1992/08/11City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 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
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
STADIUM GENERAL MANAGER: Greg Smith
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
SENIOR REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Richard Santo
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 2:00 p.m. on August 7, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the workshop portion of the meeting of August 11, 1992 to
order at 3:10 p.m.
City Manager James Ruth. He introduced the Stadium General Manager, Greg
Smith who will make a presentation on the Anaheim Stadium Office and support
facilities annex.
101: REVIEW OF ANAHEIM STADIUM OFFICE AND SUPPORT FACILITIES ANNEX - STADIUM
WAREHOUSE GATE 6: Greg Smith, Stadium General Manager. He is presenting the
newest addition to Anaheim Stadium - the Anaheim Stadium Office and Support
Facilities Annex known as Stadium Warehouse Gate 6. During the years of
growth and additions to Anaheim Stadium, one thing not anticipated was the
need for additional storage space and the fact that food and beverage sales
have more than doubled over the last ten years. Additionally, the Stadium's
tenants, the Angels and the Rams as well as new tenants, are also in need of
office space. They have proposed to combine those needs in one facility, the
Gate 6 Warehouse and Office Complex, a 48,000 square foot facility. Mr. Smith
then briefed what the facility will contain in terms of square footage for
each use. He also briefed the funding of the project which will be totally
funded out of Stadium revenues thereby having no impact on the General Fund of
the City. The cost estimate for the project was 3.6 million dollars and the
low bid came in at $2,858,000. The award of contract for the bid is on the
~0un¢il Agenda ~0nigh~ (I~m A~I) an~ i~ re¢0mm~n~ £0r ¢0un¢il approval.
At the conclusion of Mr. Smith's presentation, questions were posed by Council
Member Daly relative to the participation of the Orange County Sports Hall of
Fame in the cost of construction of the facility since the Hall of Fame Museum
will be headquartered there as well as clarification of the architectural
features and layout of the facility as depicted in the renderings posted and
also the model of the facility which was on display for Council viewing.
City Manager Ruth reiterated that the item will be before the Council tonight
for consideration and approval.
114: INTRODUCTION - STUDENT DELEGATION - MITO, JAPAN: Mrs. June Lowry,
Sister City Committee introduced the student delegation from Mito, Japan who
were present in the Chamber audience. Mayor Hunter and Councilmembers
personally greeted the delegation. The students were presented with small
537
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
tokens from the City of Anaheim and, in turn, Mayor Hunter was presented with
a gift from Mito and its Mayor, Mayor Sagawa. The students will be presented
at the evening meeting to extend formal greetings.
RECESS - 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.
Cole vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No.
59-22-13.
Tabares vs. City of Anaheim et al., Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 66-22-49.
Ladjevic vs. City of Anaheim et al., Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 64-84-56.
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.
RECESS: Council Member Hunter moved to recess into Closed Session, Council
Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:35 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.
(5:15 p.m.)
INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING THE STUDENT DELEGATION FROM MITO, JAPAN:
Mrs. June Lowry, Sister Cities Committee introduced Mrs. Mirata, the leader of
the Student Delegation from Mito, Japan, Anaheim's Sister City. Mrs. Mirata
expressed the appreciation of Mito and the 20 students who were chosen from
among many applicants to visit Anaheim this year. They have studied many
things in the two weeks they have been here and are moved by the loving kind
538
City Hallt ~_~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
people in Anaheim. Each year the returning students continue to study about
America to improve relations between Japan and America.
Mayor Hunter. A presentation was made earlier today to the Council from the
student delegation and a letter presented from the Mayor of Mito, Mayor
Sagawa. He also expressed deep appreciation to Mayor Sagawa and the City of
Mito for the generous contribution of approximately $7,700 to the City of
Anaheim to promote the Sister's Cities program since Anaheim is experiencing
difficult times. This will enable Anaheim students to visit Mito in a
continuation of the program.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Hunter and
authorized by the City Council:
Job Training Partnership month, in Anaheim, August 1992
Mr. Mel Miller, Member of the Anaheim Private Industry Counsel accepted the
proclamation.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to David Harris and Max
Ots recognizing Toto Kiki, USA, Incorporated for their commitment to Water
Conservation. Amy Rego, City Conservation, Public Utilities was also present
and recognized for her contribution to the project. Mayor Hunter and Council
Members expressed their appreciation for the contributions made by the
Public/Private Partnership in improving the quality of life in Anaheim through
Water Conservation.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,325,517.50 for the
period ending July 31, 1992 and $5,869,131.08 for the period ending August 7,
1992, in accordance with the 1992-93 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5: 28 p.m. )
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:36 p.m.)
City Clerk Sohl. The Mayor has requested that those who wish to speak under
Item Cl hold their comments until that item is discussed in accordance with
the agenda schedule.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments on City Council
Agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Hunter, seconded by Council Member Pickler, 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
Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 92R-171 through 92R-173, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The title of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 92R-171 through 92R-173, both
inclusive, for adoption. )
539
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
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 David and Angelina Reyes for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 8,
1992.
b. Claim submitted by Jill Gelzer Berry for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
January 19, 1992.
c. Claim submitted by Steven A. Blume for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 3, 1992.
d. Claim submitted by Dorothy A. Kelley for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 20, 1992.
e. Claim submitted by Jill Renee Buzer, c/o Daniel J. Ford Jr., for
indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
January 13, 1992.
f. Claim submitted by J. Alfredo Jimenez Magdaleno, c/o Roland G.
Rubalcava, for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about March 6, 1992.
g. Claim submitted by Scott A. Silverthorn for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 13,
1992.
h. Claim submitted by Doris Shafer for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 29, 1992.
i. Claim submitted by Julie and Randall Smith for bodily injuries
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 19,
1992.
j. Claim submitted by Danh Vu for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about May 30, 1992.
k. Claim submitted by Oanh Kim Vu, c/o Robert Hale, for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 30,
1999-.
1. Claim submitted by Oanh N. Vu, c/o Robert Hale, for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 30,
1992.
m. Claim submitted by Tony Ngoc Vu, c/o Robert Hale, for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 30,
1992.
540
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11~ 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
n. Claim submitted by Van Vu, c/o Robert Hale, for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 30,
1992.
o. Claim submitted by Dorothy Newberg for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 20, 1992.
p. Claim submitted by Thomas Larry Green for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 29, 1992.
q. Claim submitted by Michael K. Barton for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 28, 1992.
r. Claim submitted by Frances C. Thompson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 19, 1992.
s. Claim submitted by Advanced Computer Tech, c/o Amir Vafadar, for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about July 2, 1992.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment
Commission meetings 6/17/92, 7/15/92, and 7/22/92.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting
held 6/24/92.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting
held 6/24/92.
140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistical
Report for the fiscal year 1990/1991.
173: Receiving and filing an Amendment to Petition for Modification of
Decision 89-11-003 filed before the Public Utilities Commission of the State
of California in the matter of decision of Michael S. Mitchell, dba Mickey's
Space Ship Shuttle, for authority to operate as a passenger stage corporation
between certain portions of Los Angeles County and Orange County and Los
Angeles International Airport (LAX) and John Wayne Orange County Airport.
114: Receiving and filing Resolution No. 92-79, City of Newport Beach,
supporting the Orange County Regional Advisory Planning Council as the
Governing Board of an Orange County Metropolitan Planning Organization.
107: Receiving and filing the Statistical Report Summary ending June 30,
1992, as submitted by the Building Division.
A3. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-171: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN
TWO YEARS OLD. (Office of the City Clerk. )
A4. 123: Waiving Council Policy No. 306, and approving the contract with
Martin & Chapman Co., in the estimated amount of $41,002.74, per the proposal
dated July 17, 1992, to provide professional consultation and printing
services in connection with the November 3, 1992 General Municipal Election.
A5. 101: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of the Anaheim
Stadium Parking Lot Improvements by R. J. Noble Company, and authorizing the
Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
541
City Hall, ~-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11· 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
A6. 107: Approving a Notice of Completion of the Phoenix Club Demolition by
American Demolition, Inc., and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City
Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A7. 175: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Fairmont
and Sharp Substation, Phase I, by Mel Smith Electric, and authorizing the
Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A8. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement (92-3E) with Janice
Dooley, for encroachment of a building located within an existing Public
Utility easement on property at 1198 North Grove Street.
A9. 123: Approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
Program Supplement No. 011 to the State/Local Transportation Partnership
Program Agreement No. SLTPP-5055 (for Anaheim Blvd., Cypress Street to Lemon
Street, street and highway construction projects).
Al0. 160: Accepting the bid of VMCI, Inc., in the amount of $137,916 for one
40-foot bookmobile trailer, in accordance with Bid #5047.
Council Member Ehrle. The vehicle in question is $137,000+ and affects a very
important part of the library program. He asked if there was any way to
repair the current Bookmobiles since they have had to close libraries on
Monday and would need $250,000 to keep them open.
City Manager Ruth. The current bookmobile which was put into service many
years ago is in a state of major disrepair. It is extremely costly to keep it
up. The bookmobile has given the library the ability to extend their service
into low income areas of the City, the Hispanic speaking community and reaches
many who cannot get to the City's libraries. The existing unit is no longer
viable. The new unit cost would come out of the Fleet Maintenance account.
Money is sufficient in that account to replace the bookmobile. It would not
affect the General Fund.
Ail. 160: Accepting the low bid of GTE Customer Networks, in an amount not
to exceed $39,006.82 for 70 multi-line telephones with display, and six line
cards, in accordance with Bid #5068.
Al2. 160: Accepting the low bid of Sreco-Flexible, in the amount of $69,898
for one sewer jet rodder truck, in accordance with Bid #5069.
Al3. 160: Accepting the bid of Coast Tech Computer Microage, in the amount
of $40,730.99 for computers and hardware equipment for Utilities Electrical
Engineering, in accordance with Bid #5060.
Al4. 185: Determining that on the basis of the evidence submitted by Alan D.
Uman, Presley of Southern California, that Presley has complied in good faith
with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 88-02 for the 1991-
1992 period under review (The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
development area).
Al5. 185: Determining that on the basis of the evidence submitted by
Jeffrey Warmoth of the Baldwin Company (The Summit of Anaheim Hills), that the
Baldwin Company has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of
the Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 88-03 for the 1991-1992
period under review.
542
City Hallt A_naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.AUGUST llt 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Al6. 124: Approving the expenditure of $43,208 from the Hilton Parking
Structure Retained Reserves for painting of Hilton Parking Structure, and
amending the budget by increasing expenditures in 64-314-7107 by $43,208.
Al7. 123: Approving the terms and conditions, and authorizing the Mayor to
sign an agreement employing Jones Hall Hill & White as bond counsel at a cost
not to exceed $73,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed $5,000, with
regard to the sale of Certificates of Participation in the approximate amount
of $78.3 million for the purpose of refunding the CCA 1986 Series A and the
CCA 1979 Series C, and the City of Anaheim Stadium, Inc., 1979 Series A and
1978 refunding.
123: Approving the terms and conditions, and authorizing the Mayor to sign an
agreement employing Seidler-Fitzgerald Public Finance as financial advisor at
a cost of $30,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed $5,000, with
regard to the sale of Certificates of Participation in the approximate amount
of $78.3 million for the purpose of refunding the CCA 1986 Series A and the
CCA 1979 Series C, and the City of Anaheim Stadium, Inc., 1979 Series A and
1978 refunding.
123: Approving the terms and conditions, and authorizing the Mayor to sign an
agreement employing Merrill Lynch as Managing Underwriter regarding this
refunding issue.
Al8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Inland Empire White GMC, in the amount of
$45,497 for one 1500-gallon water truck, in accordance with Bid #5072.
Al9. 123: Approving a Grant Agreement with Dayle McIntosh Center For the
Disabled, in an amount not to exceed $4,000 for shelter and support services
to persons with physical and/or mental disabilities in Anaheim.
A20. 123: Approving a Grant Agreement with Interval House, in an amount not
to exceed $5,000 for emergency shelter and support services to homeless
families in Anaheim.
A21. 123: Approving a Grant Agreement with Western Youth Services, in an
~mount not to exceed $13,500 for support services for runaway and homeless
youth in Anaheim.
A22. 123: Approving a Grant Agreement with Orange County Half-Way House
Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $2,500 for short-term shelter and
support services for runaway and homeless youth in Anaheim.
A23. 123: Approving two Agreements for Removal of Lessee's Facility From
Real Property with Patrick Media, Parcel Nos. R/W 3500-34 and R/W 3500-35, at
a cost of $27,317 for removal of two billboard sign displays at the northwest
corner of Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma (for the widening of North Anaheim
Boulevard ).
A24. 123: Approving .a Lease Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency for a
term of ten years for property at 100 South Atchison Street, to be subleased
as a child care center.
123: Approving a Sublease Agreement with the Central Orange County YWCA for a
term of five years, renewable upon mutual agreement for an additional five
years, for use of the property at 100 South Atchison Street.
543
City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
-123: Approving an Operating Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency, and
Central Orange County YWCA for the purpose of operating a child care center
for the term of five years, renewable upon mutual agreement for an additional
five years, for up to 75 children, infant to five years of age, at 100 South
Atchison Street.
A25. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-172: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR
INTERESTS THEREIN TO THE CITY.
A26. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-173: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING FORMATION OF, AND MEMBERSHIP BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
IN, THE LOCAL MEDICAL FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY IV AND THE EXECUTION OF
THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY. ($6.9
million financing project.)
A27. 123: Approving an Agreement with the Digital Equipment Corporation, in
the amount of '$771 per month for the period of August 1, 1992, through July
31, 1993, for service on the Integrated Library System Equipment; and
ratifying the Library Director's signature accepting a modification to the
agreement; and authorizing the Library Director to execute the agreement on
behalf of the City of Anaheim.
A28. 140: Amending the FY 92/93 budget by increasing revenues in account 81-
3192 and expenditures in account 81-5125 by $15,000 each to implement a
Library gift fund.
A29. 123: Approving an artistic services agreement with Renee Petropoulos,
in the amount of $8,000 to provide graphic artwork at the Anaheim Arena, in
accordance with the Anaheim Arena Art Plan.
Council Member Pickler voted no on this item.
A30. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held
June 23, 1992.
A31. 101: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
C.W. Drivers & Associates, in the amount of $2,858,000 for Anaheim Stadium
Office and Support Facilities Annex; and in the event said low bidder fails to
comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low
bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and
second low bidders.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-171 through 92R-173, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-171 through 92R-173, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
A32. 105: CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSION - APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENTS TO TERMS
EXPIRING JUNE 30, 1992:
This matter was continued from the meeting of June 23, 1992 to this date.
544
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - NEW TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 1996:
(Olivares)
City Clerk $ohl first clarified for Council Member Pickler that Mr. Olivares
had moved from the City. His term had expired and he indicated he did not
wish to be reappointed. Council Member Ehrle nominated Mr. Robert Linn.
City Attorney White. Any member of the Council can nominate. It does not
require a second or a vote for the nomination. If only one nomination, then
by consensus the Council can elect that individual. Other members should have
an opportunity to nominate and then by roll call the Council should vote on
the position.
There being no further nominations for the position on the Community
Redevelopment Commission, Mr. Linn was thereupon unanimously appointed to
serve for the term expiring June 30, 1996.
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD - NEW TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 1996: (Daniel,
Engelbrecht, Rothrock, and Tarlton)
Council Member Ehrle nominated for reappointment the four incumbents for the
terms ending June 30, 1996.
There being no further nominations, nominations were closed.
The Council thereupon unanimously reappointed Ramon Daniel,
Vivian Engelbrecht, Marjorie Rothrock and Flo Tarlton to the Community
Services Board for the new terms expiring June 30, 1996.
HOUSING COMMISSION - NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 1996: (Valenzuela, Taylor)
City Clerk Sohl explained that regarding the second vacancy for a tenant
member of the Housing Commission, Mrs. Taylor did not wish to be reappointed
and there was only one application received declared eligible to be a tenant
member by Bertha Chavoya, the City's Housing Manager.
Council Member Pickler nominated for reappointment Mr. Valenzuela and for a
new appointment as tenant member of the Housing Commission, Sandra Slivka.
There being no further nominations, nominations were closed.
Mr. Valenzuela and Mrs. Slivka were thereupon unanimously appointed to the
Housing commission for the new terms expiring June 30, 1996.
FAKK AND KE~KF. ATION GOMMI~ION - N~W T~KM F. XPIKING JUNF. 30, 199§: (Fins0n)
Mayor Hunter nominated Jimmy Kennedy; Council Member Pickler. He feels that
the Mayor should check again with Mr. Kennedy since he recently talked to him
and there seemed to be an indication that this was not an area in which he
wished to be involved.
Council Member Daly noted that Mr. Kennedy sent in a blanket application for
possible appointment to a board or commission. They should check to see if
the Park and Recreation Commission is one he is interested in.
By general Council consensus the subject appointment was continued for one
week.
PLANNING COMMISSION - NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30 1996: (Bouas)
Council Member Simpson nominated Tom Tait; Council Member Daly nominated Mary
Bouas.
545
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Hunter moved that nominations be closed, Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before a vote was taken on the appointment, Council Member Pickler asked if
this is Tom Tait from Tait and Associates; Council Member Simpson confirmed
that was correct.
Council Member Pickler. He is concerned because Tait Engineering (Tait and
Associates) does business with the City. He does not believe that someone
doing business with the City should be on the Planning Commission.
Council Member Simpson. He talked to Mr. Tait on more than one occasion. He
is an Anaheim businessman and resident. He is now president of Tait
Engineering and Consulting. He was open and frank about the fact that if
opportunities in Anaheim present themselves, he would bid on them recognizing
he would have to abstain on anything he would bid on. He said it had been
quite some time since he has done business in the City or for the City. He
(Simpson) felt it was an adequate explanation.
A roll call vote was then taken on Tom Tait:
Ayes: Simpson, Ehrle and Hunter
Noes: Daly
Abstained: Pickler
A roll call vote was then taken on Mary Bouas:
Ayes: Pickler and Daly
Noes: Hunter
Abstained: Ehrle and Simpson
Mr. Tom Tait was thereupon appointed to the City Planning Commission for the
term expiring June 30, 1996.
SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION - NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 1995:
(Atwell, Willing)
Council Member Pickler moved the incumbents be nominated for reappointment to
the Senior Citizens Commission, Mary Atwell and Irving Willing.
There being no further nominations, nominations were closed.
Mrs. Atwell and Mr. Willing were thereupon unanimously appointed to the Senior
Citizens Commission for the new terms expiring June 30, 1995.
A33. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION: Appointment to the Housing
Commission to fill the unscheduled vacancy of Elmer Thill for the term
expiring June 30, 1993.
By general Council consensus, the City Council continued the appointment to
the Housing Commission for one week.
A34. 105: UNSCHEDULED VACANCY - PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Declaring an
unscheduled vacancy on the Public Utilities Board due to the resignation of
Walter J. Smith whose term expires June 30, 1993, and directing the City Clerk
to post a notice of unscheduled vacancy.
MOTION: Council Member Ehrle moved to declare an unscheduled vacancy on the
Public Utilities Board and directing the City Clerk to post a notice of the
unscheduled vacancy and that a letter of appreciation and thanks be sent to
Mr. Smith. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
546
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
ITEM BI FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JULY 23, 1992:
DECISION DATE: JULY 30~ 1992 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 14,
1992:
B1. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 70:
Requested by: Lewis Mishreki, 18921 Beehard Place, Cerritos, CA 90701.
LOCATION: 1001 North West Street (Lot No. 3 of Tract No. 14363)
Petitioner requests waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct a
single-family residential structure
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 70 GRANTED (ZA92-33).
END OF THE ZONINQ ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
B2. 107: ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE IN SETTING FORTH CERTAIN LOCAL
CONDITIONS: The Ordinance was introduced at the meeting of July 28, 1992
along with the proposed resolution which was continued to this date to be
acted upon at the time of adoption of the ordinance.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5325)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 5325 - ADOPTION: Repealing existing Chapter 16.08 and adding
new Chapter 16.08 of Title 16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code adopting the
Uniform Fire Code, 1991 Edition, with certain amendments thereto. (Introduced
at the meeting of July 28, 1992.)
Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5325 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5325: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING EXISTING
CHAPTER 16.08 AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 16.08 OF TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1991 EDITION, WITH CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS THERETO.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5325 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The ~ayor declared Ordinance No. 532.5 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-168 FOR ADOPTION: Setting forth local conditions
justifying more stringent requirements regarding fire and panic safety.
(Continued from the meeting of 7/28/92, Item D2, to be acted upon with
Ordinance 5325.)
The resolution was not acted upon until later in the meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-168)
547
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 92R-168 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-168: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SETTING FORTH LOCAL CONDITIONS JUSTIFYING MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS
REGARDING FIRE AND PANIC SAFETY.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-168 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-168 duly passed and adopted.
B3. 134: ORDINANCE NO. 5326 FOR (ADOPTION): Amending Ordinance No. 4861
relating to Specific Plan 87-1 zoning (The Highlands at Anaheim Hills).
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5326)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5326 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5326: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 4861 RELATING TO SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 ZONING (The Highlands at Anaheim
Hills).
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5326 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5326 duly passed and adopted.
Cl. 107= CONSIDERATION OF STREET VENDOR ISSUE= Report submitted by Code
Enforcement regarding the Street Vendors.
This issue is being discussed as a result of requests from citizens at
previous Council meetings. Submitted was report dated August 3, 1992 from the
Code Enforcement Manager for informational purposes prepared at the request of
the Council.
Mayor Hunter. He opened the discussion asking first to hear from those
opposed to the vending ordinance. He would like to limit the input to 30
minutes total and then to hear from those in favor for 30 minutes and then
close the hearing/discussion. The issue is on the agenda tonight but no
action is proposed to be taken. The purpose is to take input and subsequently
for the Council to consider the matter.
548
C:Lt¥ Hall~ A. ahe£m~ Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11~ 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
-City Attorney White. It is his understanding that certain residents requested
this item be brought to the City Council so they could make a presentation
relating to their concerns about the current street vending operations in the
City. Because this matter was initiated by those opposed to the current
method of operation of the vendors, he would concur it would be appropriate to
first hear from those in the audience who are either opposed or have concerns
regarding the current method of operation of street vendors. Afterward, those
in favor of the current method of operation be allowed to respond and each
side given equal time to respond. This is technically not a public hearing
nor is any particular action on the agenda for the meeting but because it was
requested by residents to bring to the Council's attention.
The following people spoke in opposition to the current method of operation of
street vendors and expressed their concerns which are summarized as follows:
Ann Lowe. She first submitted petitions of those in opposition to
allowing vendors in residential areas. She represents NOVA -
Neighborhoods Opposed to Street Vendors in Anaheim, a coalition of
Anaheim homeowners with representatives from the following
organizations:
South Anaheim Neighborhood Council, Central City
Neighborhood Council, Cinnamon Hollow Homeowners,
Jeffrey Lynne Tenants Association, Jeffrey Lynne
Owners Association, Leatrice - Wakefield Owners
Association, Mallul Drive Property Owners, Anaheim
H.O.M.E. Group and Anaheim Beautiful. They are asking
the Council to adopt an ordinance outlawing the
presence of all street vendors in residential areas of
Anaheim. They have no opposition to their presence in
commercial, industrial or construction areas. The new
code should be written to allow the Anaheim Police
Department and not the Code Enforcement Department to
enforce the law. The problem has grown from a minor
one to one of major proportions. Twenty-one (21)
vendors were counted in the Leatrice - Wakefield area
alone. She then briefed the problems/concerns.
The vendors are contributing to the blight in the City's most problem
neighborhoods by giving drug dealers and gang members an excuse for
loitering, adding to the noise, traffic congestion and trash problems,
allegations that some vendors sell drugs, act as a cover for small time
street dealers and ~an~ members, do 10an ~harkin~, acce~ £00~ ~m~
for non-food items and exchange food stamps for money, fail to collect
or pay sales tax on taxable items, selling of cigarettes smuggled in
from Mexico, selling cigarettes to minors, illegal fireworks, causing
double parking and street congestion, obstruction of streets causing
access problems for emergency vehicles, unfairly competing with citizens
who have fixed places of business. Retaliation is a serious problem.
Word is passed quickly regarding citizens who oppose vendor trucks.
Property owners have had property damage, received threats and verbal
harassment, etc. As the Code Enforcement Department report shows,
vendors break the law routinely. There is no number of Code Enforcement
officers who can police the vendors. The City is allowing the
equivalent of retail and grocery stores to operate in the middle of
totally residential areas parked on public streets. Commercial business
and residential areas is an incompatible use. There is a vendor truck
parked on south Citron street 24 hours a day. Most Orange County cities
549
City Hall, _Au_~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 1!, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
have anticipated or recognized the many problems associated with street
vendors in residential areas and do not even permit such activity.
Anaheim has a chance to be a leader in an important and serious issue
that will represent a giant step toward cleaning up the City's depressed
areas. Street vendors have no business in residential areas of the City
and must be removed. She emphasized they are requesting an ordinance be
passed to outlaw the presence of street vendors in residential areas.
Lynn Spivak, Property Owner in the Jeffrey Lynne Area. The blight of
South Central Los Angeles and Santa Ana has reached Anaheim in the form
of street vendors operating in residentially owned neighborhoods due to
lags in a seemingly unenforceable city ordinances allowing such
activity. Some vendors have tried to attach themselves to the coattails
of Carl Karcher. There is no similarity. When starting out, he
(Karcher) did not conduct his business in residential areas over 12
hours a day, relieve himself in the bushes of private residences, sell
cigarettes to minors, sell illegal fireworks, contribute to loitering
making it impossible for Police to suppress drug activity, sell
unregulated eggs and dairy products. The prize winning development
which revitalized the Chevy Chase area in partnership with Carl Karcher
as one of the principals does not allow one vending vehicle in that
development. Vendors claim to be entrepreneurs in operating a free
enterprise but the key word is risk. They have no store, no customer
parking obligations, no lease, no health department, etc., - hence, no
risk. The vendors have also claimed this is a cultural activity which
it is not. The Council that approved Ordinance No. 4725 and 5117 in
1990 was most liberal and generous; however, the experiment did not and
is not working. It is out of control. In cooperation with the City, an
association was formed in the Jeffrey Lynne area. Since then the
neighborhood has shown great improvement and is turning itself around.
They have stated and restated that vendors have a negative impact.
Ordinances that are counter productive they cannot deal with. He then
introduced a video presentation, the bulk of which was taken during
mid-week around 1:00 p.m. They wish they could have shown the Council
what happens after dark and on weekends. The video was then shown - a
presentation by NOVA. It mainly covered the Jeffrey Lynne area,
Orangewood, Haster, Vermont at Ball Road, the area just off City Hall
bounded by Anaheim Boulevard, La Palma, East Street and Lincoln. It
showed the operation of vendors in those areas relating to the problems
that were outlined thus far by Mrs. Lowe and Mr. Spivak. After the
video, Mr. Spivak asked the Council if what the video has just shown is
building for a better tomorrow for Anaheim.
Michael Blanco, 34 year Anaheim resident. While growing up as an
;unerican of Mexican Heritage in Anaheim, he has experienced many
things - many of which he is extremely proud and are unique to his
heritage. One that is not unique is ~he s~reet vendors. No~
allowing vendors in residential areas will not be denying people
of their culture which he can attest to. (He relayed stories of
his family background involving his 75-year-old mother.) He then
also relayed the problems experienced with the presence of street
vendors. The problem of noise is formidable - the horns used are
extremely loud and to emphasize his point, he gave a live
demonstration of the type of horn used when the vending trucks
come into his neighborhood. He feels there is a lot of irony
involved and that the City has tried to give the vendors a break
but the vendors have done nothing but tear apart their
neighborhoods. They are asking for an ordinance to ban street
550
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
vendors in the residential areas of Anaheim by next week.
Previous ordinances are a miserably failed experiment. The
vendors are flaunting the law. NOVA will be happy to assist the
Council in drafting the ordinance and until there is an ordinance
to ban street vendors from residential areas, the Council will
have no peace.
Susan Kocsis. She resubmitted a report previously sent to the Council
which outlined the many problems she has experienced with street vendors
in her residential area. The City desperately needs a total ban on
street vendors in residential areas. The neighborhood she lives in near
Anaheim High School has gone from upper middle-class to slum. The
street vendors park in front of her house and her life has been ruined.
Everything she has worked for has been taken away. In her extensive
presentation, she explained the many problems encountered relating to
the 10.2 arrivals per day of vendor trucks in front of her living room
window - the extreme noise, loss of property value, invasion of her
personal privacy, etc. Current laws are ineffective and are no
deterrent. Vendors circumvent the law as well on weekends and later in
the day when Code Enforcement is off duty. They need a law that is
enforceable and enforced. The Council has a chance to do something
about the situation now or let it continue until all of Anaheim is
irretrievably lost.
Ed Calvin, President, Wakefield-Leatrice area property owners
representing more than 70 members of that group. They are asking
that vendors be eliminated entirely from their neighborhoods.
They should be in commercial areas. They attract undesirables and
provide cover for them. The police tell him when they question
people they believe are there to buy drugs, they are told they are
to buy from the trucks even though they are from another part of
the County. They detract from neighborhoods. People hang around
and cause damage. He cannot keep grass growing in the parkway.
It creates a parking problem, they use private property without
permission, they are destroying property without compensation. He
urged that they eliminate the vendors from residential areas.
Michael Brown, representing his father-in-law in his business on
Orangewood and Mountainview. They are a fixed business and are
strictly regulated by many agencies. The vendors are a fixed
business in residential areas. The vendors have been cited over
200 times. His father-in-law's liquor store has been in business
for 9 years and has never been cited.
Sandra Park. Her father is the owner of the Orangewood Liquor
Store at Orangewood and Mountainview. Their business has dropped
substantially in the last three years because of unfair business
practice that is taking place in their area. They have to abide
by all regulations. The Health Department warned them that they
have to have a double sink because they sell peppers and onions -
yet, where is the street vendor's double sink - it is the property
owners front yard. They pay taxes, have to have a license to sell
cigarettes and alcohol. They abide by the law in running their
business, but the vendors do not. It is not being discriminatory.
Her father had a vision and came to the United States for free
enterprise and is abiding by the law.
551
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11~ 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Lila Jaegers, Chairperson, South Anaheim Neighborhood Council.
She relayed incidents of youngsters being able to buy fireworks
and cigarettes from the trucks and the suspicion of the trucks
contributing to drug dealers because of activity that was observed
taking place. Commercial tractors and trailers are prohibited
from parking in residential neighborhoods. The trucks are
commercial vehicles - why are they allowed to park in residential
areas.
Unnamed speaker. There is an inherent danger in the way the
trucks park. Two, three and four year olds run out from behind
the trucks and it is a danger that needs to be considered to
prevent someone from getting hurt.
Fern Call. She is a property owner in the Leatrice area. She
relayed some violent incidents that have taken place which she
owes in part to the presence of vendor trucks in the neighborhood.
The presence of these trucks has ruined her income since she
cannot hide the trucks and thus cannot rent her apartments. She
urged the Council to give the matter serious consideration.
Richard Delgado, resident of Central Anaheim. He moved from
Santa Ana to have a better life in Anaheim. Over the past few
years, it seems that he is living back in Santa Ana. A lot of the
people doing the vending are not property owners as he is.
Something he is concerned about is the possible re-emergence of
the medfly from the products that are sold. He is asking that the
Council consider the property owners of Anaheim who are putting
their efforts into the community. It is not a racial issue - it
is an Anaheim issue.
Unnamed speaker. Three years ago when the issue came to light, he
went to the Central City neighborhood meeting and spoke in
oPposition. He spoke to the Mayor at that time and asked with all
of the problems with street vendors, trash, the possibility of
disease and crime why the issue was being pushed through
liberalizing the code. He still has the same concerns today.
Keith Olesen. They go out every Saturday all over town on the
Adopt-A-Block program trying to keep up. It is not possible to
keep up. The City funds Code Enforcement and the Police
Department to very large dollar amounts. Code Enforcement is
su991emented by over 0ne-half million dollars in Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies. They still cannot keep up.
Number one, it is not a racial issue - it is a neighborhood issue
and a quality of life issue and that is obvious looking at the
Chamber audience. One of the first things that will be argued by
the proponents is that it is a racial issue. It is an easy
argument when arguing from a weak position and one that is not
substantiated by the facts. The next thing is the City might get
sued if the permits are denied. The City is not going to get sued
but if it did, the City has not been bashful about lawsuits
before. There are many people who own property and live in the
neighborhood who are trying to clean-up their neighborhoods. They
need the Council's help to do that. The trucks can be seen
everywhere and the mess they create. It is totally unregulated.
The City does not have the manpower or the money to regulate them.
They cannot afford to have them in their neighborhoods. The
552
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
residents cannot take care of them and the City cannot take care
of them. It is a zoning issue. An ordinance needs to be passed
to eliminate commercial and retail activities in residentially
zoned neighborhoods. It is as simple as that.
Manuel Ontiveros. The situation is getting out of hand. Two
years ago, the City gave them a corner, they took a block, now
they are taking the block and neighborhood as well.
Wendy Kirkley. She does not want her taxes having to be spent on
liability the City will incur if a child or someone is injured
because of the vendors. She referred to a survey in today's
register where 1,888 people responded County-wide - 83% were
opposed to street vendors. Street vendors are costing the City
money.. They cause decline in property values and loss of sales
tax revenue.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in favor of retaining street vendors
in residential areas:
Yvonne Hernandez (14 years old). She relayed incidents which were
of concern to her relating to the liquor store which caused her to
feel unsafe. They trust the vendors and care for them.
Sal Sarmiento, Attorney. He works and lives in Santa Ana. He is
present to speak on behalf of the vendors. He has been involved in the
ordinance for five to seven years and helped to write it. He is
disheartened to be back before the Council again on the issue. He
believes the issue is racial. Most of the people opposed are the owners
vs. the tenants who are supporting the vendors. He is also concerned
over some statements made that indicate .the vendors are responsible for
the recession, welfare, devaluation of property, etc. The report from
Code Enforcement would seem to indicate that the violations are
outrageous. Sixty (60) of the violations are for push carts and the
vendors present today are not push cart vendors. The vendors want the
City to enforce the ordinance as it presently exists. The problem is
enforcement and if there are violations, those should be enforced. It
is necessary to take a look at the ordinance and see what is good. If
something is bad, then it should be amended. The best approach is to
form a commission composed of the people present who are concerned.
Include them in the group, include the vendors, he is also willing to
volunteer some of his time and to get input from everybody before action
is taken. Perhaps there could be a consensus in compromise. That group
should be given enough time to meet and come back and make a report
addressing all the valid issues addressed today.
Paul Martinez, Deputy District Director of the League of United Latin-
American Citizens. He was brought into the issue because it was
purported to be a racial issue. He believes the issue is whether the
City is going to allow the vendors to sell in residential areas. A lot
of these good people who are being stereotyped should be assisted by the
City to learn about the laws including his organization. He agrees that
there are some things in the ordinance that are good and a group should
work together on the issue. Crime is an issue for every race.
Consideration should be given to the vendors who are paying their taxes
and complying with the law. Those not complying should be fined. They
need to work together as Americans.
553
City Hall t Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Mary N. Thomas, MTI Insurance, Insurance Agents for most of the vendors.
She met with several City officials regarding the insurance laws making
sure each vendor has insurance. They pay $2,000 per truck for every
truck they are operating sometimes $20,000 and $30,000. They are paying
the insurance and she sends the certificates to the City. If there is
no insurance, they notify Code Enforcement. There has been no
complaints from Code Enforcement. She believes the problem is racial.
Just because the vendors cannot come up and speak does not mean they do
not pay taxes. They work hard. She urged the Council to keep the
ordinance and enforce it. It needs to be amended and be tougher. They
do not need to limit the amount of vendors on the street.
Javier Barajas, 734 N. Olive, Anaheim. Speaking through a translator
(Sal Sarmiento) resident of 22 years. Everybody speaks of malfeasance.
They can't resolve the crisis of the City. The vendors work hard to
create employment for some men so their families can live well. They
also employ young students. They make donations in those places that
need civic help and in areas of low income. They share their income
with the City. They sell to people who have a need and they work clean.
The vendors are not the problem. The problem is the cost of living for
the low-income families. Those who buy from vendors cannot go to the
supermarket and leave their children alone. He agrees that there are a
lot of trucks. He spoke to John Poole, the Code Enforcement Manager and
asked why there are so many licenses. The problem is too many licenses
are being given. Many people come from other cities. The majority of
the vendors live in Anaheim. If the vendors are the problem, then the
City should take care of the problem and there will no longer be drugs
in the street. The street vendors are not the problem. The problem is
there is no employment and the economy is bad.
Miriam (no last name). She lives in the Wakefield area. The ladies all
want to speak, but they do not speak English. She sees both sides of
the issue and agrees with both. There is a drug problem in her area,
but the problem is there are not enough officers to do something.
Between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., she has witnessed people
selling drugs under her window. There are no Police Officers around.
It is convenient to buy some things from the vendors. She would also
rather have her kids buy candy from the trucks than buy it from the
liquor store where there are also drug dealers. People are sitting,
drinking and talking next to the trucks. People are complaining of
noise. If they take the trucks out of the neighborhood, she asked if
they can guarantee there will be no drugs and no loitering. If that is
the case, she will talk to the people who asked her to speak. They all
have a right to work. They support their families and pay taxes. They
have to find a way to work things out. If they lose the trucks, they
are going to lose a lot. They need more Police in their neighborhoods.
Th~ lad£~ wan~ ~ ~11 ~h~ 0ounell ~h~y n~d ~h~ ~ruc~ because ~hey
are convenient for them and for their kids.
Jose Luis Chavez. He works at Rancho Santiago College in Santa Ana and
is a graduate of UC Irvine in Anthropology. He is from Mexico but
raised here and completed his schooling here. The people that are here
are here to stay. They put much more into the society than they take
out. He has been involved in studies that prove his point. There had
been generalizations made at the meeting today that are not borne out by
studies. He urged that they keep the vendors.
Mayor Hunter closed the public input portion.
554
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUOUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. He asked to hear from the Code Enforcement Manager relative to
the background of the vending ordinance. He recalled that a couple of years
ago, Mr. Sarmiento, Mr. Poole, the Chamber of Commerce and several other
organizations got together and worked on the ordinance and addressed the
insurance issues, parking distances, time schedules, etc.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. In his report, he noted that they have
had street vendors in Anaheim for many years. He has worked in Code
Enforcement and Licensing for 15 years and worked with vendors all along.
About five years ago, there was an increase in vendors. About that time, the
Council changed the ordinance to where vending would be allowed in residential
areas. Prior to that, vendors were not allowed in residential areas. The
time limit originally established was 15 minutes, 30 minutes and than an hour.
As the ordinance was liberalized, it made it harder to enforce. There have
been many meetings. He met with Mr. Barajas and what he says today is true.
There are too many vendors and that is where the problem is. It has nothing
to do with any particular group. This is a quality of life issue. There are
residential zones that the Council has given great emphasis to in the past few
years to try to enforce. In his opinion, there cannot be this many vendors
and have any quality of life in those communities. He is not advocating
taking anyone's livelihood away, but it is necessary to balance making money
where it outweighs the quality of life in those neighborhoods. Some said Code
Enforcement has not done enough. The vendors are out there 15 hours a day,
7 days a week. Considering the City's financial constraints today, funding
enforcement to cover the situation and enforce the laws would involve a
tremendous amount of money. The City takes in $15,000 a year in permit fees
and licenses from vendors which no where near pays for the cost. If the
Police Department were to do the enforcement, even less could be done
considering the pay scale involved.
Mayor Hunter asked if the City could restrict the amount of licenses.
City Attorney. He answered yes, if they can find some reasonable basis from
which to allow for a determination who gets a license and who does not and if
the Council makes a finding that there is a problem with regard to the use of
public streets and public health and safety because of the proliferation of
the number of licenses, they could then place a restriction on the number.
John Poole. There are 152 vending licenses now, but one of the problems is a
lot of vendors do not have licenses at all and even prohibiting the vehicles
in the areas will not completely eliminate the problem.
Council Member Pickler. He has gone on ride-a-longs in the areas two or three
times. He personally believes that vending in residential areas does not
belong and should be eliminated. Vending trucks are a deterrent whereas they
have been trying to clean up the City. He feels more effort could be put in
the areas if they did not have to Police the vending situation. The previous
ordinance was very restrictive and it was easier to enforce. If vendors want
to sell, they have a right to do so in commercial or industrial areas. If
they are serious about cleaning up the City, they have to eliminate vendors
from residential areas. It is not a racial issue - they just do not belong in
residential areas. If recommendations are going to come to the Council, that
option is one that they should give consideration to. He does not want to
wait two months. The matter should be brought back in a week or two for the
Council to make a decision.
Council Member Ehrle. He has been involved in this issue since his tenure on
the Council. The situation has changed tremendously since the first time it
555
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 1!, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
came to the Council's attention about 5 or 6 years ago. At that time, they
were talking about 20 or 25 vendors. About 3 years ago, the issue was again
addressed and they thought resolved. It now has to be addressed again perhaps
in a way that will not please everyone. For the past 3 or 4 days, he drove a
total of about 8 hours through areas of the City that the vendors frequent.
He then relayed his experiences during his observation. He feels there can be
some type of compromise. He needs a lot more information. He would like to
know what kind of sales tax is being generated if any. He does not feel it is
appropriate to be selling clothes or cigarettes and other items that are being
sold off the trucks. He saw the things that were being sold and is not sure
that is what he voted for three years ago. They have to do a better job of
regulating neighborhoods and vendors. He believes there is a certain need for
vendors in certain neighborhoods where there is a desire to have them. He has
some specific ideas when the matter is again discussed in two or three weeks -
regulating some areas on the street, a lottery system, etc.
Council Member Daly. It was about 2 years ago when the task force was formed,
putting a lot of time and effort into this issue. The Chamber had a
representative who chaired the task force and he believes strict regulations
were recommended. They need to have that package of strict regulations
brought back as soon as possible - next week since the data exists. The first
option should be to bring back the package of regulations that were devised
involving City staff, the Chamber of Commerce, the vendors and community
groups and the second option as requested - an outright ban in the residential
areas of street vendors. These should be brought back next Tuesday for a
decision by the Council.
Council Member Pickler. He also suggested that the City Attorney prepare an
ordinance with alternatives so that the Council can adopt one or the other.
City Attorney White. As part of the report that comes back next week, he
would be prepared to have those two alternatives in ordinance form.
Further discussion followed wherein City Attorney White explained for Council
Member Ehrle that regulation of public streets is a matter of State-wide
concern as opposed to being a municipal affair and that at the current time
under State law, there is not an expressed type of parking where they would
authorize vendor parking only. There is no mechanism under State law to
restrict parking either by permit or by painting of curbs to accommodate
street vendors.
Mayor Hunter. He urged in closing that they all work together as people and
that the issue should not be a racial issue.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (7: 50 p.m. )
AFTER RECESS~ The Mayor called the meeting to order, all council Members
being present. (8=00 p.m. )
C2. 105: COUNCIL COMMENTS - DISCUSSION - GLEN HELLYER, PLANNING
COMMISSIONER:
Council Member Simpson. Just prior to his going away, an issue surfaced
involving a potential conflict of interest or a perception of that with the
Chairman of the Planning Commission, Glen Hellyer. Since returning from
vacation, he has been accused of politicizing that issue and of writing some
kind of memo. He has never written a memo. He heard from citizens who were
present at public hearing on a piece of property on Knott Avenue. He was told
they thought they were treated unfairly at the Planning Commission hearing and
556
City Hall, ~_~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5=00 P.M.
they thought there might be some conflict of interest because the Chairman
worked for Mr. Paul Kott, who was involved in negotiating that property and
Mr. Hellyer was involved as well. He felt having heard that, it was serious
enough to do something about. He called the City Attorney and talked to him
under the attorney-client privilege and asked him specifically not to mention
that item unless it had substance because of the fear of hurting Mr. Hellyer.
During that conversation, it also occurred there had been incidences in
Redevelopment as well regarding Mr. Hellyer's interest in Yves' Bistro and he
was involved in negotiations with Rose and Crown Restaurant, both of which may
be legal. He does not know - it is not his place to make that determination.
He thought the incident was put to bed and was stunned when he returned and
saw an article in the paper where the entire matter had been discussed, what
took place in closed session and comments that had been made, some of which he
felt were totally irresponsible and lack judgement and maturity on the part of
the individuals who made the comments. On the strength of that, he asked that
the item be agendized for next week so that a majority of the Council can
determine whether or not Mr. Hellyer should continue in his position as member
of the Planning Commission or not.
Council Member Pickler. They received a written report from the City
Attorney. It was a confidential matter that came to the City Council that
they discussed in closed session. Mr. Simpson was out of town. He (Pickler)
did not talk to the press nor Council Member Daly and they did not mention the
Mayor. He takes offense that someone in closed session instead went to the
press when he was given the duty to go to Mr. Hellyer which he did. There is
only one person, to his left, that could have 'talked to the press. He resents
that and does not think it should be allowed. Mr. Hellyer may not have done
anything wrong. He understands it is all according to law. The fact that the
matter was reported to the press is disgraceful. He feels the investigation
should have gone on, but to bring it out in the public before they knew he
feels was wrong.
MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved that the matter be agendized for the
Council meeting of August 18, 1992 so that a majority of the Council can
determine whether or not Mr. Hellyer should continue in his position as member
of the Planning Commission. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion.
Before further action was taken, Council Member Simpson stated he feels there
are two separate issues. He is not dealing with the one in the newspapers
because he feels there were irresponsible comments made which he feels were
unconscionable. The issue he is dealing with, he felt there was enough
concern on the Council that he thought a majority or even a consensus agreed
with the action Dr0D0sed. He is not 9reDared to discuss what they di~ in
closed session, but since the integrity of the closed session could not be
maintained, he is asking that the matter be agendized and discussed in a
public forum.
Mayor Hunter. He feels this is something that needs to be discussed. The
issue has been in the press and, therefore, the Council should openly discuss
it. He has been informed and these are the things that they need answers to -
whether or not poor judgement was used. Mr. Hellyer voted to rezone a piece
of property and it appeared shortly thereafter he became the leasing agent on
the property; Council Member Pickler interrupted and stated he felt it was not
fair to discuss the matter without Mr. Hellyer being present. He is talking
about something they discussed in closed session. The matter has been
politicized through Council Member Ehrle.
557
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Ehrle. He adamantly countered that he did not leak anything to
Mr. Kevin Johnson (L.A. Times) however, Council Member Pickler was quoted all
through the article. He was approached at the City Clerk's counter and
Mr. Johnson already had information. He (Ehrle) said he could not divulge
what went on in closed session and advised him to talk to the City Attorney or
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development.
Mayor Hunter. He spoke to City Attorney White and Lisa Stipkovich today. The
issues that need to be brought out next week are - Mr. Hellyer's 20% interest
in Yves' Bistro and whether or not that is an interest in the lease agreement
in the property and business agreement. Mr. Hellyer should be advised prior
to coming next week as to what his interest is in Yves'. It is in the
Redevelopment area. The Council loaned $250,000 through the Redevelopment
Agency for tenant improvements to Yves'. That needs to be brought out to find
out whether there is any public perception of impropriety. Another issue - it
is his understanding Mr. Hellyer is working on a lease agreement with Rose &
Crown which is coming to the Redevelopment Agency. He (Hunter) is Chairman of
the Redevelopment Agency. He questioned if the Redevelopment Agency was
loaning money on the Rose & Crown for tenant improvements as well.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. The Agency did
approve an agreement with the Bodes and the owners of the property to provide
a rehab loan for the tenant improvements for Yves' Bistro. Mr. Hellyer was
the agent representing the owner in bringing in a prospective tenant to that
site. He did bring the tenant to the owners and is negotiating. He has made
that very clear to her. It is not a secret and she does not want to give the
impression that he hid the facts. He is also the agent on the potential lease
for the Rose & Crown. They are in the midst of discussing the possibility of
the Agency providing additional assistance. It has not been before the Agency
yet because it is not finalized.
City Attorney White. He is not aware of any facts that there is any
illegality involved in Mr. Hellyer's activities relating to the negotiations
involved with either Yves' Bistro or Rose & crown. There is a prohibition
under State law that would prohibit a member of any public agency, city
council, board or commission from attempting to negotiate with staff members
if those members are either under the control or the budgetary constraints of
the board or commission or council of which he is a member. Mr. Hellyer is a
member of the Planning Commission and his discussions with staff took place
with the Redevelopment Agency. Technically, that is not a violation of the
law. He then elaborated further concluding that if the interest is in
property, that would violate a section in Redevelopment law that prohibits any
member of the commission involved in f0rmulatin~ redevel0Dment Dlans for a
project area from acquiring an interest in the Redevelopment area. It is
possible that the interest is not an interest in property. He does not have
that information and at this point does not have a way to acquire that. If
asked and Mr. Hellyer is unwilling to divulge the information to staff or the
City Council, the only other way would be to refer the matter to an
investigatory agency.
Council Member Pickler. What concerns him is that Mr. Hellyer is being
convicted before he is heard. If there is something illegal, they can
subsequently take action- not doing so beforehand.
Council Member Daly. In the interest of fairness to Mr. Hellyer who he feels
regardless of the outcome has been "smeared", there is a memo that was
requested by Council Member Simpson of the City Attorney. He is looking for
direction because he feels the situation has been handled horribly. This is
558
City Hall· Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11· 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
no way to treat a citizen who is a volunteer and who has contributed to the
City. He has brought one restaurant into the redevelopment area and is in the
process of trying to bring another one to downtown. He asked the City
Attorney relative to the memo he provided to Council Member Simpson and shared
with the Council, can that be made public prior to next Tuesday since that is
what is being discussed.
City 'Attorney White stated he did not see any problem with that.
Council Member Daly stated that he was in favor of releasing the memo now;
Council Member Simpson had no problem in doing so and Mayor Hunter requested
that it then be released.
After further discussion revolving around the issue, City Attorney White
clarified that neither he nor Mrs. Stipkovich asked Mr. Hellyer for the
information regarding his interest in the redevelopment area primarily because
they do not have any direction from the Council to ask him. He (White) was
not asked to do an investigation or contact him directly. That has not been
done.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Council Member Simpson,
seconded by Council Member Hunter clarified as follows: that an item on the
agenda for the meeting of August 18, 1992 will be whether or not Glen Hellyer
should continue in his position as a member of the City Planning Commission.
Council Members Pickler and Daly voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White asked if there is a consensus to release the memorandum;
the answer was yes.
Mayor Hunter also stated there is a consensus for someone to ask about
Mr. Hellyer's 20% interest in Yves'; Council Member Pickler. He suggests that
they find out. If the Council is going to take action next week, it is being
presumptuous on their part. He wants to know the facts and he will ask
Mr. Hellyer between now and then. Right now they are assuming he has done
something wrong and he is guilty.
Mayor Hunter. He said he believed Mr. Hellyer used poor judgement.
Council Member Daly. Mr. Hellyer is owed the courtesy of a phone call from
the City Council from anyone who has a problem with his behavior.
SWEAR-IN OF THOSE TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS:
The City Attorney announced that it is appropriate at this time for all those
intending to testify at any or all of the public hearings including staff be
sworn in at this time.
Those testifying were requested to stand by the City Clerk and asked to raise
their right hand. The oath was then given.
D1. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 91-16A:
In accordance with application filed by Catanzarite & Company, Inc., public
hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a certain easement for public
utility purposes located north of Lincoln Avenue west of Brookhurst street at
the rear of 2231 W. Lincoln Avenue pursuant to Resolution No. 92R-147 duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
559
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Report of the City Engineer dated June 12, 1992 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mr. Richard Santo, Senior Real Property Agent confirmed that staff recommends
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council
Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Pickler, the City Council finds that
the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of
the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact
Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-174)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-174 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 91-16A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-174: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING THAT CERTAIN ELECTRICAL EASEMENT NORTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE,
WEST OF BROOKHURST STREET. (ABANDONMENT NO. 91-16A)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-174 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-174 duly passed and adopted.
D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-13, WAIVER OF COUNCIL
POLICY NO. 543, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3494,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14611 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNERS: Newport Pacific Realty & Investment, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard,
Ste. 900, New~ort Beach, CA 92660.
LOCATION/REQUEST~ The property is located at 2861-2863 West Lincoln
Avenue (Bel Air Manor) and is approximately 1.8 acres located on the
north side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 300 feet east of the
centerline of Bel Air Street. The request is for a change in zone from
RM-1200 to RM-2400. To permit the conversion of an existing 65-unit
"deck-type" apartment complex to a 65-unit, "affordable", "deck-type",
condominium complex with waiver of minimum building site area per
dwelling unit and required elevators.
To establish a l-lot, 65-unit, RM-2400, air-space, condominium
subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 91-92-13 DENIED (PC92-77) (4 yes votes, 3 no
votes).
Waiver of code requirement DENIED.
CUP NO. 3494 DENIED (PC92-78).
560
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Tentative Tract Map No. 14611 DENIED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by the owners, Newport
Pacific Realty & Investment and continued from the hearing of July 21, 1992 to
this date after the item was discussed and extensive input received.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 9, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 9, 1992
Posting of property- July 10, 1992
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See staff report dated August 11, 1992 from Lisa Stipkovich, Executive
Director of Community Development which contained additional information and
recommendation for affordable sales prices. Also included was memorandum
dated August 5, 1992 from the City Attorney to Mrs. Stipkovich relating to the
matter.
A1 Marshall, Newport Pacific Realty and Investment, 4400 MacArthur Blvd.,
Suite 900, Newport Beach, 92660. He will not repeat the information that he
gave at the previous hearing relative to the project (see minutes of July 21,
1992). The remaining items they are to discuss today - their ability to work
with affordable housing or housing with affordable numbers. They finally met
with staff on August 6, 1992. Housing hired Kathy Head of Keyser Marston
Associates who presented her opinion of affordability in Anaheim. What
Housing presented was their proposal that they should provide 8 units at
$70,000, 17 units at $90,000 and 8 units at $80,000 rather than allowing the
formula to work and rather than allowing them to be as very low. The prices,
in the opinion of Newport Pacific, are off the charts as being low and ignore
the current policy. He then elaborated on how Keyser Marston came to the
conclusion that they did which Newport Pacific totally disagrees with. He
then presented a graph to the Council entitled - Bel Air Place Condominiums -
Market, affordability comparison (made a part of the record) which he feels
graphically demonstrates how far off the mark they are in terms of trying to
work with Housing and what they have requested.
Mrs. Stipkovich then requested a copy of the graph presented since a copy had
not been given to her or anyone in her department.
Mr. Marshall continued with his explanation of the graph and how they arrived
at the comparisons contained therein. The bottom line is they are requesting
that the project be approved under the existing formula and that formula and
those people that benefit will benefit out of the income eligibility not an
artificially established fixed price. He urged that they stay within policy
that has been serving the City well - stay with income eligibility
requirements and let the market adjust for sizes. Their market comps were on
units ten years old and greater. What was presented by staff was an average
age of 26 years and they still make his case. He has asked that they approve
the project under that scenario.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She also
presented a graph entitled - Condominium Conversion - affordable sales prices
based on square footage of units. Mr. Marshall has made the representation
that there is an established policy regarding condominium conversions. The
City Council does not have a policy for condominium conversions but a policy
for a density bonus program that relates to new construction. That is her
concern. This is an already existing project. Looking at this from the
561
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUOUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
perspective of a density bonus project, they have a 103% density bonus. If
built under the normal RM-2400 which is an untested zone since the typical
condominiums have been more in the RM-3000 zone, this project would be built
out at 32 units. They have 65 units or 33 units above and beyond the normal
development for RM-2400. They looked at 33 units as the density bonus units.
Typical condominium units in Anaheim are larger than the units in the project
or around 1,000 to 1,100 square feet. She then explained in detail how the
figures were arrived at in the graph she presented based on unit size and the
resulting figures seemed fair. It is very difficult to develop a policy and
they are still in the midst of doing so. As far as the prices being a
windfall profit to the potential buyers, this is not so. They feel that at
the previous prices, there was a windfall profit to the developer. The other
issue of concern was control of the units regarding owner-occupancy. She
referred to the report from the City Attorney which discussed the issue. Her
interpretation relative to the affordable units, they feel they have a good
case to legally restrict for owner-occupancy. On the other units, although
they could put that restriction into the CC and R's, it would probably be more
difficult legally to enforce. Mr. White is recommending they leave it up to
the association to enforce that. She also questioned whether they are now
talking about 65 or 66 units. It is her understanding one of the recreation
areas was converted to an apartment. She does not know if the owner intends
to also consider that as part of his sales. The unit was brought to her
attention by Code Enforcement. It is currently an illegal unit and she does
not know whether they are considering that as part of the condominium
conversion.
City Attorney White then explained that relative to enforceability of
owner-occupancy, it would be his view if the Council finds as part of
improving the conversion, one of the material factors is to assure
owner-occupancy under the terms of the City's housing agreement, they could
impose a condition in the tract map that would require a covenant be recorded
in the CC and R's to reflect occupancy to owner-occupants for a period of time
- 30 years being the typical. That would be enforceable by the owners of the
units or through the association themselves rather than the City. He then
explained how the association would enforce the regulation.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Relative to the comment by Mrs. Stipkovich of
what Code Enforcement noticed on the site, several staff members were out to
the site and took photographs. It appeared that the rental office was
converted to an additional unit and the recreational weight room was now the
rental office. Some other things - landscaping is in disrepair, a couch under
the stairway, drainage holes punched through the walls, etc., clearly items
that regardless of the action taken today, are things that Code Enforcement
staff would be following up on. He confirmed for Council Member Daly that
staff's recommendation continues to be to deny the conversion.
Li~a Stipkovieh. She emphasized that whatever action i~ taken, although
everyone likes to believe they will not be setting a precedent, other
apartment owners are already contacting them to find out what will happen.
There are other apartment complexes interested in converting. She is very
concerned about how they set the policy and what kind of controls they put on
sale prices and making sure that there is some integrity with respect to the
product type and unit size. Under the two-week time constraint, they felt
this was a very fair assessment of a way to establish prices. She has not
seen any of the backup material for what Mr. Marshall presented tonight.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak.
562
City Hall r Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11r 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN FAVOR:
None
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN OPPOSITION:
Kathleen Egbert, 2871 Polk Avenue, Anaheim (also see testimony
given at the meeting of July 21, 1992). She opposes
unconditionally the conversion of the Bel Air Manor Apartments to
condominiums. There are two basic issues - (1) the precedent that
would be set and, (2) the specific flaws of the project as it
currently exist. Her presentation covered many issues which she
felt justified denial of the request at the conclusion of which
she stated that the condominiums would be worthless at any price.
Andrew May, 2867 W. Polk, Avenue, Anaheim. He first submitted
additional pictures of the project in addition to those submitted
at the meeting of July 21, 1992. He is opposed to the conversion
as stated at the previous meeting (see minutes that date). If
denied, he would hope that the developer in good conscience would
improve the project and add some buffer to mitigate the impact of
the project from the single-family residences.
Keith Olesen, 321 N. Philadelphia, Anaheim. Mr. Marshall did not
address the issues. Looking at the project, it would not be
allowed to be built at all right now. This does not even make
good RM-1200. No one is "stupid" enough to build 800 square foot
condominiums. Relative to affordable housing, the City needs
quality affordable housing which this is not. The developer
needed variances and a density bonus to build RM-1200 and now he
is wanting to call them condominiums. He urged the Council to
deny the request for conversion but agrees with the last gentleman
that something should be done to make this at least a slightly
more tenable RM-1200 apartment building.
Miriam Kaywood. This is not home ownership. A 103% density bonus
just buys a substandard apartment. It is transferring the
responsibility from the builder owner to the sixty-five new owners
most of which will be in a low income bracket. Association dues
start at $85. These people will not be able to afford any
improvements. The problem will eventually be dumped in the City's
lap. There will be a need for more Code Enforcement, more Police
and there will be more lawsuits. She heard the units were not
limited to two people per bedroom and she is concerned as to why.
Sixty-five (65) apartments replaced six single-family homes. They
are trlple story and totally "outrageous" looklng. The builder
created every existing problem in 'the project. It is
inconceivable now for him to come in and ask that it be converted.
There were promises made to beautify the apartments but those
promises were not kept. She cannot imagine how the same builder
could be rewarded by approving his request. Instead the project
should be brought up to the way it was promised to be as
apartments initially. Mr. Hanna has told the neighbors he gets
whatever he wants from the Council. The Planning Commission
denied the project about five times but said they were willing to
approve 35 or 36 condominiums but the developer did not agree.
Approving this would be the worst possible precedent. She
563
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
questioned if this is the legacy they want to leave Anaheim. She
pleaded that they just say no~
SUMMATION BY
APPLI CANT:
Mr. Marshall. The issue is ownership. They are offering an
opportunity for the kind of ownership that already exists in the
City successfully. There have been numerous units in the
850 square foot range built in the past and sold successfully.
The development will be greatly improved. It will be brought to a
beautiful level. The real issue is affordable housing. They have
major concerns with the prices set by Housing who is changing the
policy. Their graph goes with market and fluctuates according to
the level of income people earn. Housing's formula will not work
and will not produce affordable housing in Anaheim. They (Newport
Pacific) will set prices at $100,000 if that is equitable for the
remainder of the units other than the seven. There will be major
improvements, the units brought up to condominium standards,
offered at an affordable range and will benefit 65 new homeowners.
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council
Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Daly, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The title of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 92R-175 and 92R-176)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-175 for adoption, denying
Reclassification No. 91-92-13 and offered Resolution No. 92R-176 for adoption,
denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3494. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-175: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (Reclassification No.
91-92-13.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3494.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-175 and 92R-176 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-175 and 92R-176 duly passed and
adopted.
564
City Hall t Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 14611
pursuant to the provisions of Section 66473, 66427 and 66411 of the Government
Code and Section 18.02.044.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code on the grounds
that the proposed map fails to meet the requirements of either Chapter 18.32
or Chapter 18.34 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for the following reasons:
(1) The property is located in the RM-1200 Zone (Chapter
18.34 of the Municipal Code) which requires that
condominium projects must comply with the development
standards of Chapter 18.31 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code; and
(2) The property owner's application to rezone the
property to the RM-2400 Zone which permits condominium
projects in compliance with the development standards
set forth in Chapter 18.32 has been denied
concurrently herewith; and
(3) The proposed project has failed to obtain a
conditional use permit as required by Section
18.32.050.045 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for
projects in the RM-2400 Zone; and
(4) The density of the development exceeds (and is
approximately twice) that which is permitted for
condominium projects pursuant to either Chapter 18.32
or Chapter 18.34 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
(5) The project fails to contain elevators as required by
Section 18.32.070 or Section 18.34.070 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code; and
(6) The Housing Element of the General Plan encourages
affordable residential housing in the City to be a
mixture of both rental units and ownership units and
Appendix A thereof expressly discourages condominium
conversions as not furthering the goals and objectives
of the City regarding housing programs.
Council Member Daiy seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D3. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-19 AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: The Fluor Family Trust, 4521Perham Road, Corona Del Mar, CA
92625.
AGENT: Cecil C. Wright, 265 S. Anita Drive, Ste. 205, Orange, CA
92668.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1320-1382 Auto Center
Drive and is approximately 7.98 acres located at the southwest corner of
Auto Center Drive (formerly Taft Avenue) and Sanderson Avenue. The
request is for a change from the ML Zone to the CL Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 91-92-19 GRANTED (PC92-79) (5 yes votes, 2 no
votes).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
565
City Hall, Anaheim, ~California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 30, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 30, 1992
Posting of property- July 31, 1992
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 29, 1992.
City Clerk Sohl stated that a request was received from Cecil Wright, agent
for the applicant to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, August 18, 1992.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present to speak on Reclassification No.
91-92-19; there was no response.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue the public hearing to
Tuesday, August 18, 1992. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent the Council adjourned. (9:25 p.m. )
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
566