1992/05/19City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Aghjayan
UTILITIES ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-FIN. & ADMIN: Darrell Ament
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES: Chris Jarvi
PARK PLANNER: Richard Mayer
SENIOR REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Richard Santo
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 1:25 p.m. on May 15, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
REOUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a), to wit:
Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 40-92-46; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
City of Anaheim vs. Ertzen Associates, Inc., et al., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 55-75-40.
Foriner vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No.
66-15-44.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.6.
c. TO consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1).
e. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as
are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City
Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess
indicates any of the matters will not be considered in closed
session.
By general Consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:01 p.m. )
328
C£t¥ Hall, Anahe£m, 'C&l£forn£a - COUNCIL MINIFTE$ - M~Y 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:25 p.m.).
.INVOCATION: Dr. Bryan Crow, The Garden Church, gave the invocation.
F.LAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Simpson led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - REWARD: Mayor Hunter presented a $500 reward check to
Robyn Burroughs, an Anaheim resident, for her quick action and willingness to
get involved resulting in the apprehension of five boys who were defacing
playground equipment with graffiti. The Mayor and Council Members personally
congratulated Ms. Burroughs for her courage and concern.
119: PRESENTATION - WATER AWARENESS MONTH POSTER CONTEST:
Following students, grades two through four were awarded trophies for having
won the respective awards by the work submitted in the Water Awareness Month
Poster Contest:
~RADE 2 - First Place, Ashley Sheerin, Betsy Ross School
Second Place, James Chang; Third Place, Tylor Novack; and Fourth
Place, Jackie Butcher, all of Walt Disney School
GRADE 3 - First Place, Nicole Agpinning, John Marshall School Second Place, Gillian Gram, St. Justin Matter School
Third Place, Heather Larzono; Fourth Place, Joshua Beard, both of
John Marshall School.
~.RADE 4 - First Place, Johnny Ithisane, Melbourne Gauer School
Second Place, Michael Paciorkowski, Riverdale School
Third Place, Jon Fischer, Martyr School
Fourth Place, Shawn Catolico, Walt Disney School
Mayor Hunter and Council Members congratulated all those students who were
present noting that their posters were displayed in the Council Chamber
reception area.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
Management Week, in Anaheim, May 18-23, 1992.
Meals on Wheels Day, in Anaheim, May 20, 1992.
Bob Posey accepted the Management Week proclamation and Richard Maus accepted
the Meals on Wheels proclamation. He also made an appeal for drivers to carry
on the important work of his organization.
~19: DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council welcoming the Winter Annual Meeting of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to be held at the Anaheim Hilton
and Towers, November 8-13, 1992.
119: DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Jack Lindquist on
receiving the "Tree of Life" award from the Jewish National Fund and honoring
Mr. Lindquist for his dedication and commitment to Anaheim.
329
C£t¥ Rail, Anahe:Ln, Cal££orn£a - COUNCIL MI~S - MAY 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
119: DECL~T!ON OF SUPPORT: A Declaration of Support was unanimously
adopted by the City Council supporting Memorial Day ceremonies honoring all
veterans and with special emphasis on the 50th Anniversary of World War II.
.F.!NANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,079,453.71 for the
period ending May 15, 1992, in accordance with the 1991-92 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5: 47 p.m. )
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:49 p.m. )
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Jeff Kirsch spoke on items A16 and B8
(see discussions under those items).
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Sharon Ericson, President, Anaheim Municipal Employees Association (AMEA).
She is present again tonight regarding Jennie Negrete (also see minutes of
May 12, 1992). She (Ericson) has heard nothing over the past week regarding
what is going to happen on that matter. Last week, Mayor Hunter asked for a
report. Mrs. Negrete is suffering over whether or not she is going to have a
Job.
Mayor Hunter. There is a report from the City Manager that has been given to
the Council. He suggested that Mrs. Ericson contact the City Manager and that
Mr. Ruth give the report to Mrs. Ericson.
City Manager James Ruth. Staff has been meeting with the Maintenance
Department and the Police Department in looking at the issues Citywide. They
have tried to make accommodation for the position. Based on the Council's
direction tonight, there is a proposal that has been favorably accepted. He
would be happy to meet with Mrs. Ericson and discuss the resolution with her.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Hunter, the following items were approved
in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished
each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member
Pickler offered Resolution No. 92R-100 for adoption and Ordinance No. 5305 for
first reading. Refer to Resolution Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read Dy ~he ¢it¥ Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-100)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Al. 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 Geoffrey Benson for personal injury/property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 5
through 23, 1991.
b. Claim submitted by Karl-Jo Young for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 18, 1992.
330
C£t¥ E&ll~ An&heim, Cali£orni& - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
A2. 117: Receiving and filing a Summary of Investment Transactions for
April, 1992, as submitted by the City Treasurer.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held
April 16, 1992.
A3. 150: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of La Palma
Park Security Lighting, by Sturgeon Electric, and authorizing the Mayor to
sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A4. 123: Approving a Third Renewal Agreement with Computer Services Company
Division, in the amount of $800,000 per year (maximum) for traffic signal
maintenance services~ and authorizing the Mayor to sign said Renewal
Agreement.
AS. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement (88-4E) with Theodore
Dekker III for a swimming pool to be located within an existing Public Utility
Easement at 2545 Eola Drive.
A6. 176: RE..SO~UTION NO. 92R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (92-1A). (Setting a date and time to
consider abandoning a water easement located generally at the northeast corner
of Lincoln Avenue and 0live Street extending to Cypress Street and east to the
Santa Fe Railroad tracks - Lincoln Village Project.)
AT. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by
the Director of Finance for nine months ended March 31, 1992.
AS. ~0.8: ORDINANCE NO. 5305 - (.ADOPTION}: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and acted upon separately
after the Consent Calendar. (See that portion of the meeting. ) The ordinance
was subsequently introduced as an amended first reading.
A9. 123: Approving a First Amendment to Lease Agreement with Lyle Parks,
Jr., dba Gold Key Business Center, in the amount of $1,532.97 per month, for~
the period from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 (with two one-year
extensions) for the temporary police satellite facility in the Anaheim Hills
area located at 1032 North Tustin.
Al0. 123: Approving Amendment No. I to the Feather River Licensing
Application and Amendment No. 2 to the Haas-Kings River Project Licensing
.Application Agreement for possible acquisition of rights to hydroelectric
facilities, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute
said Amendments, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board at the meeting
of April 16, 1992.
All. 123: Approving an Agreement with Pacific Relocation Consultants for
assistance in the preparation, implementation and administration of relocation
plans, programs and related matters.
A12: 185: Determining that on the basis of the evidence submitted by Joseph
Barbot of Woodcrest Development, that the property owner has complied in good
faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 88-01 for the
1991-1992 period under review.
331
C~tV. l~all, Auahe~'Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINUTE~ - .~3tY 19, 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
A13. 123: Exercising the option to renew the lease agreement dated
February 18, 1982, between the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
and National Railroad Passenger Corporation (subsequently assigned to the City
of Anaheim by Assignment of Lease dated November 1, 1982) for lease of
approximately 36,450 square feet of AT&SF property in Anaheim, for passenger
station platform and stairway; and authorizing the City Clerk or other officer
to give AT&SF written notice of the lease renewal.
- A14. 155.- Determining that the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously
approved on February 11, 1992 for the Katella-Douglass Public Parking
Facilities Project is sufficient for purposes of CEQA for the acquisition of
Rindt property.
123: Approving an agreement for acquisition of real property (escrow
instructions) Rindt property; appropriating and authorizing expenditure of
$3,865,000 plus closing costs from the proceeds of Certificates of
Participation for the Anaheim Arena; and authorizing the City Manager or his
designee to complete the acquisition and execute all documents necessary to
complete the transaction.
Council Member Pickler voted no.
A15. 123: Approving Agreement Documents with California Conservation Corps
to provide services for the dismantling of toilet fixtures retrofitted, in
accordance with the Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Rebate Program, for a term of June
1, 1992 through December 1, 1993 or the maximum amount payable pursuant to
this agreement ($45,000) has been expended; and authorizing the Utilities
General Manager to sign said agreement documents.
Council Member Ehrle. He considers such programs in the Utilities Department
to be "give away" programs under the guise of conservation. He assumes if
only one or two people utilize the program, it is still going to cost $45,000.
Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager. He stated that is not correct.
The item was budgeted as part of the Ultra-low Flush Toilet Program. They do
not want to find the high-flush toilets getting back into the system. The
Department would not invest in a program of this nature unless there was a
payback in terms of reduced water supply costs that exceeded the cost of the
program. They have gone through the economics of the program at least three
times with the Council and the Public Utilities Board (PUB). The PUB raised
the question if they were committed to spending $45,000 whether or not anybody
turns in the toilets. Staff indicated it was their job to go out and market
~h~ pF~g~ ~ m&~ ,u~e [% wor~s. ~Ince ~he PUB m~etlng, they went back and
renegotiated with the California Conservation Corps resulting in the revised
contract before the Council tonight.
Additional questions were then answered by Mr. Aghjayan and Darrell Ament,
Utilities Assistant General Manager of Finance and Administration.
Council Member Ehrle. He is going to oppose because he feels it is a
Government subsidy program to the hotel industry which is nothing more than
direct competition with the private sector.
Ed Aghjayan. When they costed out the program, it was costed out as having
value equivalent to a water supply of $150 per acre foot which is cheaper than
even well-water and about $100 per acre foot cheaper than Metropolitan Water
District (MWD). It is making an investment in their water resource supply by
332
Cit. y Hal. l r Anaheimr Cal£forn£a- COUNCIl. MINUTES- MAY 19r 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
providing such program. As far as the economy and the private sector, the
private sector is going to benefit because they are going to put the toilets
in. The program will actually stimulate the economy.
Council Member Pickler. The program is a good one. Water conservation is
something that has to be uppermost. The PUB agreed. It is a positive way to
make sure they continue to conserve water.
Council Member Ehrle voted no.
Roll Call Vote on Consent Calendar Resolution No. 92R-100 for adoption (to
vacate and abandon water easement at Lincoln and Olive):
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS = None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-100 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
AS. 108: ORDINANCE NO. 5305 {AMENDED FIRST READING): Amending Chapter 2.12
Of Title 2 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to Transient Occupancy
Tax. This matter was introduced at the meeting of May 12, 1992 where the
ordinance was introduced. (See minutes of May 12, 1992. )
City Manager Ruth. Staff is requesting that the ordinance offered for
adoption under Item A8 (Ordinance No. 5305) not be offered for adoption today,
due to changes which will be explained by the City Attorney.
City Attorney White. Since the action taken at the last meeting on Item A8
where Ordinance No. 5305 was introduced representing a comprehensive revision
to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Ordinance, two additional revisions to
that ordinance had been suggested and proposed to the City Council by City
staff. The Council has tonight a revised ordinance which includes the
following changes:
The first deletes the existing exemption from tax for State and
Federal employees who stay in hotel rooms in Anaheim and who pay
with a State or Federal check or warrant. The day after the first
reading of the ordinance (May 13, 1992), the State Attorney
General issued a new opinion substantially revising his previous
position which had been in effect for the last 20 years and is now
of the opinion the exemption is no longer required. The second
change relates to concerns expressed several weeks ago by the
hotel/motel industry relating to the fact that any hotels prior to
the time the City first considered raising the tax from 11.6% to
13% had entered £nto binding contracts with tour promoters,
package groups, other entities etc., to furnish rooms that
included a fixed price based upon tax at 11.6%. City Management
staff, after meeting with representatives of the industry, asked
his office to prepare a revision to the ordinance which would
exempt out those particular operators from the increase. The
amendment will exempt from the 13% tax and keep the tax at the
current 11.6% for those particular rooms that have been contracted
for prior to April 7, 1992 and which rooms will be occupied and
the tax paid between now and the end of December of this year at
which time the tax will go up to 13% for all transients.
333
C£t¥ Hall, Anahe~, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINUTES - NAY 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
It would be in order to give an amended first reading to the
ordinance. The ordinance has an effective date of July 1, 1992.
If an amended first reading is given the ordinance tonight, the
Council may consider instructing the City Clerk to adjourn next
Tuesday's meeting of the Council, which is scheduled right now not
to take place because of the Monday holiday, and reschedule it to
Wednesday, May 27, 1992 at 3:45 p.m. so that the ordinance could
be adopted at that time and be in place by July 1, which is the
target set forth in the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 5305 - (AMENDED FIRST READING):
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5305 for amended first reading
with the revisions as articulated by the City Attorney.
ORDINANCE NO. 5305: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 2.12
OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
TAX.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved that it is the Council's intention to
adjourn the Tuesday, May 26, 1992 City Council meeting (no quorum anticipated)
to Wednesday, May 27, 1992 at 3:45 p.m. for the purpose of adopting the
subject ordinance which was just offered for first reading. Council Member
Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A15a. 156: ~0LICE DEPARTMENT FIRING RANGE SYSTEM - REPAIR, RETROFIT AND
UPGRADE OF TARGET SYSTEM: Submitted was report dated May 18, 1992 from the
Chief of Police, Joseph Molloy recommending approval of the subject item.
City Attorney White. Since this item was not on the posted agenda, it will be
necessary to adopt a motion waiving the posting requirements of the Brown Act
finding that the need to act arose since posting of the agenda last friday.
The final bid documents were not obtained until yesterday and any delay to the
next regular meeting would mean that the Firing Range would be out of
operation for that additional period of time.
MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision
of the Brown Act. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to approve authorization for purchase and
repair of Police Firing Range equipment from/by Detroit Armor Corporation of
Cary, Illinois in the amount of $21,O70 as recommended in report date May 18,
1992. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A16. 000/123: HEARING TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR SANITATION
CHARGES: To consider changes to the Residential Solid Waste; Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Collection Charges and to the Residential Sewer
Maintenance and Commercial and Industrial Sewer Maintenance charges.
Submitted was report dated May 1, 1992 from the Director of Maintenance
recommending approval of the revised schedule for solid waste collection and
disposal fees and sewer maintenance and street cleaning charges along with
related actions.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from anyone who wished to give input on this item.
Mr. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He is requesting more public
information as to a break down of the costs the City is bearing on the program
and whether it is cost effective. It is beneficial for the contractor but he
334
C£ty Hall. A~&heimt Cal£fornia - COUNCZL MINUTE8 - MAY 19t 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
does not see the benefit to the rate payer and now it is being extended to the
commercial area. Relative to sewer fee increases, he feels the graphs
presented are misleading. He suggested before approval that they evaluate the
situation and determine the cost.
Phil Kynpstra, 2520 Gelid Avenue, Anaheim. On trash pick up, there is a large
bulky item where the fee is increasing from .07¢ cents to .14¢ a month. This
also relates back to a previous item discussed earlier (see item Al5 Ultra-low
Flush Toilet Rebate Program) where $45,000 is being spent to pick up heavy
items. He asked why residents could not be advised to also put toilets out
for that trash pick up along with the other bulky items.
Mayor Hunter pointed out that one of the things being offered free of charge
to residents of the City is pick up of large bulky items or a toilet. He does
not know of any other company in the County doing that it is a part of the
contract.
Mayor Hunter closed the hearing.
Council Member Daly. One of the most worthy things about this item, it will
be extending the City's successful Residential Recycling Program to all
commercial properties and Anaheim will be one of the first cities in Orange
County to have a commercial recycling operation. It is also important to note
that residential trash rates are not going up and as the Mayor pointed out,
there is a bulky item pick up that will be incorporated into the service at no
additional cost.
WAIVER OF ~EADING - RESOLUTION= The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-101)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 92R-101 for adoption, adopting a
new fee schedule of sanitation charges and repealing Resolution No. 90R-203.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTIO...N NO. 92R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF SANITATION CHARGES AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-203.
Roll C&11 Vote on Resolution No. 92R-101 for &doption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS = None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-101 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved approval of the following:
(1) Approving a Fifth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement
with Jaycox Disposal Company, Inc., and its successor, Anaheim
Disposal, for the collection and disposal of residential solid
waste within the City of Anaheim.
(2) Approving Addendum Number 4 to the Amended and Restated Agreement
with Jaycox Disposal company, Inc., and its successor, Anaheim
335
C£t¥ Hall. Anahe~, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINIFTES - MAY !9~ 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
Disposal, Inc., for the collection and processing of the citywide
automated recycling program within the City of Anaheim.
(3) Approving a Sixth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement
with Anaheim Disposal, Inc., for the collection and disposal of
commercial and industrial solid waste within the City of Anaheim.
(4) Approving the Sixth Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Agreement for disposal services with Consolidated Volume
Transporters, Inc.
(5) Authorizing the Department of Maintenance to obtain a two-month
deposit for solid waste fees, sewer fees, and street cleaning fees
from any residential or commercial account that is deemed
appropriate, based on a credit check through the Utilities
Customer Service process.
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 - B6 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1992, INFORMATION
ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 26, 1992:
B1. 179: CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3508, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Margaret Arballo Estate, Robert Arballo (Executor), 10292
Rhiems, Anaheim, CA 92804.
AGENT: Blash Momeny, 27762 Pebble Beach, Mission Viejo, CA 92692.
LOCATION: 203 N. Coffman Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acre
located on the west side of Coffman Street and approximately 430 feet
north of the centerline of Center Street.
To permit a 3-story , 6-unit, condominium complex with waiver of minimum
building site area per dwelling unit and maximum structural height.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3508 APPROVED (PC92-57) (4 yes votes, 3 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B2. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-15, VARIANCE NO. 4180 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION~
OWNER: Margaret Peter, 610 S. Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806.
AGENT: HCD Corp., Post Office Box 5410, Fullerton, CA 92635.
LO~ATION: 610 South Sunkist Street. Property is approximately 1.07
aerag an ~ha ~am~ ~£~ ~ ~unk£~ ~r~ an~ l~ea~a~ appr~x£ma~ly 400
feet north of the centerline of South Street.
For a change in zone from the RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200.
Waiver of location and orientation of buildings, required site screening
and minimum lot width to construct 4 single-family residences.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 91-92-15 GRANTED (PC92-58) (4 yes votes, 3 absent).
Variance No. 4180 GRANTED (PC92-59).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B3. 179: CONDITIONAL USE p~RMIT NO. 3021, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT,
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS ~.!~
OWNER: INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, CA
92805.
AGENT: Property Owner: Marion Malouf and Robert Malouf, 900 E. Ball
Road, Anaheim, CA 92805.
336
.C£t¥ Hall, Anahe~, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINOTES - MAY 19, 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
LOCATION: 900 East Ball Road= Property is approximately 4.97 acres
located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Lewis Street.
To consider the termination or modification of Conditional Use Permit
No. 3021 (to establish a vocational school with waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces).
ACTION TAKEN By THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3021 APPROVED, four month extension was Granted to September 4,
1992. Must have letter of credit to City Attorney within 45-days
(PC92-60) (4 yes votes, 3 absent).
No action taken on waiver of code requirement.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator confirmed for Council Member Pickler
that if they do not comply with conditions within the time period imposed, the
zoning petition will become null and void.
B4. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3521, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14681 AND
NEGATIVE D~CLARATION:
OWNERS: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn.: Brent Schultz, 300 South
Harbor Blvd., Ste. 900, Anaheim, CA 92805.
AGENT: Kaufman & Broad Inc, Attn: Scott Minami, 180 N. Riverview Drive,
Ste. 300, Anaheim, CA 92808.
LOCATION: 206, 210, and 214 South Olive Street. Property is
approximately 0.50 acre located on the east side of Olive Street and
approximately 200 feet north of the centerline of Broadway.
To permit a two-story, 6-unit, condominium complex and to establish a
1-lot, 6-unit, RM 2400, airspace condominium subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3521 GRANTED (PC92-61) (3 yes votes, i no vote, and 3 absent).
Tentative Tract Map No. 14681 Approved, no action taken at the meeting
of May 12, 1992, Item Bi0).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B5. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3519, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIR~_MENT AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNERS: DR. R. S. Minnick and Jan W. Minnick, 12269 Skylane,
Los Angeles, CA 90049.
AGENT: Gannett Outdoor Co. Inc., Attn: L. Ronald Cipriani, 1731 Workman
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90031.
LOCATION: 30 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property is approximately 0.43
acre located at the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon
Street.
To permit two 36-foot high billboards (241 and 672 square feet each).
Letter of appeal submitted by the Agent, Gannett Outdoor Co., Inc. Set
for public hearing June 9, 1992.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3519 DENIED (PC 92-62) (4 yes votes, 3 absent).
Waiver of code requirement DENIED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by the
agent, Gannett Outdoor and a public hearing was set for Tuesday, June 9, 1992.
B6. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3042 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange, 2811 E. Villa Real Drive,
Orange, CA 92667.
AGENT: Reverend Seamus A. Glynn, 5800 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road,
Anaheim, CA 92807.
337
C:i.t¥ Hall~ Anaheis~t Cal£fornia- COUNCIL MINUTES- IO.Y 19~ 199.2 - 5:00 P.M.
LOCATION: 5800 East Santa Aha Canyon Road. Property is approximately
6.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Solomon Drive.
Amendment to condition of approval pertaining to required street
improvements on Santa Aha Canyon Road. Property is approximately 6.0
acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Solomon Drive.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3041 GRANTED (PC92-63) (4 yes votes, 3 absent).
No action taken on previously approved Negative Declaration.
END OF THE PLANNIN(~ COMMISSION ITEMS.
B7. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5306 FOR ~ADOPTION: Amending Sections 18.44.050,
18.45.020, 18.45.050, 18.46.020 and 18.46.050 of Chapters 18.44, 18.45 and
18.46 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning.
(Consumption of alcoholic beverages within certain commercial zones. )
(Introduced at the meeting of May 12, 1992, Item B8)
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5306)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White confirmed for Council Member Hunter that this ordinance is
more restrictive. Currently on-sale consumption of alcoholic beverages is
permitted in restaurants as on accessory use without a CUP. This would make
it a conditional use even in conjunction with restaurants.
Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5306 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5306: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
18.44.050, 18.45.020, 18.45.050, 18.46.020 AND 18.46.050 OF CHAPTERS 18.44,
18.45 AND 18.46 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Consumption of alcoholic beverages within certain commercial zones. )
..R. oll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5306 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES ~
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS= Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL HSHBER~ ~ None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5306 duly passed and adopted.
BB. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5307 FOR ADOPTION: Adding Section 18.04. 060 to
Chapter 18.04 and amending various subsections of Title 18 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to landscaping requirements. (Code amendment
proposing minor adjustments to landscaping requirements. ) (Introduced at the
meeting of May 12, 1992, Item Bg.)
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5307)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
338
Hal!, Anaheim, 'Cal£fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1992 - 5z00 P.M.
Joel Fick, Planning Director answered questions posed by a member of the
public Mr. Jeff Kirsch and also Council Member Pickler for purposes of
clarification.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5307 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5307: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION
18.04.060 TO CHAPTER 18.04 AND AMENDING VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. (Code amendment
proposing minor adjustments to landscaping requirements. )
Rol1 Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5307 for adoptions
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5307 duly passed and adopted.
Bg. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5308 FOR INTRODUCTION: Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under 70-71-47(40) located at 2840 E. :ia Cresta Avenue from the
RS-A-43,000 zone to the ML zone.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5308 for first reading.
ORD~NANC~ NO. 5308: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(To rezone property under 70-71-47 (40) located at 2840 E. La Cresta Avenue
From The RS-A-43,000 Zone To The ML Zone. )
I...TEMS BiO- Bll FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992,
INFORMATION ONLY-APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 28, 1992:
Bi0. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-21, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14698 AND NEGATIVE DEC_LARATION:
OWNER: Helen Josephine Stueckle, 700 Juniper Place, Anaheim, CA 92805.
AGENT: Marilyn Liekhus, 700 Juniper Place, Anaheim, CA 92805.
LOCATION: Subject property consists of approximately 3.97 acres bounded
by Water Street to the north, Anaheim Boulevard to the east, Stueckle
Street to the south, and Lemon Street to the west (excluding the parcel
located on the northeast corner of Stueckle Street and Lemon Street and
the parcel located on the northwest corner of Stueckle Street and
Anaheim Boulevard).
For a change in zone on a portion of the property from the CH and CG
Zones t~ the eL ~one.
To establish a ?-lot, commercial/residential subdivision with waiver of
required street improvements.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Tentative Tract No. 14698 APPROVED (6 yes votes, i absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
NOTE: Reclass. No. 91-92-21 has a 22-day appeal period which expires
June 9, 1992, and will appear on that City Council agenda.
B$1. 170: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 13511, 13513, 13515, 13516, 13517.
!3518m 13533, 13534, 13540, 13541 AND 13987 - REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
339
C£t¥ Ball, Anahe~, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~Y 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
The Baldwin Company requests a one-year extension of time to comply with
conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 13511,
13513, 13515, 13516, 13517, 13518, 13533, 13534, 13540, 13541 and 13987,
to expire on June 19, 1992, and if approved, to expire June 19, 1993.
Property is located at The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
(SP88-2) Development Areas 101 and 105).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tracts APPROVED (6 yes votes, 1
absent ).
Cl/C2/C3. 114/127: DISCUSSION OF CAMPAIGN REFORMS - CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
LIMITATIONS AND TERM LIMITS AND DISCUSSION RELATING TO DISTRICT ELECTIONS:
This discussion was requested by the City Council at their meeting of
January 28, 1992 (Item C2) regarding campaign contribution limitations, and
regarding Council term limits. These matters were continued from the meeting
of February 25, 1992 to April 7, 1992. Also requested by the City Council at
their meeting of March 17, 1992 was discussion regarding district elections,
discussion on all three was continued to this date.
ALTERNATIVE A:
Limiting campaign contributions in City elections to $1,000 per source
per election. (Long form. )
ORDINANCE NO. - INTRODUCTION: Adding new Chapter 1.03 to Title 1
of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Campaign Reform.
ALTERNATIV~ B:
Limiting campaign contributions in City elections to $1,000 per source
per election. (Short form. )
ORDINANCE NO. - INTRODUCTION: Adding new Chapter 1.03 to Title 1
of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Campaign Reform.
TERM LIMITS:
ALTERNATIVE A: Two term, combined limit.
ALTERNATIVE B: Two term, separate limits.
ALTERNATIVE C: Two term, no maximum limit.
Discussion requested by the City Council at their meeting of March 17, 1992.
Mayor Hunter. He knows that there are several people present to speak to
these items. He would like to discuss the issues but in a different order
than listed on the Agenda. He would like first to have discussion on Item C2,
then C1 and lastly C3.
DISCUSSION- MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TERM LIMITS:
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from those who wish to speak on this issue.
Sharon Ericson, 6401 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. At this time she is
speaking as a resident of the City. She is very much opposed to term limits.
Everyone in November will be acting on emotion mostly due to the economy and
loss of jobs. If Council Members are not doing their job to satisfy citizens
regarding quality of life issues, all citizens need to do is to vote the
Council out and they have always done that in Anaheim.
340
C~ty Hall, Anahe~m~ Cal££orn£a .., COUNCIL MINIrTKS - MAY 19r 1992 - 5**00 P.X.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. What he feels has been neglected and
the cause of problems in politics/government today is the flow of information,
the opportunity for public forums and the communications between people and
the government and the opportunities for that. The three proposed reforms
have little if anything to do with those points. If they make the three
proposed changes, they will still be left with root causes - limited
communication, limited information and limited participation. If the Council
takes any action, he suggests that they create an opportunity for more public
discussion of what caused the problems the people think they are faced with
and get more solutions on the table.
Mayor Hunter then asked the City Attorney to explain Alternative C - two term,
no max imum 1 imit.
City Attorney White. A person would only be allowed to serve two terms in an
individual office. If now a Council Member, the person could serve two terms
and after that could immediately run for and serve two terms as Mayor as a
separately elected office and after that could again run for two terms
consecutively for the City Council and so on - no limit. The only limitation
is that the person could not serve more than two terms in either of those
offices consecutively but could continue to serve in the capacity first as
Mayor and then as Council Member or vice versa for eight years in each
position as long as they continue to change positions and get elected.
Mayor Hunter pointed out and City Attorney White confirmed relative to
Alternative B, it would be two terms as Council and two terms as Mayor but
then the person would have to sit' out at least two years before running again.
Council Member Ehrle. For purposes of discussion, he moved to place
Alternative C before the voters in November; the motion died for lack of a
second.
Council Member Simpson moved to place Alternative A on the November Ballot.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion for discussion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White explained that Alternative A
would provide that a person could serve two terms and it does not matter if
those terms are both as Mayor or Council or one as Council or Mayor. The
maximum would be two consecutive terms. After having served two consecutive
terms, the person would have to sit out at least two years before running
again for either Council Member or Mayor.
Council Member Simpson. He proposed the first alternative because the other
two alternatives do not represent a substantive change and he does not see a
distinction between the positions of Council Member and Mayor. There may be a
has. He also feels if a person knows he is only going to be in office for two
terms, they are more likely to be their own person. He also agrees with those
who would argue that there is more at stake at the State and Federal level
than on the local level. The changes that need to be made probably are not at
the local level. If the message is served here, perhaps it will eventually be
felt at the State and Federal levels.
Council Member Pickler. Although he seconded the motion, he does not concur
with term limits. It is taking the prerogative of people away. Further, this
will be a Charter change. If someone is doing a good job, that person will be
retained. If not, they will be voted out. He reiterated he is opposed, but
putting it on the ballot is something he can live with.
341
CSty Ba11,~ Anahei~'Cal£~orn£a - COUNCIL MI ,NIFTE$ - MAY 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. Considering the Country's founding fathers, politics was not
supposed to be a career, but in recent times politicians have made the job a
career and "careerism" in politics is the problem. That is why term limits
are happening today. The problem is also with campaign contributions. There
are groups in this City who do not, will not and have not given money to
non-incumbents. Special interest groups and lobbyists want career
politicians. Further, as Council Member Simpson said, when you do not have to
look over your shoulder, that person is in a much better position. He also
agrees with Council Member Simpson that the position of Mayor of the City is
no greater than being a Council Member except for some ceremonial duties. He
would vote for Alternative A.
Council Member Daly. He pointed out that 80% of the Council has turned over
in the last six years. The facts show there is not an incumbent preservation
problem in Anaheim. He is not going to oppose putting term limits on the
ballot, but feels that citizens need to be warned of two problems that may
arise - with "lame ducks" in office, they lose all accountability over those
people. When someone is a "lame duck", they will never again face the voters
and a lot of bad things can happen. Secondly, what they will be doing to
Anaheim's system of Government which is a checks and balance system is
empowering the bureaucracy, and the citizens need to keep these things in
mind.
Council Member Ehrle. He agrees but also agrees more with the pro side.
Anyone who serves as a Council Member and truly wants to continue to serve
will not make bad decisions but right decisions and have more independence.
There has been a turn over on the Council and a lot of good things have
happened because of fresh ideas. He sees two terms creating a continuation of
fresh ideas. After two terms, that person may want to run for some other
office but in the meantime have to continue to do a good job. There may be
"lame ducks" but he sees more positives than negatives in having term limits.
Before further action, Council Member Daly asked if it is possible to build in
a retroactive provision, that it be retroactive to the present Council if it
passes in November.
City Attorney White. Alternative A and, in fact, all three (A,B and C) in
their current form provide that years of service of current City Council
Members is counted toward the limitation. However, any City Council Member in
office on the effective date of the Charter Amendment is allowed to continue
to serve out his term of office even though he may have exceeded the
particular limitation. The answer is yes. It is not only possible, but the
al~rn~Iv~B ~urr~n~ly ~r~f~d d~ ~ply ~urr~n~ y~arB of ~rvic~ ~o ~h~
limitation with that one exception. The Council always has the prerogative to
put more than one alternative on the ballot. If more than one gets a positive
vote the one with the highest number of votes would be adopted.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion that Alternative A, two term
combined limit, be placed on the November, 1992 ballot and carried
unanimous ly.
LIMITING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:
Sharon Ericson, 6401E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. She is concerned about the
proposal and feels it is wasting her time. She agrees with everyone that the
cost for Anaheim elections have reached outrageous amounts and there is a need
to find a way to get costs under control so that the average citizen is able
to run an effective campaign. In her opinion, Alternative A and B are easy to
get around - $1,000 can be contributed by her, $1,000 by her husband,
342
C£tv Hallr ,Allahe:LRf ~l~fo~ll~a - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19r 199:2 - 5~00 P.M.
children, friends, etc. The average incumbent could get the money long before
a non-incumbent. It would be better if there was a way to put a cap on the
amount of money that can be raised or spent, but she does not believe there is
a way to do that legally. The proposals will not help the non-incumbent, but
the incumbent since they are the ones with friends such as developers. This
is the wrong way to do it.
Marilyn Hauk, 6071 Camino Cotter, Anaheim. Relative to the comment made on
how difficult it is for non-incumbents, in 1986 when Mayor Hunter was running,
he was a non-incumbent and a lot of people backed him - the same with Council
Member Simpson and Council Member Ehrle. Setting a limit is not going to stop
people from giving. She feels, however, it does not do anything for the non-
incumbent but does for the person already in office.
Mayor Hunter. Term limits along with campaign contribution limits will assist
in allowing the average citizen to run for City Council in Anaheim. He feels
the reason why possible presidential candidate Ross Perot is so popular is
because he is willing to spend a lot of his own money and not money from
special interest groups. With campaign contribution limits and term limits,
all of the present Council will eventually be gone and eventually there will
be a level playing field in Anaheim where the average citizen can run for
office so long as these reforms are in place. He feels that all three
proposals tonight (campaign contributions, term limits, districting) are
interconnected. His "gut" reaction is that he is against districts. However,
it is a problem to run for Council in Anaheim and it takes a tremendous amount
of money to do so. A level playing field would be the best of both worlds.
Council Member Ehrle. He believes campaign spending limitations would be the
answer, but since that is illegal, the next best thing is to have campaign
contribution limits which will bring about grass roots politics where
candidates and people become more involved. If a candidate does not have the
means to raise the money, they will be forced to grass roots politics. The
AMEA, Firefighters Association and Police Association helped him to get
elected in 1986 and he donated a lot of his own money. He would prefer
campaign limits of $30,000 or $40,000 which would force candidates to walk.
precincts, talk to the people, attend public forums, etc. He would like to
see a $500 per year contribution with a $2,000 limit, but he understands there
cannot be a cap per year or maximize it and make it $2,000 per couple not
individual.
City Attorney White. Both Alternative A and Alternative B in current form
aggregate contributions of husband and wives unless the contributions are from
the separate property of one of the spouses. Also contributions by children
under 18 are deemed to be contributions by their parents. Thus, there are
limitations with the difference being between community property and separate
property.
council Member Daly. The notion has been raised tonight that somehow it is
difficult for a challenger for office in this City to raise funds. A few
members on the Council have been challengers and successful fund raisers. He
agrees with a couple of the speakers the limitations may actually be an
incumbent protection device. However, he does not think challengers are
frozen out of the process. They have to work harder but to say they are at a
disadvantage is not correct. It may be needed to limit the amount of
influence that any contributors may or may not have.
Additional discussion followed between Council Members revolving around
incumbent/challenger prospects to obtain contributions.
343
C~ty Hall r Anaheimr Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Before concluding discussion, Council Member Daly sta~:.~:d he would like to
suggest before the packet is finalized, that it include Political Action
Committees (PACS). That is a huge hole in the current proposal. He asked if
per source included PAC'S.
City Attorney White. He answered yes. One thing it does not include is
independent committees making independent expenditures on behalf of a
candidate not contributing directly to the candidate or his controlled
committee but if an independent committee goes out and puts up signs, that
committee can do that as long as they are not contributing the money directly
to the candidate or his controlled committee.
Council Member Ehrle. He feels the change can be accomplished by ordinance
and if they find that in two years or five years it is too restrictive, it can
be changed.
.MOTION: Council Member Ehrle moved that Alternative B, limiting campaign
contributions and City elections to $1,000 per source per election be adopted.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White confirmed the difference between
Alternative A and Alternative B. Alternative A is the County ordinance
modified for Anaheim with such changes which were, in his opinion, necessary
as a result of the SEIU vs. FPPC lawsuit that was decided after the County
ordinance was drafted.
Council Member Ehrle confirmed his motion was then to adopt Alternative B by
ordinance.
Council Member Daly. He feels it is dangerous to put politicians in charge of
the ordinance but that it should go to the voters. It also must spell out
clearly that PAC's will be limited.
Council Member Pickler. He is opposed to the limitations on contributions,
but if there is a consensus he will go along with that and place the issue on
the ballot. He feels it should be brought back and then the Council can act
on it; Mayor Hunter was of the opinion that it could be done tonight and just
include PAC ' s.
City Attorney White. He suggested if they are making any substantive
additions to the ordinance, that he make those changes and resubmit the
ordinance to the Council at their next meeting. He also confirmed that
campaign contribution limitations can be placed on the ballot and voted on by
the people. The Council has options in this case because it does not require
a Charter Amendment whereas the other two subjects do require Charter
Amendments and by law have to go on the ballot. Campaign contribution limits
can be adopted by ordinance in one of two ways - adopted directly by the
Council or through the initiative process. He then explained the consequences
of each of those actions. As well, if the issue is placed on the November
ballot and adopted, it would become effective immediately upon certification
of the election and filing with the Secretary of State and apply to the
election cycle that starts for offices beginning November 19, 1992 forward.
If the Council decided to adopt it immediately, that could be done and made
effective the day after the next election without putting it on the ballot.
If they decided they wanted to adopt it and make it effective as soon as
possible, the most the Council can do is say this measure now takes immediate
effect as to any candidate who had collected more than the $1,000 maximum.
They would not have to give the money back but can continue to use it. If
344
Hall· Anahe~, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MI~$ - l~tY 19, 1992 - 5 ~00 P.M.
they collected less than $1,000, they could collect an additional amount up to
$1,000.
Council Member Daly. Concurrent to Mr. White preparing some amendments to the
ordinance, he should also prepare the language that would go to the ballot in
November; Mayor Hunter agreed.
It was determined by the Council after further discussion that Alternative B
be adopted and directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance with the
changes as discussed by the Council and resubmitted on Tuesday, June 23, 1992,
after budget hearings, along with specific ballot language.
DISCUSSION RELATING TO DISTRICT ELECTIONS OF CITY COUNCIL M~.MBERS.-_
The following people spoke on the subject and their presentations are
summar i zed:
John Beetag, 508 N. Anaheim Boulevard, (Anaheim Police
Association-APA) he represents one of those "special interest
groups" and that group has serious concern about the proposal for
district elections in Anaheim. There are a lot of difficult
decisions to be made at all levels. Districting is something they
have had the opportunity to look at in other cities. Anaheim is
not a small town, but neither is New York, Los Angeles or Chicago.
Dividing the City up into political "fifedoms" based on other
special interest precludes the greater interest of the City. This
is not the community that needs district elections but needs to be
more responsive to the public. He feels the damage district
elections could do would be legion. Before the Council decides to
put something like this on the ballot, there needs to be a real
hard look at where the City is, where it wants to be and the
effect districting would have on those two questions.
Matthew Bogosian, Attorney in Anaheim, 720 S. Camino Grande. When
he recently returned to Anaheim he talked to some people in the
Community and was surprised that although this issue was in
frontof the Council before, that it had not been passed. This is
the mechanism to be responsive to the public. He put together an
opinion letter to the City Council wherein citizens have stated
they want district elections. It is a straight forward concept,
it is about accountability and accessibility to government. It is
about participatory democracy. (He submitted the letters - made a
part of the record). The issue should be put on the ballot to let
the people decide. Another issue that should be addressed is the
Federal Voting Rights Law. There are lawsuits pending in
communities throughout America that have at-large elections
because certain segments of the communit~ are not bein~ well
represented. There is 70% support in Anaheim. Put a district
election system on the ballot so that as the open letters request,
each district alone be able to elect a person to the City Council.
This is a vehicle to avoid derisiveness. He confirmed for Council
Member Simpson that the 70% support figure was taken from a
Los Angeles Times Orange County poll.
Sharon Ericson, 6401 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. She does not
believe districts will be good for Anaheim. She wants to be able
to vote for all five Council Members. She does not want to see
the City divided up and fighting as is the case with the County
Board of Supervisors and particularly relative to the jail that
345
C£t¥ Hall~ Anahei~t Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINt;TE$ - ~%y 19~ 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
was proposed in Anaheim. Also to say that Anaheim Hills gets
everything because three Council Members live there is not true.
It took 15 years to get a traffic signal at Mohler and Santa Ana
Canyon Road and that was to go to a Junior High School. Anaheim
has many problems and districting will add to those problems. She
encouraged the Council not to place the issue on the November
Ballot. If people feel that strongly, let them gather signatures
just as the mobile home park people had to do twice. The issue is
being "ram-rodded" through too fast for her. She does not feel
the average citizen really understands this issue. Every person
she has talked to living in areas with County districts hates it
which includes the County of Orange and the County of Los Angeles
Supervisory Districts. She has had meetings with people from HOME
and with another organization that is pushing districts. The
people from HOME feel it would help and she respects them for
that. She is not sure about what the real intentions are of some
of the others in attendance. She hopes whatever the Council
decides tonight will be in the best interest of the citizens of
Anaheim and not for the special interest of a special, special
group.
Marilyn Hauk, 6071 Camino Cotter, Anaheim. She questioned with
districting how the Council would handle the budget since it is
already a problem. How would Parks and Recreation be divided,
where would a new community center be built, where would a new
police station be built - there are many issues - districting
lends itself to "back room" politics. She explained some
incidents which have occurred in Anaheim Hills with family members
and others. Nothing is different in that area. The argument that
Councilmen in Anaheim do not care about the downtown area is not
true. Downtown was in "shambles" before 1986 when the first
Councilman from the Anaheim Hills area was elected. There is more
to look at than is it good for the little guy, does it give him an
opportunity to run and to earn the money. That is a cop out.
Districts will create a problem with the City budget and how to
determine who gets what in what parts of Anaheim.
George Abess, Attorney in Anaheim, 12680 Coda Lane, Garden Grove.
He has been lobbying for placing of the issue on the ballot. He
was pleased to hear the Council strongly favors placing the other
two issues on the ballot. He agrees with the Mayor that there are
two sides to the story. If 68% of the people polled by the
Los Angels8 Times are in ~avor, why no~ place ~he issue on the
ballot and not force people in favor to take to the streets to
sign an initiative. Districts would reduce the number of
registered voters the Council person would have to reach. It is
unfortunate the situation is an us against them issue. While no
one has said it, the racial issue has been in the background. It
is also unfortunate there are people who would wish to place
obstacles in front of minority groups and sighting them as special
interest and one that is looked at as being more dangerous than
special interest of developers and other monied interest. There
is no ulterior motive. Ail they want is democracy- let the
people decide.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He has yet to hear a
convincing argument from district advocates how he can be better
represented when the number of positions on the Council he can
346
C£t¥ Rall~ An&heim~ C&l£forn£a - COUNCIL 14~~8 - NAY 19~ 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
vote for is reduced. The three issues all seem to be written from
the point of view of candidates and not from voters. If all
measures go through or any part, will the Council look no further
to reform and not look to other issues of increasing public
participation and involvement in public forums. That is another
item for Council discussion. He would hope for better
representation without such drastic measures.
Amin David, 419 S. Coal, Anaheim. The fundamental question is how
well they comply with the voting rights act that has already been
defined by the courts. They have a chance to do their own
districting or have the chance of letting the "feds" do it. He
urged that they take the opportunity, go through the process and
ask the ~eople if they would like to have districts or not.
Ben Bay, 2148 W. Grayson, Anaheim. (The following is a summary of
Mr. Bay's extensive presentation.) He does not believe the reason
that it is better representation to have districts when he is able
to vote for four Council people in the at-large system, but
reduced to one with districts, thereby losing 75% of his vote.
The County Board of Supervisors and the feuds that resulted in
very expensive no decisions on jails and dumps was caused because
the Supervisors are divided by districts. Homeowners groups will
not be more powerful if they have a district. They would be
disenfranchised from the other three Council Members. Wards and
districts where they are in effect in the Country have created
parochial divisions and Councils and Supervisors that are
divisive, uncooperative and take the narrow view.
From 1883 to 1955 in California, General Law Cities were required
to use the at-large election system as a result of a municipal
reform movement to prevent the "vices" of district and ward
elections from being carried from the eastern to the western
states. At-large elections have made cities successful and
relatively free of corruption for a century in California. He
considers the threat of litigation to be "hog wash".
Out of 444 California cities, only about 20 have districts.
Districts are being used as a ruling out of a court based on the
Voting Rights Act. It is a remedy. It is not a right. It is a
very serious prescription of medicine for the disease of racism
and created primarily for that and what was going on in the South.
That is where the Civil Rights Act came from. The prelude to
legal action to force districts - re= - Voting Rights Act dealing
with the dilution of the minority vote. The Supreme Court rulings
say that a minority must be geographically concentrated, the
minority must be politically cohesive as a voting group and the
white majority has regularly rejected minority candidates for City
Council - none of those are true in Anaheim. None of the three
causes of action exist in the City. The rulings out of the
Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act also state clearly there is
no constitional requirement that ethnic groups voting strength be
maximized by districts or by an apportionment plan. Currently,
Anaheim would not lose if this was taken to court. The Hispanic
population in Anaheim is not a politically cohesive group although
he wishes they were. He does not believe it is up to the Council
nor the ballot to put districts on to help them do that; they
ought to be doing that on their own. The demographics and
347
Hall, An&he£mt Cal££orn~la - COUNCIL MINIrI'E$ - MAY 19, 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
political realities of Hispanic voters is the reason Hispanics are
not elected by ethnic political action in this City and is not the
fault of the at-large election system. California is not the
South and extreme measures are not intended to be used to give any
political group an unfair political advantage. Most importantly,
the threat of lawsuits and the use of extreme measures should
never be used as an attempt to polarize ethnic voters or create
racial divisions where they did not exist before. He hates racism
and always has and does not want to see it created over an issue
such as this or any other issue when it does not now exist.
Relative to the costs on the threats of lawsuits, it costs less in
the long run to defend the at-large system than to give in and
create districts. District elections do not produce the results
promised by the proponents in California. If an Hispanic district
was created, that is still only one vote. When a qualified
Hispanic candidate comes along and runs on the issues, he will be
elected to the City Council. It will not occur because of the
Hispanic vote because, in his opinion, the Hispanic vote in
Anaheim is a myth - it does not exist.
In concluding, he is asking the Council to refuse the request to
place district elections on the ballot. It could not be a worse
year to put something that complicated or serious on the ballot
that would effect Anaheim's form of government. As far as the Los
Angeles Times poll, he suggested taking a look at the way the
questions were asked with the third question being district
elections. He also encouraged each of the Council to publicly
oppose district elections in Anaheim when and if placed on the
ballot by the initiative process. Anaheim has everything to lose
and nothing to gain on districts.
Curtis Stricker, 1117 Wakefield Place, Anaheim. (HOME) He feels
strongly that the issue is the people's decision to make. If they
can get it on the .ballot and get it in debate it will be the right
answer. Their vice president (HOME) thought it was a good idea.
A number of people came to them, the consensus being, let the
people decide. If the Council takes it upon themselves to decide,
they will be saying this is not the people's right. There is
already an at-large system in the City. If people do not vote for
districts, nothing will change.
Jul£e Mayer, 1~]1 W. Narr£e~ Lane, Anaheim.
meeting with HOME (see minutes of April 7, 1992) and those in the
special interest group promoting districts did not stay for the
dialogue and discussion. As a member of the City's Budget
Advisory Commission, it is certainly one way to get involved in
one's city and community. She also serves on a lot of non-profit
boards and in a sense they do have districts - they are called
school districts. Getting information to every child in the City
is absolutely impossible. It is necessary to make an appointment
with a different person in each different school district. It is
an example of districting that does not work. She also agrees if
there really is a large interest in putting the issue on the
ballot, the petition initiative process should be used.
Keith Olesen, 321 N. Philadelphia, Anaheim. The third issue is
the major issue - the other two pale in comparison. First, he
348
City Hall. Anaheim,'Cal£~orn£a- COUNCX~ MXNUTE$- M~,Y 19~ 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
hopes they do not see thousands of dollars spent on mailers
supporting campaign contribution limits. Further, if they truly
agree that term limits are a good idea, anybody in office now
should decline to run in November. Relative to districts, it is
one more way rendering him unable to vote for the person he wishes
to vote for. To reiterate (see minutes April 7, 1992) he can now
go to five people and each has an equal interest in listening to
what he has to say. With districts, he can access only one person
- that is one of the main fallacies of districting and one more
limitation on the citizenry. The public should not have those
rights or powers taken away or limited. Mrs. Mayer also made the
point, if there is this incredible percentage of people clamoring
for these reforms, he does not see them showing up at meetings or
petition initiatives being put on the ballot by voters. He only
sees two or three lawyers and a poll taken of 200 or 300 people
across the County. There is an initiative process and that should
be utilized.
Esther Poole, 324 N. Citron, Anaheim. She is a school teacher at
Lakewood High School. She spoke at the last meeting (see minutes
April 7, 1992) and is entitled to her opinion. Her daughter was
approached on Youth In Government Day by a Councilman on what her
mother said at the meeting and was able to deal with it. More
people are not present because they become despondent and lose
hope. She respects everyone's opinion. The issue should be taken
to the people.
Steve White, 856 N. Clementine, Anaheim (HOME). They have not
decided anything. The Council has heard both sides and there are
a lot of issues to be discussed. The point is not to settle the
issue and not to cut off debate. Putting the issue on the ballot
gives five more months to continue the debate. If they do not
agree, they can voice their opinions, but do not cut off debate.
Gina Hainline, 318 S. Helena, Anaheim. They moved from West
Anaheim to Central Anaheim to move away from problems, but have
found a different kind of problem. She has gone to the Council
and relayed the problems and asked if there was a way to solve
some of the problems where gangs and the issue of more police
officers are concerned. Districts will limit her ability to
access the number of people she can talk to thereby limiting her
abilities as a citizen. She has a little boy who cannot go down
the street and play anymore because the park is overrun by gangs.
If Council Member Daly is her only Councilman and is on her side
but does not think he can get enough support to do something about
the problemf what good is the system ~0 her, ~he does n0~ like
five or six people coming and telling the Council this is the will
of the people. Until they see by petitions it is the will of the
people, as far as she is concerned, the Council should see this as
just a few people complaining because they want to change the game
mid-stream so they can be a participant. Let them bring back the
people's word that they want it on the ballot. She urges and begs
the Council not to place the issue on the ballot.
Doug Gibson, 931 S. Peregrine, Anaheim. There are three Council
Members he can recall that have been sensitive to issues he has
brought to them, but who indicated they needed other votes. It is
necessary to look at a City Council that is for the City of
349
C£t¥ Nall~ AnaheJ.m~ Clli£ornia - COUNCZL MZNIFTE~ - KAY 19~ 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
Anaheim. What he thinks is important is that the issue is
something that will perhaps bring more people into politics in
Anaheim. He encouraged the Council to put the issue on the ballot
and let him have the opportunity to observe the pros and cons.
Mayor Hunter. There are good arguments on both sides. A lot of
people in the audience have their minds made up, but he does not.
Anaheim has always been an at-large city. If districts, what
changes would be made, would they help a minority person get
elected, would it be by district or from districts. There are
many issues to be considered.
Council Member Ehrle. He brought this about not because of any
ethnic group, but because of his basic philosophy and belief in
representative government. (He then relayed the story of how in
1974 he led the charge to place the direct election of the Mayor
on the ballot by petition initiative which was subsequently
adopted by the voters and also the recent mobile home park rent
stabilization initiative which finally qualified for the ballot
and was subsequently turned down by the voters. ) Council Member
Pickler had stated that although he was opposed to term limits and
campaign contribution limits as proposed, he was not opposed to
putting those issues on the ballot. He also does not agree with
the argument that there will be a dissolving of citizens voting
rights with districts since there will be four, five or six
candidates to vote for. The people are asking for the right to
choose that person to that geographical area. He supports putting
the issue on the ballot.
Council Member Simpson. He referred first to Mr. Bay's
presentation and stated he (Simpson) agrees with everything said
by him. He is truly sorry that the discussion seemed in his mind
to divide itself along two lines- is there better representation
in the hills and the other along the lines of racism and he takes
exception to the latter. The one compelling argument Mr. Bay made
was that there was more likelihood to create racism with a
district form of election than to cure it. He agrees that
district elections is medicine for an evil or illness that he
hopes does not exist in the City. What he hoped to hear more of
was how people are denied representation in the current form of
government and how that is improved by isolating a Council person
by district. If he could see any inclination that going to
~£s%r£e% ~l~e~£ons woul~ help %o cu~e any~hlng in ~he Ci~y, he
would be the first to agree to put the issue on the ballot. He
does not see that. He sees it as being the forerunner to what he
has seen in the newspapers recently and with two or three
homeowner's groups that they want to see the Mayor have more power
so that the City Manager can be relegated to a job of ministerial
duties. Doing that really deprives citizens of a right. They
deny themselves a right to a system that provides checks and
balances with a Council/Manager form of government that is not
provided in any other forum. If districting sets the stage for
some form of government that provides additional power to the
Mayor, he is even more opposed. He cannot support district
elections. His conscience will not allow him to vote to put it on
the ballot. That is how strongly he feels.
35O
C£ty Hall~ Anahe~, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINUTES - NAY 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.N.
MOTION: Council Member Ehrle moved to place on the November General Municipal
Election Ballot the issue of Councilmanic districts.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Hunter stated that one of the issues is
whether or not the Council should place the issue on the ballot. They have
already voted to place the issue of term limits on the ballot and with a few
amendments will place campaign contribution limits on the ballot as well. He
previously voted to put the mobile home rent stabilization question on the
ballot. He does not have his mind made up tonight on the issue of districts.
He referred to comments he gets referring to "those people". Those people are
the latino population in downtown Anaheim. He hears "those people" quite
often in regard to the vendors and that people do not want them in their
neighborhoods. It is an issue he agrees with Mr. Bay and Council Member
Simpson that Anaheim is a City hopefully that is above that particular issue.
Will districts stop that, he does not believe so. People have prejudices.
Put the issue on the ballot and let five months of debate go on. Let the
people decide. He feels there is enough concern to put it on the ballot. It
may get overwhelmingly rejected. He thereupon seconded Council Member Ehrle's
motion to place the issue on the November Ballot.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Pickler stated the reason he agreed to
putting the other two issues on the ballot, they are not going to hurt the
City. When he thinks of districts, he believes they do not belong in any
community. In his estimation, districts are bad. If people want something
that is going to hurt the City, they are going to have to show him that the
majority of the people want it and go out and get signatures. He came from
Boston where there were districts. Districts are not needed in this City.
There is not the corruption as was evident in eastern politics. When he makes
decisions, he does not do so for Anaheim Hills, Central City or West Anaheim
but for the whole City. With five Council Members elected by the entire City,
the citizens get the representation they need. There are three groups
advocating districts - HOME, Los Amigos and APAC (Anaheim Political Action
Committee). He has not received calls from anyone else. At the last meeting,
the majority of the people said they did not want districting and that is what
he is hearing again tonight.
Council Member Daly. There are half a dozen issues involved - a strong Mayor
form of government, expansion of the City Council, various charter reforms.
If they are going to put everything on the ballot that one, two or five or ten
individuals want to be put on the ballot, it would be a mile long. The
previous two items are going to the ballot because there is a clear call for
reform reflected in those two items. The issue of district elections is far
different. What he hears from the community is what he has heard tonight, the
majority of the people do not want the issue on the ballot, secondly, he has
not heard any evidence presented as to how Council districts will improve the
.operation of City government - how it leads to better service delivery to the
¢£ti~ens. The Council/Manager form of government has worked well in
California for a long time. The City could end up with districts some day.
The issue has not been hashed out well enough. There is not enough time
between now and November. It would be the biggest single change in City
government since the City was founded and it would be a question that would be
on perhaps the sixth or seventh ballot card in November. He salutes the
people who brought the issue forward - it goes to the very heart of Anaheim's
form of government. He is not convinced it is time yet to put the question on
the'ballot. (City Clerk Sohl confirmed that the deadline for placing any
issues on the November Ballot is August 7, 1992, but the last Council meeting
before that deadline is July 28, 1992.) He reiterated, the majority of the
people he is hearing from questioned why the issue should be put on the ballot
351
C£t¥ Hall, Anaheim' Cali£orn£a - COUNCIL blINIrTE$ - ~tY 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
and how many people has he heard from. On rent control for mobile home parks,
22,000 people signed the petition initiative the first time which was flawed
legally and again a second time when it was in conformance it went racing to
the ballot and voted on a special election. If there are only two or three
months of discussions because this issue is someone's favorite project, he
feels it is a disservice to the majority of Anaheim residents who want the
Council to be careful, practical and cautious. The thing to do is to hold off
and keep discussing the matter. It is the single most important change in
135 years of Anaheim. It can wait a few more months or a couple of more
years. He does not think there has been quite enough evidence presented by
the proponents that this is going to improve Anaheim. He is all for
neighborhood empowerment, but feels there are better, faster and fairer ways
to empower neighborhoods and individual citizens - the primary means is
involvement and basic homework on issues facing the City. He is not ready to
put the issue on the ballot.
Council Member Ehrle asked if Council Member Daly was opposed to a person
representing a geographical area or as in Santa Aha where people must reside
in a geographical area but can be voted on city-wide.
Council Member Daly. He feels there are a number of neighborhoods in Anaheim
underrepresented. There is a problem with geography in Anaheim. It is a big
City. The day may have come where five part-time Council Members cannot
adequately serve and address the needs of the neighborhoods. However,
Santa Ana has a mess on their hands with Council districts. They have a
geographic requirement but the citizens of the entire City vote as to who will
be their public servants. That method has not been presented to the Council.
That is at least as meritorious as the system that has been proposed.
Council Member Daly then stated that the item before the Council and the paper
work that they have that Council Member Ehrle urged be put on the agenda, it
is not an advisory question, but it is binding language. If this is the exact
language Council Member Ehrle wants and he wants it to go to the ballot, so be
it but it needs to be hashed out more and alternatives need to be looked at
with the business community, neighborhood groups, Anaheim hills groups, etc.
There is a lot more discussion which needs to take place - it is a sacred
subject.
Council Member Ehrle. Tonight it was his intention to bring to the Council a
vote to place it on the ballot and they would then discuss the exact wording.
City Attorney White. He believes the motion was to place on the ballot
election by districts. That very language used in the motion connotes they
are talking about elections by districts as opposed to from districts. Those
have technical legal meanings in the law. The "by district" is what the
discussion has been about tonight. Only those persons residing within a
district will vote for their representative as opposed to the city at-large
voting for someone residing within a particular geographical area. If the
motion passes while they would not have established the language that would go
on the ballot as the Charter Amendment, the motion in its current form is
limited to placing on the ballot some form of Charter Amendment that would be
for an election "by district". If the motion were to pass, between now and
July 28th, he would prepare the final wording of an amendment acceptable to at
least three Council Members to be adopted by a resolution. The motion before
the Council tonight is to place on the ballot some form of Charter Amendment
that would be for an election by district unless there is an amendment to that
motion.
352
City Hall, Anahe~mf California - COUNCIL MINUTES - _u_%y 19f 1992 - 5zOO P.M.
Council Member Hunter. His second to the motion is to put the issue on the
ballot and let the people decide - not whether or not there should be
districts. It is something they are going to have to deal with sooner or
later. It is an issue that needs to be decided by a vote of the people and
not by the Council.
A roll call vote was then taken on the motion by Council Member Ehrle,
seconded by Council Member Hunter to place on the November Ballot the issue of
Councilmanic districts in the City of Anaheim and failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES: Ehrle and Hunter
NOES: Simpson, Pickler and Daly
ABSENT: None
D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE BROUIR~M~NT, CONDITIONA?
USE PERMIT NO. 3451 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNERS: Milton Johnson, Carla Beatrice Johnson, Milton E. Johnson, Jr.,
Hazel C. Johnson, 1214 W. Katella Ave. Anaheim, CA 92802.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 511 - 521 South Manchester
Avenue and 500 - 520 South Walnut Street. The property is approximately
2.1 acres located at the southwest corner of Manchester Avenue and Santa
Ana Street.
The request is to retain an auto repair, towing and dismantling facility
(including the storage and retail sale of used auto parts) and a
temporary office trailer with waiver of required improvement of parking
and outdoor storage area, minimum structural setback and improvement of
setback areas.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3451 DENIED (PC92-18) (7 yes votes).
Waiver of code requirements DENIED.
Denied Mitigated Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was
submitted by Ali Elyaszadeh and public hearing scheduled and continued from
the meeting of April 21, 1992 to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - April 9, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 7, 1992
Posting of property- April 10, 1992
PLANNXNC ~TAFF INPUT~
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She has received a letter today
requesting an approximate 30-day continuance of the public hearing. The
Council may wish to hear from the attorney who is present today. Before
hearing from the attorney, Mr. Santalahti gave a history of the property up to
the present time.
Mayor Hunter then asked to hear from the attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Gregory Weiler, Attorney at Law, Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm &
Waldron, Newport Beach. He represents the sub-lessor of the subject site not
the actual applicant who is present today. He has been working to facilitate
353
Hall. Anahei~a, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINIFTES - .~tY 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.N.
a settlement with the City to avoid any protracted problems. It is a
complicated situation. Issues are whether or not the existing and historical
use is a pre-existing non-conforming use and whether or not they actually need
the CUP. The City Attorney was kind enough to review the matter and advised
him as of this morning it is the position of staff, it is not a lawful use and
definitely requires a conditional use permit. With that issue resolved, it is
now up to the applicant whether or not they ought to expend the substantial
amounts of money necessary to perform a preliminary environmental
investigation which will either support a negative declaration or indicate to
staff a recommendation for a full EIR. Since it was just this morning the
City Attorney advised him of staff's position, he has requested of staff the
time necessary for the applicant to perform that investigation and incur those
expenses. He has asked the applicant to commit to the City in writing that
they will perform that work in the next 30-days. They respectfully request
and on behalf of the applicant request an extension sufficient to provide that
30-day time frame to provide that environmental documentation and then give
staff sufficient time to come back to the Council on the appeal. He would be
happy to answer questions of Mr. Kent. His client, or Anaheim Motors, the
actual applicant.
City Attorney White. He would support Mr. Weiler's request for a continuance.
If the issue is resolved as to the status of the non-conforming uses on the
property or lack thereof, that prior to providing it it would be appropriate
to give the applicant the opportunity to do the necessary environmental
assessment so the Council has the requisite information in front of it before
proceeding with conducting the hearing on the application. He would support
the continuance to allow the requisite time to conduct the environmental
studies.
Answering Council Member Daly, City Attorney White explained that the issue is
basically whether the mitigated negative declaration previously prepared and
denied by the Planning Commission is satisfactory documentation for the
project. As he understands, the applicant wishes more time to prepare the
necessary environmental studies and assessments to bring before the Council to
either support the fact that a mitigated negative declaration would be
adequate or that a full-blown EIR may be required. That would have to be done
before the Council acted on the CUP.
Mr. Weiler stated that they are requesting a 30-day continuance and staff
indicated they would require two weeks to thirty days to determine the
adequacy.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She confirmed for Council Member
Daly that the issue has been continued for some time. It was at the Planning
Commission initially in June of 1991.
'Mrs. Santalahti asked that additional comments be entered into the record as
follows:
First, the letter submitted makes reference to CUP No. 3373. She
is certain that is an error since it has nothing to do with the
property in question. The CUP involved is 3451. The letter is
signed by the Anaheim Motor's business owner. In the discussions
with Mr. Weiler, he indicated the meetings that staff will
probably have with him during the 30-days the environmental
information is being gathered he will always be present at those
meetings. She does not want to go back and start dealing with the
applicant who has not been overwhelmingly responsive to some of
354
C£t¥ Hall, Anahe..!~, CaX~forn£a - COUNCIL MXNUTES - MAY 19, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
the staff concerns both as voiced by the Planning Commission and
staff. She wants to be sure that the Attorney making the promises
is also the one staff is going to be meeting with. Further, in
the environmental documentation that was requested last November,
it was contained in an actual attachment to the staff report and
Mr. Weiler has a copy of that letter dated November 19, 1991 to
Tom Kieviet who was the attorney at the time for the applicant.
In staff concurring with the time extension, they are doing so on
the basis of an assumption that an honest effort is going to be
made to collect the information and staff is not going to wait
basically two months and then be right where they 'are today and
where the Planning Commission was last November. Also, if there
are any difficulties with the environmental information, that they
are making an honest effort to get the corrections into staff and
not drag their feet. The staff report that was prepared for the
Planning Commission last February, that may very well have some
modifications necessary whether part of the conditions or part of
the submittal and it is possible staff will be providing a revised
staff report to the City Council, possibly revised conditions or
something like that.
Gregory Weiler. He concurred with everything stated by Miss Santalahti. They
will con, nit to using all the efforts she described. His client, Mr. Kent has
always instructed them to coordinate with the applicant. They will
participate in those meetings - himself or another staff person.
MOTION= Council Member Simpson moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 3451 to Tuesday, July 14, 1992 noting the comments
as articulated by staff. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
D2. 134= PUBLIC HEARING AND PR~_SENTATION BY PARKS AND ~_EC~__EATION ON THE
RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PL_~/~ AM_~NDM~NT NO. 325 AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER= City Initiated by the City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92803.
An amendment to the City of Anaheim General Plan incorporating a new
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Element into the General Plan
with amendments to various sections of the Land Use, Circulation, and
Environmental Resource Elements (including the Riding and Hiking Trails
and Recreation Elements) to accommodate the new Element. The new
Element outlines the policies, goals and objectives of the City relative
to Parks, Recreation and Community Services.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA 325 GI~ANTED, recommending a~proval to the City Council (PC92-48) (7
yes votes).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of May 12, 1992, Item B1.
PUBLIC NOTICE R~QUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - May 7, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 7, 1992
STAFF INPUT ~
Mr. Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. His
department has been working on this project for about seven to eight years.
It is an update of the existing recreation trails element to the General Plan.
(Mr. Jarvi's presentation was supplemented by slides. ) He briefed the scope
355
City Hal!, Anahei~t Californ£a - COUNCIL MINUTES - .~_%Y 19t 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
of the General Plan Element which "includes strategies and actions aimed at
meeting the Parks, Recreation and Community Services needs of Anaheim",
through the year 2010 and beyond. (See Anaheim Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Element of the General Plan.) Mr. Jarvi also briefed the
plan in general - existing services, facilities and trails, Parks, Recreation
and Community Services issues, goals and policies, plans and standards.
Issues that need to be addressed are current deficiencies in parks, the need
to change service delivery to meet the demands of new population, current
deficiency in multi-purpose indoor use facilities, financing for acquisition
and developing programs and services, senior needs, rehabilitation and a major
issue - public safety. With all that in mind, the department developed a
mission statement - "to enhance Anaheim's quality of life by providing a full
range of services, facilities and programs that are accessible both from the
standpoint of fees and physically to our residents". Nine goals were also
established which he briefed and out of those goals were developed action and
implementation plans. He highlighted those that were especially important.
Council Member Daly then posed questions relative to certain aspects of the
plan, specifically revolving around park acreage deficits which were answered
by both Mr. Jarvi and Dick Mayer, Park Planner.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members commended Mr. Jarvi and his department for
the fine job done on the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Element of
the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by
Council Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Pickler, the City Council
does hereby approve a mitigated Negative Declaration on the subject project
and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 21081.6 of
the Public Resources Code on the basis that the Planning Commission/City
Council has considered the proposal with the mitigated Negative Declaration
and accompanying Monitoring Program, together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-102)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-102 for adoption, approving
the General Plan Amendment No. 325. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 325 ADDING A PARKS, RECREATION
AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ELEMENT TO, AND AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AND
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, THE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF, THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
.Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-102 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-102 duly passed and adopted.
356
C£ty Hall, Anaheim, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINIrTES - MAY 19, 1992 - 5500 P.M.
D3. 1215 PUBLIC HEARING - ACOUISITION OF A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF
REAL PROPERTY TOGETHER WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, B~QUIB~D FOR RO~D AND
PUBLIC UTILITY P.u~POSES (R/W 4774}:
LOCATION~ 2501 - 2525 East Ball Road (northeast corner of Ball Road and
Sunkist Street).
Finding and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring
and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of that certain parcel of
real property, together with existing improvements, required for road
and public utility purposes located at 2501 - 2525 East Ball Road,
(northeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street), (R/W 4774).
..PUBLIC NOTICE ~EQUIREMENTS _M~_T BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - May 7, 1992
SUbmitted was report dated May 5, 1992 from the Director of Public Works and
City Engineer recommending adoption of the proposed resolution relative to
authorization of the condemnation and authorizing the law firm of Oliver, Bar,
and Vose, Special Counsel for the City and the City Attorney to proceed with
said condemnation action.
Mr. Richard Santo, Senior Real Property Agent stated that it is staff's
recommendation to proceed with the subject condemnation and further that the
Council adopt the proposed resolution.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who
wished to speak; there was no response.
COUNCIL ACTION5 Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
~NVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT FINDING - EIR NO. 299: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Hunter the City Council finds that on
December 27, 1989 it has previously certified EIR No. 299 making certain
findings in connection therewith and adopting a statement of overriding
considerations and that there are no additional impacts in connection with the
subject action. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-103)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 92R-103 for adoption, finding
and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring and
authorizing the condemnation of certain real property (Waters - R/W 4774).
Refer to Resolution ~QQ~,
.RESOLUTION NO. 92R-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR
ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY (Waters -
R/W 4774 ).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-105 for adoptions
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
357
titv Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINIFTES - MAY 19, 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-103 duly passed and adopted.
.MOTION: Council Member Pickler authorizing the law firm of Oliver, Bart and
Vose, Special Counsel for the City of Anaheim, and the City Attorney to
proceed with said condemnation action. Council Member Ehrle seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D4/D5/D6. 175: PUBLIC HEARINGS: XTEM D4 - CR_EATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO.
3 - COMMERCIAL/RECREATION AREA (CR AREA}; ITeM D5 - CB~ATING UNDERGROUND
DISTRICT NO. 4 - LA PALMA AVENUE (PHASE 1), TUSTIN AND L_~K~VIEW CRITICAT.
INTERSECTIONS; ~TEM D6 - CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 5 - BEACH/LINCOLN
.{ SUPER STREET):
PUBLIC HEARING - CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 3 - COMM~RCIAt/B~CB~ATION
AREA ¢CR AREA}~
Underground District No. 3 is being created to provide for the
undergrounding of all overhead utilities to take place in accordance
with the Public Utilities Department's Conversion Program Five-Year Plan
which was approved for FY 1991-92 by the Public Utilities Board on
December 5, 1992, and the City Council on January 7, 1992.
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 3 - LOCATIONs
Harbor Boulevard south of Katella Avenue to Chapman Avenue, and West
Street south of Katella Avenue to Convention Way.
~UBLIC HEARING - CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 4 - LA P~LMA AVENUE (PHASE
1), TUSTIN AND LAKEVIEW CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS:
Underground District No. 4 is being created to provide for the
undergrounding of all overhead utilities to take place in accordance
with the Public Utilities Department's Conversion Program Five-Year Plan
which was approved for FY 1991-92 by the Public Utilities Board on
December 5, 1992, and the City Council on January 7, 1992.
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 4 - LOCATION~
Tustin Avenue from 800 feet south of La Palma Avenue to 1100 feet north
of La Palma Avenue and La Palma Avenue from 1150 feet west of Tustin
Avenue to 730 feet east of Tustin Avenue; and Lakeview Avenue from 100
feet south of La Palma Avenue to 1125 feet north of La Palma Avenue and
La Palma Avenue from 890 feet west of Lakeview Avenue to 1705 east of
Lakeview Avenue.
~UBLIC HEARING - CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 5 - BEACH/LINCOLN (SUPER
STREET):
Underground District No. 5 is being created to provide for the
undergrounding of all overhead utilities to take place in accordance
with the Public Utilities Department's Conversion Program Five-Year Plan
which was approved for FY 1991-92 by the Public Utilities Board on
December 5, 1992, and the City Council on January 7, 1992.
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 5 - LOCATIONs
Beach Boulevard from the Carbon Creek Channel north to the North City
Limit; and the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard from
600 feet west of Beach Boulevard, to 600 feet east of the intersection.
.p. UBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - May 7, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 6, 1992
Posting of property- May 8, 1992
358
Hall. ~nahe~,' Cali£orn£a - CO.UNCIL MINUTES - ~tY 19, 1992 - 5500 P
City Clerk Sob1 announced there is a recommendation from staff that all three
public hearings (D4, DS, & D6) on the proposed Undergrounding Districts No. 3,
4 & 5 be continued to Tuesday, June 2, 1992.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present to speak to any or all of the three
items; there was no response.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue the public hearings on
proposed Underground District No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5 to Tuesday, June 2, 1992.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C4. 106: BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: Mayor Pro Tem Daly suggested
that relative to the Budget Advisory Commission meetings, that at least one of
the meetings be held in the evening so that members of the public can attend
before the budget comes to the City Council. He requested that staff arrange
for that to happen - that it be their final meeting before the budget is
considered by the Council and that it be held in a room easily accessible to
the public.
C4. 1695 SANTA ANA FREEWAY WIDENING PROJECT: Mayor Pro Tem Daly. He is
starting to get questions from property owners in the path of the freeway
widening as well as residents who live nearby and whether traffic will impact
them. He suggested that City staff come up with a communications program
perhaps working with the Chamber of Commerce. Cal Trane will have a budget
for some kind of newsletter for these things, but probably not for a year or
two. Perhaps there is a way to start to work with Cal Trans and the Chamber
to notify business property owners as well as residential property owners.
Council Member Pickler. The OCTA and the City along with Cal Trans are
working together to put a program together so that people will know what is
going to happen. They can call the City, but he believes that OCTA will have
the answers.
_A. DJOURNMENT: Council Member Hunter moved to adjourn, Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9=53 p.m. )
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
359