Loading...
1987/11/10147 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987, 10:00 A.'M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session (of November 3, 1987). PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 11:30 a.m. on November 6, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Bay called the adjourned regular meeting of November 3, 1987 to order at 10:15 a.m. on November 10, 1987 and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following item: a. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. (10:15 a.m.) Councilwoman Kaywood MOTION CARRIED. AFTER KECESS: The Mayor called the meeting t~ order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Hunter. (12:28 p.m.) 106: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BALANCING FY 1897/88 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: There was no discussion on the budget at this time. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn the 10:00 a.m. adjourned regular meeting of November 3, 1987. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (12:30 p.m.) LEONOKA N. SOHL, CITY CT.r~K 1034 148 City Hall~ Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti CIVIL ENGINEER - OFFICE: Jay Titus A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 11:30 a.m. on November 6, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59; Tenpas vs. City of Anaheim, U.S. District Court Case No. 86-3785. 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. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:31 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Hunter, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (1:45 p.m.) INVOCATION: Reverend Harold Hedrick, West Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and authorized by the City Council: Ebell Club Federation Day in Anaheim, November 17, 1987, 1035 145 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Medal of Honor Day in Anaheim, November 14, 1987. Mrs. Dee Noble accepted the Ebell Club proclamation. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of September 1, 1987. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 34,841,344.71, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Manager. Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all resolutions on the Consent Calendar, after reading of the title thereof, 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. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 87R-461 through 87R-470, 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 Westinghouse Air Brake Company for indemnity for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 11, 1985. b. Claim submitted by Jorge Alberto Solano for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 20, 1987. c. Claim submitted by Darlene Saranitzky for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 26, 1987. d. Claim submitted by Natasha Rosalind Cirni for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 2, 1987. e. Claim submitted by Steve Cole for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 14, 1987. f. Claim submitted by Brian John Curran for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 5, 1987. 1036 146 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. g. Claim submitted by Denise Anne Ivy for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 4, 1987. h. Claim submitted by Donald A. Livingston for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 22, 1987. i. Claim submitted by Sunset Builders for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 25, 1987. J. Claim submitted by Robert Walker for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 5, 1987. k. Claim submitted by Paul Shelton for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 4, 1987. 1. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 20, 1987. m. Claim submitted by Lakeisha Wheeler for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 30, 1987. n. Claim submitted by Robert Droesbeke and La Vonn Droesbeke for bodily injuries sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 9, 1987. o. Claim submitted by Jose C. Acosta for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 18, 1987. p. Claim submitted by Nicholas Baker for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 17, 1987. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of October 7, 1987. b. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of October 1, 1987. C. 140: Public Library Monthly Statistical Report, September 1987. d. 105: Public Library Board, Minutes of September 23, 1987. 3. 108: Approving a Pool Room Permit submitted by Joyce Marie Massey, for 3 pool tables at The Woods, 1287 "B" East Lincoln Avenue, in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police. 4. 109/150: Approving the submittal of a grant application in the amount of $25,000 through the Institute of Museum Services, General Operating Support Grant Program for use at Oak Canyon Nature Center. 5. 160: Accepting the bid of Plant Equipment, Inc. in the amount of 340,810 for a telephone modification system including four telephone consoles for Lewis Substation Dispatch Office, in accordance with Bid No. 4485. 1037 Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. 6. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $34,296.51 for 100 each polyphase meters, Class 100, and 40 each polyphase meters, Class 200, in accordance with Bid No. A-4500. 7. 160: Waivin~ Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $48,135.52 for microwave telecommunication equipment. 8. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-461: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR A PUBLIC WORK (TWIN PEAKS RESERVOIR). (Account No. 59-630-6329-02962) 9. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-462: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 827 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 4219 NULL AND VOID. (in accordance with conditions of approval of Reclassification No. 86-87-32) 179: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-463: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2543 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-204 NULL ANDVOID. (in accordance with conditions of approval of Reclassification No. 86-87-32) 10. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-464: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED TO THE GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT REPESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (creating the classification Scoreboard Director, X 1823, effective November 10, 1987) 11. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-465: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-82 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (adding the classification of Alteration Worker, A 0677, effective November 13, 1987) 12. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-466: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (to reclassify Jailer and Senior Jailer as a "local safety member" from "miscellaneous employee#) 13. 160: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-467: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DIVISION. 14. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-468: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDINGRESOLUTION NO. 87R-438, NUNC PRO TUNC. (deleting two deeds relating to R/W ~4150 and ~4151) 15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-469: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING G~ANT OF EASEMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. 1038 City ~,1l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. 16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-470: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None Hunter The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-461 through 87R-470, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTEE TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint Ruth Good, to represent the Magnolia School District on the Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission, to fill the vacancy left by Steven gravely, as recommended by the Magnolia School District Board of Trustees in letter dated October 28, 1987 from Arch J. Haskins, District Superintendent of Schools. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood then referred to letter dated October 29, 1987 from Ray Morales, Member of the Board of Trustees/Magnolia School District, requesting that the Council submit to the voters an amendment to the City Charter that would allow School Board representatives to serve on City Commissions when appointed by their respective Boards, residency requirements not withstanding. The change would allow non-qualified electors of the City to be appointed. She would be opposed to such a change; Mayor Bay stated he would also be opposed to that change. Councilman Pickler. Mr. Morales is referring to School Board Members and it was something he would have to look at. Councilwoman Kaywood. The matter was looked at before and the same conclusion reached - that members be residents and qualified electors of the City. It was put in the Charter for a good reason. Councilman Pickler. He could understand if it is a Planning Commissioner or members of other City Boards and Commissions but those who serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission represent schools which cover certain districts in the City. He reiterated he would have to take a closer look at the situation. 107: REQUEST FOR ~W~ARING (DIFTLIPPO) - HOUSE MOVE ON AT 514 EAST BROADWAY: Mayor Bay noted the lengthy request for a rehearing on the subject house move-on which was denied by the Council on July 28, 1987, submitted by Farano & Kieviet, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Difllippo. Also received were letters from the Anaheim Neighborhood Association (ANA) dated November 6, 1987 and November 4, 1987, giving reasons why another rehearing should not be granted. 1039 141 __ Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987; 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the request for a rehearing on the house move on to 514 East Broadway. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the situation had gone on for so long that it is almost an insult to be coming back to the Council again for another rehearing request. In July, they discussed having the structure moved from the site in 30 days; subsequently no time limit was set. All of the reasons for denial the first time and the second time (see minutes of April 21 and July 28, 1987) are just as valid now as then. The fact remains that the structure was originally moved without permission. There is no reason to grant a rehearing. Councilman Pickler. He has no problem with the rehearing. He is willing to listen again and perhaps new information can be presented. Councilman Ehrle thereupon seconded the motion of denial for purposes of discussion. Councilwoman Kaywood. If there had been any new information it would have been included in the request for the rehearing and there is no new information. To say it was not a fair hearing and the petitioner was deprived of any rights is extremely inaccurate. Councilman Bay then moved to continue the request for one week for full Council action. Befoze any action was taken, Councilman Ehrle also referred to the letter from ANA (November 6, 1987) with an attachment wherein it indicated that certain thin~s were required by Code and the building did not meet those requirements. He would like to have staff review it and to have those issues outlined included in their discussion next week. Councilman Pickler seconded the foregoing motion of continuance. City Attorney Jack White. If a rehearing were to be granted, he would agree whether or not the structure met code would be a pertinent topic of that hearing, but the issue currently before the Council is whether or not to grant a rehearing. The criteria for granting it is whether or not there was an abuse of discretion by the Council or evidence that was not presented by the applicant at the first hearing which could not have been presented. He believes there would be some difficulty if they were to focus the discussion on whether or not it met the Code. It would not be appropriate to supplement the previous record by additional evidence at this time. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to continue the request for a rehearing for one week for full Council action. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: To appoint a member to the Public Utilities Board for the term ending June 30, 1989 (Skidmore). 1040 142 City H~]I~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay moved to continue the subject appointment for one week for full Council action. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING AND AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2888 (LDS CHURCH): Request by Robert Zemel, Anaheim H~lls Citizens Coalition for a rehearing of Conditional Use Permit No. 2888 and an application for amendment of conditions of approval of conditional Use Permit No. 2888, to permit a church on property located at 441 Fairmont Blvd~ with code waiver of maximum structural height. This matter was continued from the meeting of November 3, 1987, to this date. City Clerk, Leonora Sob_l explained that one of the criteria Mr. Zemel used in requesting the rehearing was that Councilman Hunter had voted on the last resolution amending conditions of approval of the CUP where he abstained on the previous resolution approving the permit. Due to a clerical error, the resolution showed that Councilman Hunter had voted but, in fact~ he had not done so. A correction was made to the resolution on October 23, 1987 and she has informed Mr. Zemel of that error. MOTION: Councilman Ehrle moved to deny the request for a rehearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2888. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney White. Part of the request was an application for amendment of conditions of approval which does not require any action. There is no current legal procedure in the Code to allow a member of the public to initiate amendments to conditions of approval who do not have a legal interest in the property. The Council, at its own discretion can do so as can the property owner 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4878 - EXEMPTIONS FROM IMPROVEMENTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY: Submitted was Joint report dated November 3, 1987 from the City Engineer and City Attorney, recommending amendment of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code by introducing and adopting the ordinance attached as Exhibit A-1 as recommended by the City Planning Commission. City gn~ineer, Gary Johnson. As Council requested, staff has conducted a survey of cities in the southern California area to see if Anaheim is consistent in the current ordinance. The results of the survey (see summary sheets attached to the November 3, 1987 report) indicate that Anaheim is in the mainstream of the City's survey. The issue was brought to the Planning Commission on October 26, 1987. The Commission recommended two amendments to the ordinance that the Council adopted - (1) delete the 10% provision where relief or an exemption is granted from the public improvement requirement and (2) changing the one-year period to two years in which a property owner can utilize the provision for the minor building modifications. Staff has no problem changing the one year to two. Deletion of the 10% provision would provide some additional hardship on the larger businesses in the City because they would fall within the 1,000 square-foot limitation rather than the 10%. Any minor addition to a major property would probably come through under a variance procedure seeking relief. There may be some additional variances 1041 139 City Hall~ A-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10, 1987, 1130 P.M. through the Planning Commission and perhaps the City Council resulting from that. City Attorney Jack White. The Council has already adopted one ordinance that establishes the exemption provision as well as the variance provision to the Code. It is still within the 30-day period for referendum purposes. The ordinance being proposed today for first reading is based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation. If the Council wishes, they can modify the ordinance in their agenda material as recommended by the Planning Commission by either making those modifications today and offering the modified ordinance for first reading or refer that back to staff to change it and bring it back to the Council next week. Gary Johnson, City Engineer. The proposed ordinance does provide for the deletion of the 10% and also the extension of one year to two years. If the Council wishes to have both modifications or neither they can continue with the current ordinance. Staff recommends incorporating both but noting that it provides an additional hardship on the larger properties where the current ordinance does not. When staff reviewed the proposed ordinance, they felt the 10% provision was more equitable citywide than the 1,000 square-feet. The Planning Commission felt under the 10% if some single-family dwellings wanted to add certain square footage, they would be penalized under the 10% provision. Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4878 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4878: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AHENDING SUBSECTION .070 OF SECTION 18.04.080 OF CHAPTER 18.04 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM IMPROVEMENTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. City Attorney White noted if there are changes next week it would require an amended first reading. If adopted at that time, there will be a three or four week period when the current ordinance in process will be in effect. 168: REQUEST TO RENAME A PORTION OF ROMNEYA DRIVE, "KARCHER WAY": Request by Horst J. Schor, Carl Karcher Enterprises, to rename Romneya Drive, between Lemon Street and Harbor Boulevard, to "Karcher Way". This matter was continued from the meeting of October 13, 1987, to this date. Submitted was joint report dated November 4, 1987, Chief Building Official and Joel Fick, Planning Director, submitted for informational purposes. Mayor Bay. From the information submitted he does not see any extensive added negotiations between the owners (Carl Karcher Enterprises and Alex Foods). Councilman Pickler moved to deny the request for the subject name change. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay asked if Mr. Schor was present today. Wayne West, Chief Building Official. He received a phone call from Mr. Schor who indicated that he had discussed the matter further even since the memo of November 4, 1987 was submitted. Mr. Schor would like the Council to consider another extension of 60 to 90 days. 1042 140 City ~11, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay moved to continue the request for one week for full Council action. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the request for 60 days. Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated if an agreement was reached, he is certain Mr. Schor would advise them. He did not favor continuing the matter with no resolution in sight. Councilman Bay. He is in opposition to the motion to deny the request. He has felt all along that they should have changed and renamed Romneya Drive, "Karcher Way". He does not understand what the debate is all about. Carl Karcher Enterprises has agreed to pay all costs associated with the change. He would approve the request today. Councilman Pickler. He agreed with the Mayor but the Morales family (Alex Foods), as well as the Ratchets, have been at their respective locations on the same street for many years. He feels there are ways to honor Carl Karcher for the many things he has done for the community, such as naming a park in his honor or other streets. The Morales, have done many things for the City as well. He would rather see the two families resolve the issue rather than the Council. Councilman Ehrle. He also agreed that the matter should be resolved by the parties involved. Mr. Schor has asked for a 60 to 90-day continuation during which time there may'be a solution. He thereupon seconded the motion to continue the matter for 60 days. Councilman Pickler. He was opposed to the motion. The request can always come back to the Council at any time and be placed on the agenda. Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Pickler and thereupon withdrew her motion of continuance. The Council then voted on the motion of denial which failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle and Pickler Kaywood and Bay Hunter MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the request for the subject name change for approximately 60 days. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 106: RECOMMENDATION FOR BALANCING THE FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 RESOURCE A!J.OCATION 108: No discussion was held on the budget at this time. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF pENALTY AND INTEREST - TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT) - RODEWAY INN: Request for abatement of the penalty and interest 1043 137 City Hall~ A-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. assessment in the amount of $749.09 on late payment of Transient Occupancy Tax. Submitted was report dated November 3, 1987 from the City Treasurer Mary Turner, recommending denial of the request. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the request for abatement of the penalty and interest assessment in the amount of ~749.09 on late payment of Transient Occupancy Tax by the Rodeway Inn of Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Mr. David Jackson, owner of Rodeway Inn explained that he has paid his TOT in a timely fashion over the last 52 months since the Inn was built. In this case, it was mailed and postmarked according to the Code, on time. The City Treasurer received it and cashed the check on October 2, 1987. Two days in the mail is not too much to expect. He submitted an affidavit and had it notarized stating that the payment was mailed on September 30, 1987. That was also the first payment after the increase of the TOT to 10%. There was some confusion in his office because they had only collected 8% since the notification received for the summer was on July 15, 1987 and they had already done bookings. They did not collect about $1,000 in taxes but he went ahead and paid it. In this situation, it is not the money that is so importavt, but he has paid on time for 52 months. It is not something they are trying not to pay. The City did receive the payment and cashed it on October 2, 1987. If it is postmarked on September 30, 1987, then it is timely. Councilwoman Kaywood. She pointed out that the payment was postmarked October 1, 1987 and a copy of the envelope postmarked October 1, 1987 is a part of the record. Mr. Jackson stated he did not see that. The affidavit stated it was mailed September 30, 1987 but if it has to be postmarked September 30, 1987 as well, then a rule is a rule. Mayor Bay. It has nothing to do with the Rodeway's fine record but if the City does not draw the line in these instances, there would be 50 businesses approaching the Council every month. A vote was then taken on the motion to deny the request. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CAPdLIED. WAIVER OF READING - OKDINANCES: The titles of the following ordinances were read by the City Clerk. Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 179/185/142: ORDINANCE NOS. 4875 THROUGH 4877: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 4875 through 4877, both inclusive for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4875: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (i) APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 87-01 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND HANOVER 1044 138 City Hall~ Anahe!~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES, (ii) FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND (iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. ORDINANCE NO. 4876: A EESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFF~D TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 67-68-68(7), EM-1200, south side of La Palma Avenue, east of East Street) ORDINANCE NO. 4877: A RESOLUTION 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, Reclass 83-84-25, CO, 2203 East Lincoln Avenue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None Hunter The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4875 through 4877, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess to public hearing starting time. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (2:42 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Hunter. (3:07 p.m.) 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3695: APPLICANT: Peralta Ltd. 3150 East Birch Brea, California 92621 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a two-story, 40-foot high, stn~le-family residence on property located at 4851 Copa De Oro Drive. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: Resolution No. ZA87-20 granted variance No. 3695; determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemption, Class 5 as defined in the State EIRGuidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Councilman Pickler. This matter was continued from the meeting of October 27, 1987, to this date (see minutes that date). PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 15, 1987 Mailed to property owaers within 300 feet - October 16, 1987 Posting of property October 16, 1987 1045 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. STAFF INPUT: Joel Fick, Planning Director. The item was continued in part for staff to examine issues associated with view obstruction and intrusion within Tract No. 12576. In the two intervening weeks, staff was able to conduct a generalized pad elevation analysis. As indicated in the report (see report dated November 5, 1987 - subject: Building Height/Tract No. 12576) additional information would be necessary as well as continuing tests in order to do the analysis comprehensively on a lot by lot basis. Staff could find no view intrusion or obstruction to existing residences for the height variance before the Council today under Variance No. 3695. The proposed heights are perceived by residents living east of the tract to intrude upon their present view scapes. Staff favors conducting a comprehensive tract study, examining precise elevation data and balloon tests to be conducted prior to consideration of other variances within the tract. Such a study would provide for overall tract regulations to both the existing property owners, future buyers within the tract as well as existing and concerned residents living adjacent to and in the Anaheim Hills vicinity and also eliminate duplicative hearings by the City Council, Planning Commission and potentially the Zoning Administrator. City Attorney Jack White. Answering the Mayor, the application before the Council today is for one lot within the subject development. The criteria to be used under code in granting height waivers is no different from that granting any other type of waiver. It must be shown that the individual parcel of property is unusual in size, shape, topography or other circumstances that do not generally apply to other properties located in the same vicinity and zone. Secondly, as a result of the unusual set of circumstances, the property would be denied a development privilege that is enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. It is not legally one of the tests to merely determine whether or not the particular height waiver would intrude upon other properties visually. Mayor Bay. To him, view intrusion is the key for establishing height limitations on anything built in the hill and canyon area. If there is no view intrusion, then it is a matter of making a decision on whether, due to the nature of the development, there is a hardship involved. Councilman Pickler. It is his understanding that staff is recommending approval of the variance before the Council today and then to analyze the additional lots in the tract. Joel Fick. That is correct. Relative to the variance before the Council today, staff could not find that any view intrusion existed. 1046 He 136 City Hall, An~beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. also explained for Councilman Ehrle that on the balance of the tract, staff did not want to provide a specific constraint in terms of design for future architects or home builders. Mayor Bay. The hearing today is for the one single-family residence which is a height waiver of 40 feet against 25 feet as provided by Code. The City does not enforce CC&R's but it is strange that a CC&K is set up at 10 feet over the Code restriction (the CC~R's for the tract indicate 35 feet). APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Bill Knight, 922 Town and Country Road, Orange. He reiterated the presentation he made at the meeting of October 27, 1987 (see minutes that date where extensive input was received) emphasizing that at 25 feet, the house would look like a bungalow with no architectural appeal. Houses within Peralta Hills have been given variances of 28 feet up to 40 feet. They are enjoying a benefit which is being deprived to him. The variance should be approved in his case because it would not harm anyone else and also the elevation of the lot had been 25 feet higher but it was graded down. It is not obstructing anyone's view. He urged the Council to look at the lot on its own merit. He is one of 41 lots. There are unique specialities to this lot totally different than the other lots in the development. Frankly he would vote down a 40-foot height requirement on some of the other lots. Councilwoman Kaywood. When the developer graded this particular lot, he graded it down 25 feet. If it had been at the original grade and a 25-foot home built on it it would have been permitted; Mr. Knight stated that it would have been a permitted structure as a matter of right. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Frank Liggett, 571 Peralta Hills Drive. He repeated specifics of the presentation he gave at the public hearing on October 27, 1987 (see minutes that date) re-emphasizing that the issue is opposition to the approval of the variance because it will set a precedent. Councilman Pickler. If there was going to be intrusion, he would be opposed. If someone can build a home such as the one being proposed that does not intrude on anyone, he can see no reason for denying the variance. Robert Zemel, Chairman, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. He questioned where the idea comes from Just because the properties are extremely expensive that the scenic corridor 1047 133 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. rules do not apply, and Just because architectural design calls for a height variation that it should be permitted. The Coalition is pleased that the Council has proposed that there may be a standard set for this tract. He has a notarized affidavit from Mary Anderson who spoke as a buyer to the exclusive agent for Peralta Limited. Upon questioning the agent, Hrs. Anderson was told that there would be no problem to obtain a variance for a higher home. He does not like the CC&R's for the tract stating that the structures in this tract shall not exceed 35 feet which is 10 feet above the current legal limit. The developer's tactics with regard to his procedure to get his wall and pilasters up and showcased further this impression upon his buyers and other developers in the hills that these variances can be obtained Just for the asking. The variance being discussed today all by itself may set a standard. Although there is no hardship, it will create a hardship on the house next to him. ~q~en that lot is sold, that owner will be before the Council because he will have a hardship as well as the one next to him and the one after that. According to the map, the views will be impacted. When the next lot is developed, lot 10 will be in the way of lot 11, 14, 15 and 16. They believe that the property in Anaheim Hills should not be bought or sold with the intention that a title to a variance is academic. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that anyone has the right to ask for anything but it does not necessarily mean they are going to get it. She reiterated if the developer had not graded the property 25 feet down, 25-foot homes would have been able to be built by right on the ungraded property and it would not have mattered if it impacted anyone. Councilman Pickler. His main concern is with the people who are there now. The lots within the tract will be Mr. Peloquin's problem; Mr. Zemel stated it will be the Council's problem when those variances come before the Council. Joel Fick. Staff took note of the comments made at the October 27, 1987 hearing continued to today about the relationship of the lots within the tract. One of the by-products will be an overall study done for the tract so that potential buyers of lots within the tract will know the rules of the game up front. They will be afforded the opportunity of knowing what the permissive or restrictive heights are. There will be assistance provided to future buyers, the City, the Commission and the Council as well. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive. The Council is saying they do not need to follow the law as it stands but can use subjective Judgment. He does not see anywhere in the Code where it says the Council or Planning 1048 134 City Hall~ Anaheim~ Califor~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Commission does not have to follow the Code. He is concerned that the Council is saying it has the power to override the Code so long as it does not intrude on anybody else. The 25-foot height limit was to avoid excessive intrusion into the environment. If they feel it is not a proper limit or that views should be considered, the Code should be changed through public hearings so that people can express their opinions. Jim Blackwood, 5434 Spyglass Lane, Anaheim. He favors the staff recommendation that there be balloon tests in order to determine whose view will be obstructed. He then relayed an incident wherein he was deprived of his view. He feels it is necessary to put stipulations on the tract because it is not possible to see what will occur in the future as in his case. Everybody who buys a lot in that area needs to know what is going to happen. The Planning Department should be given the time to conduct the proposed tests. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Paul Williamson, 7282 Columbus Drive. He has purchased Lot No. 32. He is disappointed in the community as a whole with the opposition they are showing, he personally met with Mr. Zemel on the location and showed him his plans. Mr. Zemel told him he had no objection with houses being developed but that it was strictly the wall issue. There is no way to stay within 30 feet and build a house of the magnitude they are trying to build. He does not feel any views are being taken away from anybody. He is speaking in favor of the variance. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Mr. Knight. The focus is concern for people within the development and the possibility that lot 10 will affect lot 11 and lot 11 will affect lot 12, etc. His lot, lot 10, views to the north. Lot 11 views to the east. He could build 200 feet high and it would not block lot 11. He urged that they personally look at the lot to see how he will not affect anybody. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Councilman Ehrle. He had asked that staff submit a report on the matter for Council consideration. The intent of the study and the continuing studies is to make sure there is no intrusion on the views of the new homeowners in the tract. There has been more grading done on this parcel per acre than most others and that makes it a unique and different project. It is well below Nohl Ranch Road. The height of the homes within the tract will vary because of pad elevation heights. They are trying to establish guidelines so that each home to be built will not have to come 1049 City Ma!l~ a--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. before the Planning Commission and/or the Council. Anaheim Hills is going to be very glad to have 41 million-dollar homes in the neighborhood. Working with staff and coming up with height limitations for each lot so that the builder will know what its limitations are going to be is a step in the right direction. He has been to the tract. The lots are all different. He is ready to act in favor of the subject variance. Councilwoman Kaywood. The home will be an asset to the area. It will not block anybody's view. There is no reason to deny the variance. If the lot had not been graded down 25 feet, a 25-foot home could have been built by right no matter how many views were blocked. Mayor Bay. The intent of the staff in their study is to set up a method that is better than an arbitrary 25-foot height. If it means protecting existing homes, to him it is the best goal that government can have to help protect the existing homeowners. As far as protecting all future views from now on is impractical. He is going to vote in favor of this variance because all staff reports tell him if the house is built at 40 feet, it does not intrude on anyone's view that is there now. If that is true, he is voting the right way; if not true, then he is not voting the right way. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the 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. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilwoman Kay~ood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Ehrle offered Resolution No. 87R-471 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3695, subject to Zoning Administrator conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-471: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VAILIANCE NO. 3695. Roll Call Vote: AYES NOES ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None Hunter 1050 132 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-471 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Bay. Staff has made some recommendations in their report. If it does not require a motion, he would like staff to proceed with the work proposed, particularly with the balloon test in conjunction with the developer on the whole tract to see what the limitations should properly be so that there will be no view intrusion on the existing homes fronting this tract. Joel Fick. Staff would need a lot of cooperation from the overall property owner to conduct the test. Mayor Bay. The developer ought to be paying for the studies as well. He wants the developer to take the responsibility of setting up a way to clarify the matter so that the Zoning Administrator can handle any and all of these on the basis of non-view intrusion of the existing homes surrounding the development. Dennis Cardoza, representing Peralta Ltd, the Developer of Peralta Hills East Estates and Vic Peloquin. Over the years Mr. Peloquin has provided quality products to the City. This development has created a great deal of controversy on various items - the heights of homes, and the wall fronting Nohl Ranch Road. Even though they have designed a wall that is aesthetically an asset to the City and the development, there are citizens who feel they have done something against the public good. Since Mr. Peloquin plans to be doing many developments over the years and wishes to be considered as a developer who puts out a quality product and is concerned for the community, they have been approached by the City that in the best interest of the City, community, and their own development, that modifications should be considered. They are willing to come up with a written document which he would like to present at the next hearing regarding Peralta Hills Ltd., that would address all the issues, the heights and the wall, the pilasters, the views, etc., something they feel would be acceptable not only to the City and the developer but the citizens so that they can remain in good standing with the City and its citizens. They are willing to participate in a study on the heights using the balloons or whatever other system and take on the costs to do that. City Attorney Jack White. Mr. Cardoza can at any time, submit to the City whatever documents he would like for Council consideration and staff's review. However, a hearing is currently scheduled for December 1, 1987 regarding the wall and it would be inappropriate for the City Council to make a decision, enter into a commitment or entertain any type of agreement relating to the wall other than at that noticed public hearing. 1051 129 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Bay. What he is hearing from Mr. Cardoza about the balloon test is that the developer is willing to work with staff on all of the lots where potential variances are involved so that on the basis of non-view interference that can be clarified. He questioned if those types of hearings would go to the Zoning Administrator in the first place. Joel Fick. He answered yes, but there are pending hearings before both the Commission and the Council scheduled right now. City Attorney Jack White. He reiterated, Mr. Cardoza can submit any documents he wants at any time but for the Council to consider them, discuss them and act on them can only be in conjunction with a scheduled hearing. Mr. Cardoza. They will submit any and all information they can prior to the December 1, 1987 hearing. They will need the City's help in discussing how the City would like to have the study done only because the last time they did a study it was contested by some of the citizens who felt it was inappropriate the way it was conducted. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:24 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Hunter. (4:37 p.m.) 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-01 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2920: APPLICANT: I-Hsiung Kuo and Shuchin Liao Luo 10650 E1 Toro Avenue Fountain Valley, Ca. 92708 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to permit a two-story, 46-unit (previously 50-unit) motel on property located at 1556 West KatellaAvenue, with the following Code waiver~ (a) Maximum fence height, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum structural height. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-181 denied Reclassification No. 87-88-01, Resolution No. PC87-182 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2920, approved EIR - Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: Appealed by Anhsiung Henry Hsu, agent for the applicant. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 29, 1987. Posting of property October 30, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 30, 1987. 1052 130 City Hall, An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 14, 1987. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Mr. Stewart Knight, 145 West Main Street, Tustin, Attorney representing Dr. Kuo and his wife. The waiver of maximum fence height was deleted as well as the waiver for maximum number of parking spaces. The only remaining waiver is the maximum structural height. The two waivers were deleted at the Planning Commission. The central issue is whether or not there should be a motel at that site. The area is within the general plan for commercial land uses, even though technically it is zoned residential. In 1977, the Council approved the site for a private school but the petition was subsequently withdrawn. There are businesses in the general area. He then described the surrounding land uses to show that the area is essentially commercial but with some residential. The main problem is on the east side where there is a flood control channel and further east a condominium development which was built about 5 or 6 years ago. This will be a high quality motel consisting of 46 units and day and night live-in managers. The quality of the Inn will benefit the area. The Planning Commission commented that this was not a motel area. Further east is the Anaheim Motel on the north side of the street and east of the Anaheimer is the Disneyland area. He personally believes it is better to have motels scattered. The developer has proposed large hedges 20 feet high so that the view from the condominium towards the motel would not be unsightly. Mr. Anhsiung Henry Hsu, Design Engineer. He described the property and the project. The only windows are on the west or inside area of the motel. That will protect the neighbors from the noise. He clarified upon Council questioning that there are no windows on three sides, the west, south and east. There will only be windows on the inside of the complex and also the air conditioning units underneath the windows. The swimming pool is on the southwest corner (immediately bordering R$-7200 single-family dwellings) but 20 feet from the property line. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Claire Holden, 1838 Eileen Drive. This is a nice residential neighborhood and the residents do not need the noise that will be generated from the swimming pool. There is only one exit off the cul-de-sac out onto Katella. It is difficult to get out even now with the few businesses that are there. She works at Disneyland and on July 4th the park had 1053 127 City ~!1~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. its highest attendance ever. Even so, motels in the area were only filled at 65Z of their capacity. Their area does not need to be impacted by another motel. Bill Lamb, 1563 Nottingham Lane. As evidenced by the aerial photograph, the property on the south and southwest side has residential very close to it, perhaps 10 or 15 feet away from the proposed building and where the proposed pool is going to be. Although the plans indicate it will be 20 feet away, the decking around the pool will be 10 feet. Thus it will only be 10 feet from the property line. It will be a disturbance to the residents late at night. The fill rate in motels is running about 60Z. The motel is being proposed out of the motel area. They are going to have to try to survive. It could end up being a weekly rental such as other motels down the street which are infested with drugs and prostitution. The parking is another problem. People will park in the condominium area. There is no parking in front of the proposed development. He urged the Council not to allow a motel on the proposed site. It will affect the residents adversely as well as the value of everything in the area. Cynthia Brooks, 1525 Nottingham Lane (the townhomes next to the proposed motel). She submitted a petition with 90 signatures in opposition at the Planning Commission hearing (she then submitted a copy to the Council - the previous petition had been made a part of the record). It represented nearly everybody in the neighborhood. Nobody wants the motel. Children have to pass in front of the site to go to school. There is only a small opening and it is going to be very congested. People will be entering and exiting the motel during the same time as their school children are going to and coming from school. If the motel does not do well, it will attract transients who will wander through their complex since there is nothing that will keep them from doing so. There have been many accidents at Katella Avenue and Ninth Street. They do not need any more traffic. It is their residential area and they have a right to have it remain residential. Cecil M. Napier, 1539 Nottingham Lane. He does not see the need for another motel especially on that site. He does not want any intrusion from a motel on his residential area. Harry Horwitz, 1837 Eileen Drive. The proposed motel is adjacent to an elementary school and it is surrounded on all three sides by residential and the other side is Katella itself. The implication that it is all commercial is far from the truth. The Planning Commission conducted a walk-through and recommended the developer consider a different type of development in view of the area makeup. The developer ignored all recommendations as well as the people in the area. 1054 Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. The Planning Commission denied the project. The area is not suitable for a motel. It will impose upon the neighbors. Doris Schoon, 1826 So. Eileen Drive. About 75 feet of the north edge of her property will be directly adjacent to the motel. She is opposed for the many reasons already mentioned. A motel in the vicinity of a grade school is not good City planning. Richard Breneman, 1846 Balls. The class of motel will attract weekly rates. He is opposed. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Mr. Knight. The area is generally commercial particularly across the street. If the Council is not inclined to approve a motel perhaps it might be feasible to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission simply as an assistance and in coordination with the neighborhood for other possible uses. Assistance from staff would be appreciated if possible so that the owner can properly develop the property because it is commercial. Mayor Bay. He heard during this hearing that at the Planning Commission when people in the surrounding neighborhoods came to oppose the project, there were suggestions that the developer talk with the neighborhood in order to know their view. He has determined no such communication took place. He does not think the Council is going to advise the applicant at this time or send it back to the Planning Commission. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process~ and further finding on the 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. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-472 for adoption, denying Reclassification No. 87-88-01 and 87R-473 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2920, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. 1055 125 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November. l0T 1987~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-472: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-01. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-473: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2920. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Kaywood, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter Pickler and Bay The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-472 and 87R-473 duly passed and adopted. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2897: APPLICANT: Le Grand Spencer and Faye Spencer Bannister, et al, (George's Best Restaurant) 700 Grand View Fullerton, Ca. 92632 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To retain a drive-through lane and outdoor patio area for an existing restaurant on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1475 So. Anaheim Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum drive-through lane dimension, (b) permitted encroachment into required front, side amd rear yard areas. PIANNING CO~/ISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-205 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2897 with the recommendation that the City Council set this item for public hearing to review conditions of approval; approved EIR - Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 29, 1987. Posting of property October 30, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 30, 1987. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 28, 1987. STAFF INPUT: Annika Santalahti, ZoningAdministrator. The Planning Commission was advised that Council was considering possible Code amendments pertaining to requiring installation of future street improvements in connection with any zoning action or improvement on a piece of property. The item came up because of a complaint filed on a number of drive-throughs in Anaheim as a result of Angelo's. The attorney representing Angelo's noted that these places did not seem to have conditional use permits and that is why this project was required to file a CUP before the Planning Commission. It pertains to a drive-through window and a drive-through lane waiver on the CUP. The Commission was sympathetic to the applicant in that full improvements might not be warranted by the monetary value of what has been done on the property. 1056 126 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Bay asked if the applicant was appealing Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 7; Miss Santalahti answered she believes they are appealing Condition No. 3 but that is a separate issue. Condition No. 2 is the subject of the Code change the Council is considering; Condition No. 3 is a standard condition. City Attorney Jack White. The ordinance that will take effect in the next week or so will contain an exemption that exempts from the improvement requirement projects where the building permit is for an addition that is not in excess of 1,000 square feet or 10% of the total square footage of the entire building. This project does not entail that provision. It is a building permit approved for a window and the applicant is only requesting the CUP for the drive-through lane and to sell hamburgers through an existing window. He believes this property would be exempt under the ordinance that will take effect shortly. However, if it remains a condition, it will still be required. If the Council sees fit to delete Condition No. 2, the exemption in the ordinance will enable the property owner to continue with the drive-through business without paying the cost of those street improvements. Ail the Council is looking at is the reasonableness of requiring the improvements or the cost of the improvements as a condition of the CUP. If they wish to delete the condition or modify it, it will not be a problem as it has been in the past. Annika Santalahti. Relative to the operation, it is her understanding the way it is being operated now is the way it has been operated for several years. There is also an outdoor patio which is to be legitimized by the CUP - to retain a drive-through lane and an outdoor patio. Relative to the Engineering requirements, there is a portion of the property to south that was improved in connection with Cerritos Street as it enters the industrial/commercial project to the south. Engineering is interested in getting the improvements as they would like to have them on Anaheim Boulevard but she does not think they have indicated it is a particularly critical situation. It appears that the improvement is installed for about 2/3 of the southern frontage of the property and about 1/3 of the frontage is lacking the full improvement on Anaheim Boulevard. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Tom Spencer, 838 Mountain Oak Court Park, Utah (Son). Working from a posted map, he showed the existing improvements already made to the ultimate width of the street. There is a section of Anaheim Boulevard that starts at the 'S# curve and goes to the north about one block. If they are to make that improvement now, they would only be shifting the "S" curve 60 to 70 feet to the north still leaving a section of Anaheim Boulevard that will not be improved. Over one half of the 1057 123 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November l0T 1987~ 1:30 P.M. property was improved when the Cerritos improvement went in. He referred to his letter previously submitted (see letter dated October 16, 1987) and briefed portions of it. They are not building a new building, only an addition and requesting a conditional use permit for a drive-through lane and a patio. They are not requesting occupancy of any new buildings. He does not think any of the requirements pertain to the requested action for a drive-through lane or the patio. He cannot see that Condition Nos. 2, 3 or 7 should be applied in this case. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: None. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilwoman Kaywood. She has a concern if any improvements will need to be done in the future, that the City does not have to do them. STAFF INPUT: Jay Titus, Office Engineer. There are no plans at this time for the widening of Anaheim Boulevard in the subject area. The condition as originally suggested was in compliance with the Code as it existed at that time. With the Code as it is now modified and which will be in effect in two or three days, this would not be required but would fall under the exemption provision of that ordinance. Mayor Bay. It is his opinion the Planning Commission sent this to the Council because of the state of flux on the interpretation of the Code which has since been changed. He favors total deletion of Condition No. 2 but he does not support deleting Condition No. 3. It should be held as a standard because the City is insisting on a 10-foot radius where there are changes along major arteries. If the Traffic Engineer were present, he would be insisting on that. The major problem will be solved by deleting Condition Nos. 2 and 7 but Condition No. 3 would still be required. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 1058 12.4 city Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-474 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2897, subject to City Planning Commission conditions but deleting Condition Nos. 2 and 7. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION: NO. 87R-474: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2897. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None Hunter The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-474 duly passed and adopted. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION AND DINNER BREAK: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session and a dinner break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:40 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Hunter. (8:44 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn to Tuesday, November 17, 1987 at 10:30 a.m. for purpose of a Closed Session and after Closed Session, discussion of the 1987/88 Resource Allocation Plan. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (8:45 p.m.) LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY 1059