluding, Mr. Farano stated it was suggested that the
applicant prepare an Environmental Impact Report (ELK). At the
suggestion of the architect, Environmental consultant and
others, the church re-evaluated design of the property and
subsequently redesigned a number of portions of it so as to
mitigate concerns voiced by the people at the first hearings.
They felt, therefore, it was not necessary to prepare a full
EIR. The services of Ultrasystems were retained to undertake an
environmental assessment. He then referred to letter dated
February 10, 1987 by Don De Mars, Vice-President, Environmental
Systems Division, Ultrasystems Inc. which was a 7-Page
assessment of the environmental issues of land use, noise and
aesthetics which were reviewed to determine potential project
334
237
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
related impacts. The results of the analysis were summarized in
the letter (previously made a part of the record). The EIR for
the church is not unfavorable.
Mr. Farano stated that the conditions set forth by staff in the
event the application is approved make it absolutely clear that
whatever has to be done to cure the hydrology problems, whatever
has to be done or can be done not to drive away the red-tailed
hawk or any other environmental aspect of the property will be
undertaken by the developer.
Mr. Bill Darnell, Transportation/Traffic Engineer,
Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., 3190 Airport Loop Drive, Suite C-l,
Costa Mesa.
His firm was retained by the church to review the traffic
impacts of the proposed project on Fairmont Blvd. (See report -
Traffic Study for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints in the City of Anaheim - prepared for Larue Fry, Inc. -
prepared by Basmaciyan-Daruell, Inc., - December, 1986). It
contained data on existing conditions, roadway characteristics
(Fairmont Blvd.), existing traffic volume, project related
traffic - trip generation, trip distribution, project related
impacts, access considerations, a summary of findings and
conclusion. The report also contained figures 1 through 4. Mr.
Darnell briefed portions of the data contained in the report.
Ne then stated that primarily church services occur on Sunday
with very light activity during evening hours. The project will
generate approximately 430 cars a day based on two Ward
services. There will be approximately 214 cars for Ward one
service (arrive between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., leaving between
12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m.) and 214 for Ward two services
(arriving 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., leaving 2:00 to 2:30 p.m.).
Fairmont Blvd. carries approximately 5,000 vehicles a day.
Distributing the traffic from the project to the south or north,
the project represents approximately 5% of the total existing
traffic which is not significant volume.
In summary, Mr. Darnell stated in his opinion, the Church is not
a significant impact and that mitigation measures and conditions
of approval are adequate to mitigate the problems of traffic.
There is an acknowledged accident problem on Fairmont Blvd.,
primarily a single-car incident situation. The times the church
will be adding the bulk of the traffic will be during day light
hours when there is good visibility. Improvements to the
landscaping and actual improvements to Fairmont Blvd. will
enhance the safety characteristics of the area.
Mr. Don De Mars, Vice-President, Director of the Environmental
Systems Division Ultrasystems, Inc. 16845 Von Karman, Irvine.
His firm was engaged to perform the Environmental Assessment
previously broached by Mr. Farano addressing land use, noise and
aesthetics. He briefed land use, project height, tree removal,
335
238
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
the equestrian/hiking trail and noise issues as outlined in his
report. Anaheim has permitted churches in the scenic corridor
overlay zone and any decision the Council would make in this
regard would not be precedent setting. It is a compatible use
with the future park uses to be located to the southeast. In
concluding, he stated that the project is technically and
environmentally acceptable and he concurs with the Planning
Commission's decision that a Negative Declaration is an
appropriate action for CEQA compliance.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Niles Sorennson, 4101 Maple Tree Drive.
It is customary to design their congregations into units and to
try to provide facilities in the areas in which the members
live. Twelve to 15 years ago they started to look at property
in the canyon area. About 8 years ago, they were successful in
purchasing the subject property by donations contributed by
church members. It is a sound project and the facility is
desperately needed now. Their people are not able to worship
under the current arrangement. No other site is available.
They are requesting approval of the project.
Herbert Christensen, 5108 Crescent Drive.
He has been a resident of the area for 20 years. Fifteen years
ago he was President of the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association
when development in the hills was "exploding". There were no
controls over trees or the natural beauty of the area.
Developers Just leveled the property. He sat on many committees
and helped formulate the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance
which is in existence today. He is familiar with the proposed
project, especially the tree removal restoration aspect. The
project not only exceeds the letter of the City's tree
preservation law but also complies with the original intent - to
try to preserve some of the natural beauty in the hills. The
request is to remove 145 of the 425 trees to be replaced by 480
trees which is over a 3 to 1 ratio far exceeding the 1 to 1
ratio required under the ordinance. Far fewer trees will be
impacted by this project than would be by a housing tract or
shopping center. He urged the Council's support of the project.
Lana Christensen 5108 Crescent Drive.
It was obvious by the numbers of people present today in favor
that there was a need for them to build their church. The
Planning Commission indicated several areas of concern and they
have now met those concerns. The building site was purchased 8
years ago and if the residents in the immediate area had checked
when they purchased their homes, they would have found it was
owned by a church and would eventually be built upon.
Residential areas are where churches are needed and should be
located. Their church buildings are well maintained and
landscaped. They are concerned about other people's feelings
and expect the same in return. The nearest home is in excess of
336
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
300 feet of the actual building. They want the same rights
others have been given who are allowed to build on their
property and to be able to worship within short distances of
their homes. They needed and deserved the building to be
built. She urged a favorable vote by the Council.
Wes Hoover, 275 Via Montenero. He has been involved in
residential development in the canyon area for 30 years. He
relayed his experience relative to his insights regarding tree
removal. He has personally walked many developments where the
only restriction is that the trees be replaced on a one-to-one
basis. That would be the same situation on the subject project
if single-family homes were to be developed. With the proposed
tree removal plan, the property will remain a park-like and
rural setting. As a resident of the area, he is in favor of the
project.
Kelly Sims, 472 Country Hills Road.
He is a Real Estate Appraiser and is qualified to speak relative
to how property values might be impacted. He then explained the
location and surroundings of the Mormon Church located on Ohio
Street in Yorba Linde which is a similar neighborhood to the
proposed Anaheim Hills site. The question being, do the homes
next to the church enjoy the same value appreciation as those in
other areas. Questions were also asked of surrounding neighbors
on how they felt about the church in their backyard, were
residents still living in the area who lived there when the
church was constructed in 1975, and were their opinions
different now than then. Mr. Sims submitted an Exhibit which
contained the site plan of both the church in Yorba Linde and
the proposed site. Included were photographs of homes
immediately surrounding the Yorba Linda church site. Values
ranged from $329,000 to $990,000. A comparative market study
(which was a part of the Exhibit) was made of both sites. The
conclusions of the study were that properties in exclusive
residential neighborhoods near churches experience normal market
appreciation (he gave price comparisons of homes recently sold
located on properties surrounding the church in Yorba Linde
which qualified the findings of the study); churche~ properly
maintained and with normal use do not constitute a market
detriment to value and marketability of homes in exclusive
residential neighborhoods; churches appear to be a proper
development in such neighborhoods. One of the documents in the
Exhibit was a petition signed by 15 residents on Ohio Street,
Yorba Linde, stating that the church building was not offensive
in any way, there was no known negative impact on the value of
their property and it in no way prevented them from enjoying
their property.
Floyd Farano.
In concluding, he addressed three of the conditions that were
imposed; Condition No. 4 - requiring the payment of the
337
236
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -April 21, 1987~ 1:30 P..M.
RECESS:
Transportation Corridor fee. The church has an exempt status
relative to the payment of that fee. Condition No. 22 -
regarding the dedication of the hiking and riding trail - they
agreed with that. However, they respectfully request to be
relieved of Condition No. 21 concerning the obligation to
continue to maintain the trail. It is a matter of liability
since they do not know who will be using the trail. It is not
an appropriate requirement at this time.
By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (5:03 p.m.)
Mayor Bay.
He could respond to Mr. Farano's comment on Condition No. 4. If
the church wants an exception to the Transportation Corridor
fees, it is necessary to appeal to the Eastern/Foothill
Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority. He is the
Chairman of that Authority. There is process for appeal through
the Executive Director. The City of Anaheim cannot give
exception to those fees.
Dick Mayer, Park Planner.
Relative to Condition No. 21, since 1983, the Parks Department
on every tract and development that has had an equestrian trail
obligation has also had the responsibility for maintenance of
the system and liability associated with it. It is not a new
requirement and that clause is placed on everything approved
today.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN 0fPOSITION:
Ed Bannar, 6440 Villa Arboles. (He had an Exhibit which was set
up for display since it was to be referred to in his and others'
presentations). He is the President of the Broadmoor-Northridge
Homeowners Association, the largest subdivision bordering the
subject property. They have previously submitted petitions with
189 signatures in opposition which is an overwhelming majority
of the residents in their tract. Working from the posted
Exhibit of the church site plan, he showed where the subdivision
was located, the 73 homes involved, and those homes (represented
by red and yellow dots) in the immediate vicinity that have
opposed the CUP. Approximately 80% expressed their opposition
by signing the petitions with a total opposition in the
subdivision being approximately 84% or 189 out of 227. They did
not purchase their homes expecting that a commercial building
would be located on the subject property. Plans call for
single-family residential to be built there. He then referred
to letter dated April 1, 1987 from Floyd Farano which addressed
parking on the property and also traffic on Fairmont Blvd. He
(Bannar) pointed out discrepancies between some of the
statements made in the letter and data contained in the record.
338
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Jackie Anthony, 461 Canyon Ridge Drive.
Canyon Hills Estates is made up of two cul-de-sacs. There is no
through traffic and their properties are a minimum one-half acre
sites. They have no sidewalks or street lights. It is a quiet
neighborhood and there is an abundance of wildlife in the area.
(She submitted two photographs taken in her backyard showing
examples of wildlife living in the area). They should not be
expected to put up with the urban noise levels the church will
bring to their backyards. Their's is not a typical average
neighborhood and the proposal is not a typical average size
church. Allowing the proposed CUP will be wrong.
Sharon Achs, President of Old Del Georgio Homeowners Association.
Of the five church members who spoke, only one lives in the
area. There is a disparity in the fact that over 3,000 letters
were received from church members since there are only 420 homes
in the area. She represents 40 of the homes directly impacted
within 300 feet of the proposed project. The residents are
requesting that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's
decision of denial. The Commission received the application two
times and on both occasions, 1985 and 1986, turned it down
because it was the wrong development in the wrong place.
Fairmont Blvd. cannot accommodate the kind of traffic that will
be generated. This is not a political issue. They are the
homeowners and they are the ones that will be impacted. The
video showed all the specimen trees as they are at present. She
asked that they consider what it will be like when those trees
are torn down. She urged the Council not grant Conditional Use
Permit No. 2888.
Judy Palmieri, 445 Bridgeview Drive.
Her property backs up to the frontage of the proposed facility
on Fairmont. She then submitted an original of a petition
containing 62 signatures and has outlined the map of the tract
with the signatures. The church is the wrong development in the
wrong place. Their homes are in the City's scenic corridor
overlay zone which is ruled by stricter development than the
City's flat lands in order to preserve the scenic quality. She
is concerned relative to the trees and the wildlife living in
those trees. Relative to the horse trail, the homeowners have
provided insurance for this trail even though they do not use
the trail because their CC&R's do not provide for horses or
barn-yard animals. Traffic on Fairmont has quadrupled in the
last six years. It is a winding, rapidly dropping road and has
no street lights and sidewalks. If widened to four lanes, it
will only become a holding street for more cars. She then
submitted a traffic study entitled Fairmont Blvd. showing the
road which indicated where each of the 33 recorded accidents had
occurred, the latest being February 23, 1987. Anaheim Hills was
supposed to be a planned community and they did not want
progress at the cost of their future.
339
234
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Bill Fink, Old Bridge Road.
It is not the church they are concerned about but the size of
the project. It is a 24,000 square foot structure with parking
lots and appropriate lighting for those lots. The hours will be
disruptive to the residents. The use and type of use is being
understated. The whole project is not contributing anything to
the community. Mitigating features will not alter the situation
and it will also not make Fairmont safer but more crowded,
dangerous and the standard of living in the area worse. Ne is
requesting that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's
decision. He then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood the reason
he feels the use is understated. He is a builder and has worked
on these church structures before and they always include a
basketball court.
Robert Jones, 6650 Canyon Hills Road.
His tract is adjacent to the project. Referring to the Exhibit
(s) right next to Exhibit posted by the residents, he submitted
an original petition containing 58 signatures representing 37 of
the 40 homes in their tract or 93% who are in opposition. The
Exhibit showed where those homes were located.
Mayor Bay then read a summary report which was submitted by the
City Clerk (made a part of the record) which contained a tally
of the letters and petitions received both in support and in
opposition.
Mr. Johns.
Most of the opposition is from the residents in the immediate
surrounding homes. They cannot duplicate the numbers of people
who want to build a church. They feel that a project of the
size and magnitude proposed would have a severe impact on the
residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood - where they
lived. It is surrounded by existing single-family homes
according to the master plan and existing zoning. He urged the
Council to reaffirm the General Plan and deny Conditional Use
Permit No. 2888.
Carol Rudat~ 281 01d Brld~e Road.
She is an executive of a major corporation in Orau6e County and
is going to use the term corporation for the church. The issue
is not political or of a religious nature but strictly an issue
of land use. She made an analogy considering the church to be a
corporation wherein its activities, comings and goings and the
like can be compared to a business with employees which
activities would impede upon their residential area. They have
an established residential community and the "corporation" would
be in commercial zoning. Other similar corporations in the
canyon area have properly chosen commercial property. She also
broached the traffic problems on Fairmont Blvd. and other
problems existing with regard to adjacent streets. She read
letter dated April 21, 1987 previously submitted by her and her
340
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
husband which documented many of the concerns given in her
presentation. They were opposed to additional traffic, noise
and daily interference that will be generated by the proposed
project.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(5:51 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (6:07 p.m.)
Bret Jones, 7380 Stone Creek Lane.
They chose the area to live in because of its semi-rural,
country like setting. The project is inappropriate for the
location. He represents 28 of 29 homes of the Old Bridge
Homeowners which is 15 acres of property adjacent to the
proposed church facility. He first took issue with the traffic
study that was presented. Regarding noise the canyon acts as an
echo at night, the parking lot lights are going to be a
distraction and the proposal is not for a typical neighborhood
church. The use of the facility has been severely downplayed.
Multiple congregations are involved. The homeowners are totally
opposed and they are the ones who live in the area and who will
suffer any impacts. He asked that the Council uphold the vision
of the master plan and the homeowners.
David Cart, 7460 Stone Creek Lane.
Church development is needed by the church but it is not needed
by their neighborhood. Of the 420 homes in the area, 399
responded negatively to the proposal. It is not consistent with
the General Plan and would be precedent setting. He also took
issue with the parking situation. This is not a country church
but an enormous commercial size development. An EIR should be
prepared for the project and he cannot see how any further
development could possibly be approved until such an EIR was
prepared fully addressing the safety problem on Fairmont Blvd.
SonJa Grewal, 400 Canyon Ridge Drive.
The 5,000 cars using Fairmont Blvd. as reported by Mr. Darnell
is a 1985 figure and should be updated to 7,000 (1986 figure).
She is not convinced that the growth of the church will be
limited. Traffic studies are addressing a whole day of vehicles
not the per hour usage. Plans indicate that three acres only of
the site would remain completely natural, but could change due
to slope stabilization. The church in Yorba Linda is not a
stake center and the comments relative to that facility should
be disregarded. The evidence presented does not show that all
five conditions exist for granting a CUP which are required
according to the guidelines of the Planning Commission. In her
presentation, she also countered various aspects of the data
previously presented by the applicant.
341
232
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Fred Hunter, 405 Bridge View Drive.
He is not speaking to sway the Council's vote. He has come in a
spirit of love and compromise between the homeowners and those
of the LDS Church. This is not a Mormon, non-Mormon issue.
There are alternatives. He referred to a recent newspaper
article reporting that 4,500 homes were going to be built in the
Wallace, Bauer and Oak Hills Developments. He has spoken with
the developers of those sites and two church sites are currently
being proposed. Those are better than the Fairmont location.
There are developers who would rather have the subject 11 acres
and put in 15 homes now, who would be willing to work out an
exchange. He urged that the Council not let their conscience be
seared by the hot iron of political pressure.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Floyd Farano.
The issues are clear and few. The issue is the rights of
people. He again referred to Exhibit previously submitted
showing the great number of read dots marking the residences of
people who now attend the church at Nohl Ranch Road and Royal
Oak which have far exceeded capacity. The habit of the Mormon
Church is not to build bigger churches but more of them. When
the church they are proposing reaches it's capacity of three
wards which is at least five to six years away, it may be
looking for a site as Councilman Hunter proposed at Oak Hills.
In the meantime, these people have a right to go to church in
their neighborhood. They are not strangers but residents. It
is not a high density use. All the concerns and problems
expressed will be compounded by a residential development. The
church will not be active during times those problems exist.
The church will be vacant during peak traffic times. Relative
to the basketball court, in his presentation, he explained that
the 12,000 plus square-foot multi-purpose area would contain
meeting rooms and a 6,540 square-foot gym. The gym has
basketball lines painted on it and those lines come within 2 or
3 feet of the outside walls of the building. That area will be
used as a basketball court, for wedding receptions, potlucks,
etc. It is not a room set up for spectator sports. The church
is a permitted use in a residential zone and Is proper within
that zone. There are hundreds of churches In Orange Gounty in
residential areas. They do not think they should go somewhere
else. They are not asking the City to violate its ordinances or
extend any privileges which have not been accorded to hundreds
of other churches in Anaheim and other cities.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler.
He asked to hear from staff relative to the traffic situation on
Fairmont Blvd.
342
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
Traffic generated by a church is typically at off-peak hours and
off-peak days. The proposed development would generate
approximately 400 to 800 peak day trips at the most. In
comparison to the ?,000 trips ADT on Fairmont Blvd., that is
approximately 10% of its daily volume. He also explained that
yesterday at the Planning Commission meeting they discussed at
some length the Highlands Project. The first 400 units that are
going to be constructed in that project are going to have a
greater impact on Fairmont Blvd. than the church. It is an
arterial street and needs to be widened. It will be receiving
additional traffic as development of the Highlands project and
other projects in the Anaheim Hills area continue. The church
itself compared to that is going to have a lesser impact because
of its off-peak volumes. Traffic in itself and the flow of
traffic is not of major consideration here but the major
consideration is the design and geometrics of Fairmont. Of the
33 accidents that have occurred on Fairmont to date, 26 happened
on the downhill side and only seven on the uphill side or the
west side, the side where the church is proposed. The church
will, of course, have an effect on the down hill side as well
when people are leaving the facility. He does not believe the
traffic per se is going to be a problem. There are other
considerations, but traffic is not one of them. Answering
Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Singer explained if 22 homes were
built on the site instead of the church, 264 trips a day would
be generated or approximately 50% of what the church would
generate on its highest traffic day or Sunday.
Mayor Bay.
He asked if there were specific stipulations by the applicant
regarding improvements on Fairmont Blvd.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
Stems 6, 7 and 8 in the staff report of February 18, 1987
(Page ll-h and ll-i) are the conditions recommended by staff
regarding improvements to Fairmont Blvd.
Mayor Bay.
Regarding the improvements of Fairmont, he read that
improvements would be extended to Canyon Rim Road. He wanted to
know if that was a stipulated improvement in addition to the
required conditions.
Floyd Farano.
The only stipulation they have made so far is that they would
extend improvements to Canyon Hill. There is approximately
1,050 feet in front of the property that they would improve and
since the property line extends to the east side of Fairmont, as
required by Condition No. 8, they would improve the east side of
Fairmont. The item has been discussed but he does not believe
that any stipulation has been made. The one stipulation he
343
230
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
discussed was that the church will accept a stipulation or
execute a covenant or whatever is legally necessary to warrant
to the City that no enlargement of the church uses will take
place on that property but will remain essentially with the
building as it is presently planned with no further church
buildings.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer.
Condition No. 8 states improvements to Canyon Hills Road which
may have been confused with Canyon Rim Road. There was never
any discussion that he is aware of concerning improvements to
Canyon Rim; Mayor Bay stated he meant Canyon Hills and not
Canyon Elm.
Floyd Farano.
There have been some discussions concernin~ the church improving
Fairmont from its property line up to Canyon Rim Road to the
ultimate width. They have also discussed the possibility of
some additional widening on Fairmont opposite their
development. The consensus of opinion between their traffic
expert and the City's is that perhaps some widening on the east
side would make the best contribution to the situation. His
recommendation would be to compare the value of the cost of
extending Fairmont to Canyon Rim with the value of the cost of
widening Fairmont on the east side and they found that to be
comparable. It is their recommendation if the Council grants
the application that the applicant would be willing to pay to
the City an amount equal to the cost of the extension of
Fairmont from the end of its property line to Canyon Rim to the
City for traffic improvement purposes. In that way, the
improvements would be done in a way most effective. He so
stipulated.
Mr. Farano, answering Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the
parking requirement, 221 spaces are required and they are
providing 304. Their expected daily usage will be for the
Sunday services of each ward. They anticipate starting out with
one ward and then going to two with somewhere between 75 to 110
cars and perhaps 120 cars. Excess parking over and above the
221 would be utilized only during the semi-annual meetings as he
explained previously. The do not anticipate ever using the 304
parking spaces because it is beyond their capacity.
Councilman Pickler.
The assumption from the opposition is that the church will hurt
the area. He cannot agree when people say that churches are not
needed in residential areas. There are many churches who want
to move to the Hills area but cannot afford to buy the land they
need. Many people need a place to worship. The LDS Church has
been one of the better neighbors. They seem to work with the
areas and local communities in which they are located. He knows
that they were turned down by the Planning Commission originally
344
227'
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
but they went back and spent many hours and dollars and changed
what they thought needed to be changed to answer concerns
expressed. The church, when proposed on Nohl Ranch Road,
initially experienced a great deal of opposition. The permitted
use of a church in a residential area is something he believes
in. Otherwise churches will be going into industrial areas
where they do not belong. In deference to the opposition, he
believes this is something that will enhance the area and in 3
or 4 years the neighbors will realize that their concerns were
unwarranted.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The word "opposition" is not a proper one with regard to the
residents of the area. She is and always has been very
concerned with homeowners. She remembers clearly why Fairmont
Blvd. is in the condition it is in today. It was based on
giving more weight to the residents of Broadmoor Homes. They
wanted it to remain a rural two-lane road but the problems that
have come about because of Fairmont being inadequate for the
number of residential units concerns her. It was accommodating
the wishes of the residents at the time instead of the
professional advice that was given but rejected. Relative to
the zoning, there is no question throughout Anaheim that
churches go into residential neighborhoods with a CUP. Today,
she would not favor the church buying the property and proposing
to build on it but the property was purchased ? or 8 years ago.
Anyone who told potential residents something that was not true,
or that the property was going to remain vacant, and not be
developed, was incorrect. If the property is developed as 22
homes, she believes that could have a far greater impact than
the church. On the basis of the Traffic Engineer's testimony,
it will not be an impact to the neighborhood and the residents
would find it will be a good use and a good neighbor.
Mayor Bay.
Most churches in the City are in residential areas. In the flat
lands, it is not uncommon to have one right next to a house or
houses ranged around the church next to a wall with only 15 feet
to a residential back door. Churches belong in residential
areas. He started his political career fighting development
next to where he lives. Although he modified it, his efforts
did not stop it. The things that are imagined are going to
happen do not happen. In considering these 11 acres, the amount
that is going to be developed vs. the amount to be left in its
natural state, how far away the closest house is, 240 or 300
feet, there is no way he could say that a church could not go
there. Nobody can guarantee zoning to anybody forever.
Relative to Fairmont, to fix it is about a 32 million Job.
Although he was not on the Council when it was approved and
developed as it is today, when he heard about it he thought it
was a mistake and still does - for that grade, a two-lane black
345
225
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
top with no lighting, no sidewalks, no curbs due to the demands
of the people in the Hills who wanted to keep their rural area.
In his judgment, he does not believe the church will have
anywhere near the impact stated.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-153 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2888, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission but subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations with the
additional stipulations by the applicant that the church will accept a
stipulation or execute a covenant or whatever is legally necessary to warrant
to the City that no enlargement of the church uses will take place on the
property but will remain essentially with the building as it is now planned,
with no further church buildings and that the applicant would be willing to
pay to the City an amount equal to the cost of the extension of Fairmont Blvd.
from the end of its property line to Canyon Rim to the City for traffic
improvement purposes both as articulated by Mr. Farano. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87E-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2888.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
Hunter
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-153 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve Specimen Tree Removal No. 87-01,
finding that a reasonable and practical development of the property on which
the trees are located requires removal of the tree or trees whose removal are
sought. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent.
One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
A question was asked from the audience relative to an appeals process of the
Council's decision; Councilman Hunter stated a rehearing could be requested.
City Attorney White stated that a Resolution would be prepared and
subsequently mailed to the applicant and anyone else who requests same.
Within 10 days after the mailing of that resolution, a rehearing may be
sought. If a rehearing is sought and denied by the Council then the action
taken today remains final.
346
City Hall~ A~aheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - April 21~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn to 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 28,
1987. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent.
One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (7:02 p.m.)
\
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY
347