Loading...
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