1992/08/18City Hall, Anaheim, California - COtrNCIL MIRrUTES - AUGUST 18, 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 and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Armstrong
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 12:00 p.m. on August 14, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the workshop portion of the meeting of August 18, 1992 to
order at 3:05 p.m.
Jim Armstrong, Assistant City Manager. John Lower, Traffic and Transportation
Manager will introduce staff from Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) who are in the Chamber audience prepared to make a presentation on both
the Katella Avenue Superstreet Project and to give an update on the Imperial
Highway Superstreet Project.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. Present today are
representatives from OCTA who City staff has been working with over the past
several months to gain environmental clearance and a more precise project
description for both the Katella Avenue and Imperial Highway Superstreet
Projects. Lisa Burke will make the first presentation followed by other
representatives.
173: KATELLA AVENUE SUPERSTREET PROJECT: Lisa Burke, Manager of Planning
for OCTA. Also present are Mike Barron, Project Manager on the Katella
Superstreet Project and Paul Lanning, Project Manager from the County side and
Rob McCann who is the Environmental Consultant from LSA Associates. She gave
a brief history of the superstreet project program and the Katella Superstreet
project specifically since its inception up to the present time. At this
time, they are in the process of completing the EIR that goes along with the
feasibility study for Katella Avenue. The project limits go from the 605
Freeway in Los Alamitos east to the 55 Freeway. Within Anaheim it includes
just west of Brookhurst Street, east to the Santa Ana River. The feasibility
study was approved in 1991. She then explained the process that is currently
taking place, the next step being the 45-day public review for the EIR which
closes September 22, 1992. They expect the document to be certified by the
Board of Supervisors in December. The subsequent phase will then be design
and construction. They have been working closely with staffs of the cities
and the County to ensure a coordinated project.
Rob McCann, LSA Consultants. He submitted a one-page document entitled -
Katella Avenue Superstreet Project Impact/Mitigation Summary - City of
Anaheim, which listed the project impacts, the mitigation measures and the
significant unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation. Mr. McCann then
briefed each of the project impacts which included land use displacements,
noise, air quality, aesthetic/visual, parking, hazardous waste and
567
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINIITES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
construction as well as the mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. He
also worked from a number of exhibits which were posted on the Chamber wall.
These exhibits will be shown and explained at the series of community meetings
that will be taking place in the coming week to assist in answering questions
of those who will be affected. In concluding, he confirmed for Council Member
Simpson that construction is expected to start in two to three years.
Lisa Burke. Design and construction will be the responsibility of the cities
and OCTA's role then becomes one of funding. Relative to funding, what
Anaheim will be submitting in its Measure M projects would be a five-year
program. Funding that will actually be available for the superstreet program
Measure M funds would be in two to three fiscal years.
173: IMPERIAL HIGHWAY SUPERSTREET PROJECT: Mike Barron, OCTA. The project
scope is from the Orange - Los Angeles County line easterly to Santa Ana
Canyon Road and within Anaheim will be from Orangethorpe - Esperanza Road down
to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Individual segments project wide will study impacts
associated with a six lane facility. Between Orangethorpe- Esperanza Road to
Santa Ana Canyon Road it will be back to a local street type design. On that
project they will be studying impacts associated with an eight lane facility.
The Imperial Highway Project is not quite as advanced as Katella. The present
studies are in progress and information is being gathered to come back to the
Council about this time next year when a similar presentation will be given.
The next step will be a draft EIR which will be available in the Summer of
1993. They have been meeting monthly with City staff also to ensure a
coordinated project.
Council questions followed the presentations which were answered by the
respective representatives of OCTA.
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.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters -Government Code Section
54957.6.
c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (1).
e. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as
are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City
Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess
indicates any of the matters will not be considered in closed
session.
.
By general Consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:37 p.m.)
568
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COLrNCIL MIN/3TES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:05 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Lieutenant Ogwa, Salvation Army, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Tom Daly led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
Diabetes Educators week, in Anaheim, August 26-30, 1992
WESCON week, in Anaheim, November 16-20, 1992
Fill the Boot Day, in Anaheim, August 22, 19a_9
Clarice M. Schickling accepted the Diabetes Educators week proclamation; Scott
Roberts accepted the Fill the Boot Day proclamation.
119: DECLARATION OF COMMENDATION: A Declaration of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Richard Whetmore for
his bravery in pulling a victim from a burning mobile home. His heroic
actions saved the life of his neighbor. Mayor Hunter and Councilmembers
highly commended Mr. Whetmore for his bravery.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,874,654.95 for the
period ending August 14, 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. (5:10 p.m.)
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:29 p.m.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: A number of people spoke under Item C4 (see
discussion under that item).
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public .interest were addressed.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Hunter, the following items were approved
in aeco~danc~ with th~ r~p0rt~, certifications and recommendations furnished
each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member
Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 92R-177 through 92R-179, both inclusive, for
adoption. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5327 and 5328 for
introduction. Refer to Resolution Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 92R-177 through 92R-179, both
inclusive, for adoption.)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Al. 173: Receiving and filing Application No. 88-10-054 before the Public
Utilities Commission of the State of California regarding Michael S. Mitchell,
569
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Bruce P. Hector (Mickey's Space Ship Shuttle) to extend service for a
Passenger Stage between certain portions of Los Angeles County and Orange
County, and Los Angeles International Airport and John Wayne Orange County
Airport.
A2. 160: Accepting the bid of Howard Industries c/o Maydwell & Hartzell, in
the amount of $19,590 for thirty 25 KVA single-phase current protected
transformers, in accordance with bid proposal #5061.
A3. 123: Accepting the bid, and approving an Agreement with $ & K Services
from September 20, 1992 through September 20, 1997, for vending machine
equipment at City Hall, City Hall West, and the Maintenance Department, in
accordance with Bid #5066.
A4. 153: RESOLUTIOW NO. 92R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL UNIT AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(Mitigating the effects of reassigning certain work from Planning Department
to the Public Utilities Department on or about 10/1/92.)
A5. 153: Authorizing all full-time City of Anaheim Employees to participate
in a one time accrued vacation buy-out to provide a cash donation to an
employee whose spouse has become permanently disabled.
·
Council Member Pickler. This is another example of the employees, in this
case IBEW, lending a helping hand to an employee who is in need of financial
assistance to the permanent disability of a spouse. He commends their
actions.
A6. 123: Approving an Agreement with Leo Burnett U.S.A. for a period of ten
years for the display of advertising on the two theme towers located in the
parking lot at Anaheim Stadium.
A7. 123: Approving an Academy Training Agreement with California Highway
Patrol, at a cost not to exceed $3,067.50 for two trainees, for motorcycle
training during the period of September 14-24, 1992; and authorizing the City
Manager to execute said Agreement.
A8. 108: ORDINANCE NO. 5327 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS 4.18. 050 THROUGH 4.18. 060, INCLUSIVE, OF CHAPTER
4.18 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ENTERTAINMENT
PERMITS.
A9. 171: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AGREEING TO THE REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAXES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMMON SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE CITY OF ORANGE DESIGNATED AS ORANGE COUNTY MUNICIPAL
REORGANIZATION NO. 108.
Al0. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-179: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY THE LOCAL MEDICAL
FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY IV OF INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENTS WITH FEEDBACK
FOUNDATION, INC., AND OLIVE CREST TREATMENT CENTERS, INC.
Ail. 123: Approving Agreements with Anaheim Land Associates Limited
Partnership (Hillman Properties West, Inc.) and Anaheim Hilton and Towers to
allow for the demonstration of a Traffic Information Center.
570
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINIFTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Al2. 171: ORDINANCE NO. 5328 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON FULL CASH VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY
WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1992/93.
Betty Ronconi, 1241 S. Walnut Street. She asked for clarification on this
item.
Jim Armstrong, Assistant City Manager. It is something that is done every
year. It is establishing the property tax rate necessary to retire storm
drain bonds approved by the voters in 1980 by a two-thirds vote.
City Attorney White. It is required by State law to establish the tax rate by
August 31 of each year. This relates only to the City's bonded indebtedness
and is a routine action.
Al3. 114: Approving the Anaheim City Council minutes of the meetings held
June 16, 1992, July 14, 1992, and the adjourned regular meeting of June 9,
1992, held June 16, 1992.
Al4. 161: Approving the use of Redevelopment Bond Funds to acquire an
interest in City Hall West by funding construction costs up to $2.2 million in
order to release tax increment funds of $150,000 per annum to finance Anti-
Gang/Drug programs in the Project Alpha area.
161: Authorizing the Executive Director of the Agency to pursue an Anti-
Gang/Drug Program with the City Manager's Office for up to $150,000 per year
starting as of January 1, 1993.
174: Authorizing staff to release CDBG funds of up to $500,000 per year by
using Redevelopment/Housing Set Aside funds to. finance the Rehabilitation
Program currently funded by CDBG funds.
174: Authorizing staff to pursue use of Redevelopment funds and CDBG funds,
and other funding sources, to construct a Community Center in Downtown.
See Redevelopment Agency minutes of August 18, 1992 where the issue was also
approved and discussed.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-177 through 92R-179, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-177 through 92R-179, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
Al5. 105: APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FOR THE NEW TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 1996 - (Pinson):
This matter was continued from the meeting of August 11, 1992 to this date.
Council Member Pickler moved to reappoint Mary Ruth Pinson to the Park and
Recreation Commission for the new term expiring June 30, 1996. Council Member
571
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Ehrle seconded the mot ion. There being no further nominations, nominations
were closed.
Mary Ruth Pinson was thereupon unanimously reappointed to the Park and
Recreation Commission for the new term expiring June 30, 1996.
Al6. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION: Appointment to the Housing
Commission to fill the unscheduled vacancy of Elmer Thill, term expiring
June 30, 1993. This matter was continued from the meeting of August 11, 1992,
to this date.
City Clerk Sohl noted that only two candidates were left on the Housing
Commission list. Advertising has been done. The letters that were received
have been on file for some time.
Council Member Pickler moved to continue appointment to the Housing Commission
to fill the subject unscheduled vacancy to Tuesday, August 25, 1992. Council
Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS Bi - B9 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 27, 1992,
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 18, 1992:
Bi. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3228, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 21
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92803.
OWNER: Woodcrest Development, 17911 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714.
LOCATION: Property is approximately 3.9 acres located at the northeast
corner of Weir Canyon Road and Canyon Vista Drive.
Pursuant to Code Section 18.03.091 the Planning Commission has initiated
a public hearing in order to consider termination or modification of
Conditional Use Permit No. 3228 that permits gasoline sales, auto
repair, a car wash, a convenience market and a 10-unit, 6,700 square-
foot, commercial retail center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3228 GRANTED (PC92-86) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 abstained).
B2. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-20, VARIANCE NO. 4181, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 14641, SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 92-02 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: M. Y. Pelanconi Estate, C/O Bernardo M. Yorba, Executor, 300 S.
Harbor Blvd., Ste. 912, Anaheim, CA 92805.
AGENT: Morgan Development Inc., Attn: Max Morgan, President, 20341
Levine Avenue, Suite D-3, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707.
LOCATION~ 5540 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately
12.38 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and also
having frontage on the north side of Avenida Margarita and located
approximately 1,211 feet east of the centerline of Royal Oak Road.
For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 (SC) to RS-5000 (SC).
Waiver of required lot frontage and required location and orientation of
buildings to establish a 36-1ot RS-5000 (SC) and a one lot RS-A-43,000
(SC) single-family residential subdivision (including the construction
of 34 single-family residences).
To remove 51 specimen trees.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 91-92-20 DENIED (PC92-87) (5 yes votes, 1 no vote,
1 absent).
Variance No. 4181 DENIED (PC92-88) (4 yes votes, 2 no votes, 1 absent).
572
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Tentative Tract Map No. 14641 DENIED (5 yes votes, i no vote, i absent).
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 91-02 DENIED (5 yes votes, 1 no vote, 1
absent. )
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Letter of appeal submitted by the Agent, Morgan Development, Inc. Set
for public hearing on September 1, 1992.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, this item is set for public hearing on September 1, 1992.
B3. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3527,
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 92-04, AMENDMENT TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD
ACCESS POINT STUDY, EXHIBIT NO. 7, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: West Street Development Company, ATTN: Doug Browne, P.O. Box
18021, Anaheim, CA 92817; Canyon Garden Nursery Inc., 6270 E. Santa Aha
Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807.
LOCATION: 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately
.94 acre located on the south side of the Santa Aha Canyon Road
approximately 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard.
To permit a 2-story, 9-unit, commercial retail center with waivers of
maximum structural height within 150 feet of single family residential
zone boundary, minimum structural setbac, k adjacent to single family
residential zone, permitted encroachment into required yards, permitted
roof mounted equipment and permitted type of shopping center
identification sign.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3527 GRANTED (PC92-89) (4 yes votes, 2 no votes, 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED (4 yes votes, 2 no votes, 1 absent).
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 92-04 APPROVED.
Amendment to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study, GRANTED
(PC92-90).
Approved Negative Declaration.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members Simpson and Hunter, and therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled
at a later date.
B4. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3204 - REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR RETROACTIVE
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3528, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3:
OWNER: California Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist
Church, INC., P. O. Box 18795, Anaheim, CA 92817.
AGENT~ Hammill an~ ~o¢iates, ATTN: ~reg ~amm£11, 17~ ~.
Road, Ste. C, Anaheim, CA 92806.
LOCATION: 101 South Chaparral Court. Property is approximately 1.3
acres located at the southwest corner of Kaiser Boulevard and Chaparral
Court.
To permit two (2) temporary trailers in conjunction with a previously-
approved church use.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Request for extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for
CUP NO. 3204 GRANTED.
CUP NO. 3528 GRANTED (PC92-91) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
573
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINI]TES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
B5. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3526, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3:
OWNER: Canyon Acres Residential Center, 233 S. Quintana Road, Anaheim,
CA 92817.
AGENT: Dan McQuaid, 233 S. Quintana Road, Anaheim, CA 92817.
LOCATION: 233 South Quintana Road. Property is approximately 4.6 acres
located approximately 185 feet west of a private access road from
Quintana Road approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of
Arboretum Road.
To permit two (2) temporary school trailers in conjunction with an
existing shelter for children.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3526 GRANTED (PC92-92) to be used for education purposes for
resident children only; to be used only between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m.; applicant to bring revised landscaped plans to Planning
Commission within 30 days; and CUP NO. 3526 is approved for one-year
with the opportunity for further extensions (to expire 8/3/93) (6 yes
votes, 1 absent).
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B6. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3529 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Duan-Song Lee and Hui-Ping Chen Et. Al, ATTN: Pinki Chen, 2121
w. Mission Road, Alhambra, CA 91803.
AGENT: Amer E1 Rousan, 1275 N. Gilbert #100, Fullerton, CA 92633.
LOCATION: 1210 South State College Boulevard. Property is
approximately 1.36 acres located on the east side of State College
Boulevard and approximately 200 feet south of the centerline of Ball
Road.
To permit a sports bar with on-premise sale and consumption of beer and
wine with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3529 GRANTED IN PART (PC92-93) no sale or consumption of
alcoholic beverages at this facility at any time (6 yes votes, 1
absent).
Waiver of code requirement Approved.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B7. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3148 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Taylor Bus Company, 3130 W. Duluth Street, Sacramento, CA
95691.
AGENT: Scher-Voit, ATTN: Mike Hefner, 2099 S. State College Boulevard,
Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92816.
LOCATIONs 917 ~. Gene Au~ry Way. Pro~er~y is a~roxima~ely 4.62 acres
located at the northeast corner of Gene Autry Way and Lewis Street.
Amendment or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to required'
street dedication and time limitation of a previously-approved bus
storage terminal.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3148 GRANTED to amend conditions. (PC92-94) (5 yes votes, 1 not
vote, and 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
574
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIN/ITES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B8. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PEP~MIT NO. 3400 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
INTERPRETATION OF CODE SECTIONS 18.05.074 AND 4.02.060 PERTAINING TO SPECIAL
EVENTS PEP~MITS:
REQUESTED BY: Tom Kieviet, Farano & Kieviet
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard (ANAHEIM MARKETPLACE)
Petitioner requests Planning Commission interpretation of Code Sections
pertaining to Special Events Permits.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Planning Commission recommended to City .Council that amendments be made
to Condition Nos. 5, 6, 13, and 14 of the Resolution for CUP NO. 3400
.
This item was heard in conjunction with public hearing held this date. See
Item D4 for action taken.
B9. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ALTERNATE
CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND PARKING PLAN FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH
PREVIOUS APPROVAL:
LOCATION: 5636 E. La Palma Avenue (Cinemapolis).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved the Alternate Construction and Parking Plan for Substantial
Conformance tn connection with CUP NO. 3414 - CINEMAPOLIS.
ITEMS B10 - Bll FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 1992,
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 20, 1992:
BIO. 170: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS FROM CITY ENGINEERING TO PLANNING
COMMISSION/ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved proposed code amendment.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5329 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5329: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTERS
17.08, 18.04 AND 18.12 OF TITLES 17 AND 18, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE TRANSFERRING AUTHORITY TO APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS TO
PLANNING COMMISSION AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
Bll. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12699 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FENCING AND
LANDSCAPE PLANS:
REQUESTED BY: Nelson Chung.
Petitioner requests review of fencing and landscape plans for Tentative
Tract Map No. 12699 (Development Area 11 of The Highlands at Anaheim
Hills Specific Plan).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Tentative Tract Map No. 12699, fencing and landscape plans approved.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
575
City Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MIN/ITES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Cl. 107: POOL ROOM PERMIT APPLICATION - THE OLIVE TREE RESTAURANT:
A request for a pool room permit was submitted by Judie Zangari, 21851
Newland, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. The location is at 1168 South
State College - The Olive Tree Restaurant. This is to consider the
application for the operation of three pool tables in conjunction with a
restaurant with on-sale liquor. Submitted was report dated August 5,
1992 from John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager recommending approval of
the application.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to approve the pool room permit
application for 1168 South State College, The Olive Tree Restaurant, for the
operation of three pool tables, in conjunction with the restaurant with
on-sale liquor. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C2. 105: DISCUSSION - PLANNING COMMISSIONER, GLEN HELLYER:
Discussion requested by Council Members at the meeting of August 11, 1992,
(see minutes that date) regarding the service of Glen Hellyer on the City
Planning Commission.
City Clerk Sohl announced that two requests to speak to the issue have been
received - Barbara Ward and Phylis Boydstun.
Barbara Ward. She is a resident and business owner in Anaheim, currently
serving as President of the Anaheim Association of Realtors. Mr. Glen Hellyer
is the past president of the association and has been active in community
projects and state committees. He is a respected, able and effective
commercial and residential real estate broker. His background brings special
depth of knowledge and perspective to issues that concern private property
rights on the Planning Commission. She is proud Mr. Hellyer serves as a
Planning Commissioner. She believes Mr. Hellyer, in bringing a tenant to the
downtown community and a very good restaurant, benefits the citizens of
Anaheim. Glen did not hide his role in leasing the property to Yves' Bistro.
He revealed that to both the City Attorney and the other Planning
Commissioners and he did not vote nor aide in any consideration of Yves'
coming to downtown. Mr. Hellyer is both a good realtor and Planning
Commissioner. She urged the Council to support him in continuing as a
Planning Commissioner. Phyllis Boydstun had planned to be present to speak
but due to another appointment, was unable to be present. She has a letter
from Mrs. Boydstun which she then read which was also in support of
Mr. Hellyer urging that he be retained on the City Planning Commission.
Paul Kott, State College Blvd., Anaheim. He has also written a letter which
he thereupon read to the Council. A summary is as follows:
He has concerns regarding the matter of dismissal of Glen Hellyer
as Planning Commissioner. He has known Mr. Hellyer for 12 years.
He has exemplified nothing short of the highest degree of honesty,
integrity and diligence in connection with his professional
career. He understands there is an alleged appearance of
misconduct and conflict of interest charged by anonymous sources.
It is difficult for him to believe those sources could possibly be
taken seriously let alone to have grown to the proportions
outlined in the article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on
August 6, 1992. The most logical reaction should have been to
approach the individual to determine what is factual and what is
not. The placement of two new restaurants in downtown Anaheim
credited to Mr. Hellyer are a few highlights that have come to
fruition. His understanding is that discussions in closed session
576
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
hearings are confidential and proprietary. He would like to know
who betrayed that confidentiality. The City Attorney states,
based on the facts presented, there is nothing that constitutes a
violation. If they still doubt the City Attorney, they should
discuss the matter with Mr. Hellyer personally. If further
doubts, the matter should be taken up with the Fair Political
Practices Commission (FPPC) for a final ruling. He asked that the
Council abandon their "mean-spirited" effort for his dismissal.
MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved that the services of Glen Hellyer as
Planning Commissioner be terminated. Council Member Ehrle seconded the
motion.
Before further action was taken, Council Member Daly stated he agrees with the
viewpoints offered regarding Mr. Hellyer's character and his devotion to
Anaheim. He feels the situation is an outrageous attempt to smear a man and
his reputation. For those concerned with a conflict of interest, the State
Fair Political Practices Commission set up by the voters in 1974 is the Agency
to evaluate whether or not there is a conflict. That would be the fair thing
to do. To give Mr. Hellyer less than that it must be politically motivated
and orchestrated and with the meanest of all intents.
Mayor Hunter. It comes down to perceived perception of impropriety. He
(Hunter) is Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority. The
Redevelopment Agency gave $250,000 for tenant improvements to Yves' Bistro so
that the restaurant could get off the ground. He understands Mr. Hellyer has
a 20% interest in Yves'. He applauds him for bringing Yves' downtown and
prospectively the Rose & Crown restaurant. It is also his understanding the
Agency is loaning or giving large sums of money to the Rose & Crown to do
tenant improvements. Again, he does not know what interest Mr. Hellyer has in
that transaction. He repeated, it is the perception of impropriety on these
projects and other projects in the City where the Chairman of the Planning
Commission uses his position to bring business and be the agent on deals.
They are all under a duty to stay away from that perception of impropriety.
He believes Mr. Hellyer has used poor judgement. Even though he abstained,
Mr. Hellyer walked the item through the Redevelopment Agency and he is
Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. The agreement
that was brought to the Agency was sometime in the Fall of 1991. It was with
the Bodes. The loan was approved for the purposes of providing a
rehabilitation loan for tenant improvements on the property for the purpose of
bringing in a restaurant. It is a loan below market rate interest and there
are some unusual characteristics. The financial aspects are something they
would look at for anyone who wanted to come in as a restaurant operator. They
have had to encourage restaurant operators and businesses through incentive
programs in order to get them established.
Paul Kott. When he (Hellyer) walked the item through the Planning Commission
of the City in an effort to procure the financing, it typifies something they
do on an everyday basis. When he did that, he was not part owner of the
restaurant and it was never his intent to be part owner. He became part owner
only at the very end of the transaction in order to salvage the transaction.
City Attorney White. There was a letter filed with the City Clerk in her
capacity as Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency on April 21, of this year.
577
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COD'NCIL MINI/TES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
After further discussion and questioning of staff by Council Member Daly with
additional input by Mr. Kott, he concluded that what the conversation
highlights is that they do not have all the facts. If they want the truth,
then they should pursue the truth and go to the FPPC.
Council Member Pickler then reiterated his concerns that conversations in
closed sessions were "leaked" to the press as well as the fact that the
Council is not giving Mr. Hellyer due process. He then read a letter
submitted to the City Council by Mr. Hellyer (previously made a part of the
record). He concluded that Mr. Hellyer has done nothing wrong and if they
feel that there is something wrong, it should be turned over to the FPPC. The
proposed action to remove Mr. Hellyer from the Planning Commission is wrong
and he would like to offer a substitute motion that they instead forward the
matter to the FPPC for their opinion.
·
Council Member Simpson. Suddenly it appears this entire matter turns on Yves'
Bistro. That is not true. He was the one who raised the issue first. He has
been accused of making it political in nature and having written a memo to the
City Attorney. He has done neither. He reiterated the process he went
through first having gone to the City Attorney under the attorney-client
privilege. He found out the questions he asked had been asked before
regarding Mr. Hellyer. There were others in Redevelopment he did not know
about at the time the issue was raised. He then explained the sequence of
events that followed as he did at the meeting of August 11, 1992 (see minutes
that date). If he had seen nothing but the series of events that have taken
place since the beginning, he would still have asked for Mr. Hellyer's
resignation or that the Council remove him. What has happened since then has
clearly indicated a lack of good judgement and certainly a lack of maturity.
Council Member Ehrle. He agreed with Council Member Simpson. He believes
Mr. Hellyer has every right to earn money in his profession. However, as the
Mayor indicated, there is a fine line. Mr. Kott was appointed to the
Redevelopment Commission but after one or two meetings, he resigned indicating
that his real estate firm did so much business in the central city area,
business he would have to decline because there would be a confl'ict, that he
respectfully resigned his appointment. Mr. Hellyer has been on the Planning
Commission for three years and it is not just this issue that is involved. It
is a privilege and not a right to serve on boards and commissions and members
serve at the pleasure of the Council.
Before the matter finally came to a vote, Council Member Daly expressed his
views that he felt the whole situation was orchestrated and that leaking the
matter to the press was a breach of the code of ethics. This prompted
additional Council discussion wherein Councilm. embers Ehrle and Simpson refuted
statements made by Council Member Daly.
At the conclusion of ~he foregoing exchange, a vo~e was then taken on the
motion by Council Member Simpson that the services of Glen Mellyer as Planning
Commissioner be terminated and carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Simpson, Ehrle and Hunter
Noes: Pickler and Daly
COMMENDATION OF MARY BOUAS: Last week the Council by a majority vote decided
not to reappoint Mary Bouas to the Planning Commission. She has served on the
Commission for twelve years and had wished to be reappointed. It is in order
to prepare an appropriate plaque and salute to Mrs. Bouas for her years of
service.
578
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. He agrees. He commented that he was in favor of term limits -
8 years no matter in what capacity a person serves, and he believes that is
why the Council majority appointed a new member.
There was Council consensus that there be a presentation for Mrs. Bouas; the
City Clerk noted that a plaque was in the process of being prepared.
C3. 153: PRIVATIZATION STUDY - TASK FORCE REPORT AND DISCUSSION:
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue the subject discussion to
Tuesday, August 25, 1992 as previously requested by the President of the
Anaheim Municipal Employees Association. Council Member Simpson seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C4. 107: CONSIDERATION OF STREET VENDOR ISSUE:
This issue was discussed at the meeting of August 11, 1992 and continued to
this date. Submitted previously was report dated August 3, 1992 from the Code
Enforcement Manager also submitted for this meeting was report dated
August 12, 1992 from the Code Enforcement Manager and report dated August 13,
1992 from the City Attorney recommending that the Council consider the
adoption of one of the alternative ordinances as proposed in his report.
Mayor Hunter first noted that there has already been about 2~ hours of public
input received on the issue (see minutes of August 11, 1992). The Code
Enforcement Manager, John Poole was asked to come back with a recommendation.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He does not have a recommendation but
he believes City Attorney White wants to explain the proposed ordinances.
City Attorney Jack White. Two separate staff reports were prepared in
concert, one by him and one by Mr. Poole to present to the Council this
evening. Last week Council directed that he return with two different types
of ordinances - one which would ban vending from vehicles in the residential
areas of the City and the other which would not ban such vehicles but impose
heightened restrictions on those vehicles in accordinance with all of the
recommendations made previously in the final Vendor Committee report from the
task force created in 1990. Before the Council tonight are actually three
different versions:
ALTERNATE A would ban vending from vehicles in all
residential areas of the City and allow vending in
non-residential areas.
ALTERNATE B woul~ allow ven~ing ~ ~nt£nu~ in all
areas but impose increased regulations as proposed by
the previously established task force chaired by Alan
Hughes.
ALTERNATE C is a combination of both A and B which
would ban vendors in residential areas but continue to
allow them in non-residential areas but imposing
increased regulations in those areas.
Mr. Poole's report suggests additional controls to those previously contained
in the Vendor Committee report. As the Mayor stated, the Council has already
received about 2~ hours of public comments. There is a rule that limits
discussion to ten minutes per subject other than a public hearing. No public
579
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
hearing is required in this case. It is at the discretion of the Council
whether they wish to receive testimony over the ten-minute limit.
ORDINANCE 5332 (INTRODUCTION): Prohibit street vending in residential areas;
permit in non-residential areas subject to increased restrictions.
Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5332 (Alternate C) for first
reading, prohibiting street vendors in residential areas but allowing them in
commercial areas with increased regulations.
ORDINANCE NO. 5332: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PROHIBITING STREET
VENDORS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BUT ALLOWING THEM IN COMMERCIAL AREAS WITH
INCREASED REGULATIONS.
City Attorney White ~xplained for the Mayor that this does not preclude other
Council Members from offering other ordinances. There could be several as
long as they are not in conflict with each other.
Mayor Hunter then opened public discussion asking that it be limited to ten
minutes and that something new and different be offered than the testimony
given when the matter was discussed previously (see minutes of August 11,
1992).
Sal Sarmiento, Attorney representing the street vendors. He feels more time
should be allowed. Some things have occurred between the street vendors and
NOVA (the group opposed to street vendors in residential areas). They will be
meeting very soon attempting to work together and negotiate. They have also
produced a video which they want the Council to see. Since the Council may be
taking action that will affect about 115 families, ten minutes is not enough.
Other people also wish to address the Council.
The Mayor asked those who wished to speak to keep their presentations to about
two minutes and not rehash everything that was said previously; City Attorney
White saw no problem in imposing such a time limit and recommended that the
Councll allow time for speakers tonight.
At this point, the video produced by the vendors was shown to the Council and
Chamber audience. It showed vendor trucks in the residential areas and the'
service provided as well as interviews of several vendors and the positive
aspects and results of their independent businesses - how they provide jobs
and subsequently how each provides for their families.
Mr. Sarmiento stated that there are also speakers to r..~.~ke a short
presentation. Each will discuss a topic raised at the last meeting. They
want the Council to be informed before it acts and if possible allow the
parties to meet and come up with some sort of recommendation.
Ray Torres, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber recognizes
the street vendors are legitimate businessmen who contribute to the City's tax
base through permits and fees. They are part of the free enterprise system
operating in the City. In March of 1990, the Chamber participated in a task
force and recommended changes to the existing street vendor ordinance. The
Chamber again offers their service to re-examine the ordinance and to address
the problems caused by unlicensed vendors. He recommends that a
representative task force be immediately assembled to address the issues and
submit findings and recommendations back to the Council within a reasonable
time frame.
58O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Ross Romero, Real Estate Agent, 800 S. Harbor Blvd. He is a member of
Los Amigos and has clients who own properties in the area. He will speak to
the accusation of decrease in property values. He is at a loss at the
portrayal being made that the vendors are in single-family residential areas.
He has not seen them there. He knows they exist primarily in apartment house
areas. They are in what he feels are homogeneous areas - the Citron area, the
Jeffrey Lynne and Ponderosa Park area. People have an infinity for these
areas. They are long standing tenants. If they deny the families living
there the resources provided by the vendors, what will be left. It is one of
the things that makes the areas livable.
Angelina O'Keefe, President of the Hotel Worker's Employees Union. They
represent 5,000 members. The majority live and work in Anaheim. She is
speaking on behalf of the members in support of the street vendors. Street
vendors provide a service that their members would either otherwise have to
hire child care or look for transportation to access. The most important
issue is if the Council takes action tonight to adopt the new ordinance, it
would mean the elimination of 113 jobs. She does not know why Anaheim would
want to do that.
A1Emesqual, past President, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and presently
President of the Hispanic Bar Association. He is speaking on behalf of the
Hispanic Bar Association. He is opposed to the proposed ordinance. It is
taking the business aspect of a segment of the community away from them.
Anahe£m is not the only City dealing with the issue. They look to the Council
for leadership. It is important that they provide direction to staff to meet
with the vendors and with other individuals and perhaps himself to provide
some alternatives that will bring about a reasonable solution, whereby these
individuals will be able to do their jobs and provide a livelihood for their
families.
Nativo Lopez, Executive Director, National Mexican Brotherhood. He is
requesting postponement of consideration of the issue for 90-days to give more
time for dialogue, consideration of the facts and an opportunity to arrive at
a fair solution. The vendors avenue to economic self-sufficiency is the way
of America. The question is - do they want hard-working enterprising families
in their midst or prefer more homelessness and vagrancy. Anaheim is
undergoing demographic changes very rapidly and they will not be impeded. He
again asked that they postpone any action.
John Palacio, Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, (Executive
Director of Orange County Leadership Program from Malda). He is present to
assist in trying to come to a mutual solution .that best represents the
concerns on behalf of the vendors and the community. There is a market being
served by Latino businessmen who contribute to the welfare and economic
vitality of Anaheim as well as residents concerned about non-licensed vendors,
noise and litter. He feels any decision would be premature. He suggests a
90-day period to come up with a solution. There are models done throughout
the country which should be looked at including Los Angeles. The Council has
already heard that NOVA and the vendors are meeting which is encouraging.
Amin David, President, Los Amigos, 1585 W. Broadway. Changing the ordinance
restricting street vendors to only commercial areas is saying to them
good-bye. They cannot survive. It is not the kind of vending that goes on in
commercial areas. It is not the solution. All of the accusations made at the
last meeting are particularly untrue relative to the Latino food vendors. If
anyone breaks the law, they should be cited and they applaud and support that.
The problem is one of the society. The food vendors did not create the
581
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
massive number of apartments or the zoning of them. Banning all street
vendors is not the solution. They urge the members of NOVA to ride along with
an Anaheim street vendor to understand what these small businessmen do and how
they do it. He offered his phone number for those who would like to make such
arrangements ·
Salvador Salmiento. Before the Council acts, he feels they should look at the
enforcement issue - perhaps more Code Enforcement Officers and more money
devoted to Code Enforcement. They need to be fully informed and one of the
best ways is to allow the two groups to meet which they are doing and come
back with a recommendation.
Mayor Hunter then asked to hear from a spokesperson from NOVA. He wanted to
know first if NOVA is meeting with the vendors. The vendors representatives
stated that the two groups have been meeting.
Susan Kocsis (NOVA). They have not been meeting. No one approached NOVA
until today. There was a note to Janet Downs/NOVA that was received at this
meeting tonight. That may be the first contact. No meetings are in progress.
They do not have a special spokesperson. There are several who would like to
keep their speeches within two minutes. She has already received some
harassment. The City's own documents indicate numerous citizen complaints
about street vendors dating back to at least 1985. There is a big problem.
There have been citizen complaints from single-family residents. Anyone who
says there are no code violations is misinformed. The video NOVA submitted
shows the scenes outside their homes everyday.. Even on Easter Sunday they
came as early as 9:20 and sometimes comes as early as 7:30. All they have
ever asked is to keep the vendors off the residential streets. They are not
compatible. They set up business in front of her house everyday. Which
violates her right to privacy and enjoyment of her home. She is relying on
the zoning laws of the City to protect her from undue nuisance.
Bahti Mulchandni. This is the fourth time she has been present on the issue.
She asked that the Council not delay their decision. She was an immigrant to
the area 15 years ago. They had no transportation. They planned, worked,
organized and worked things out. She does not believe the vendors provide
necessary service to all of the families.
Michael Blanco (34 year resident). He first explained an incident that
occurred on Wednesday after the lengthy Tuesday night meeting regarding the
vendor issue which was in direct violation of the code. He felt that
considering the situation, the vendors would at least be trying to clean up
their act. To go on a ride-a-long as suggested would be a sit-a-long because
most of th~ v~nd~r truef~ do not movH. FurthHr, h~ ha~ nevsr ~een the type of
truck that was shown in the video just presented. His family grew up without
a car and they did what they had to do. They fit into their neighborhood.
The trucks do not belong in the City.
Mike Kowalski (37 year resident). Zoning is an important guarantee of what
citizens can and should expect in each of the areas they have property in the
City. They have been presented on one side wi'th everything but a true
discussion of the issue. The issue is - does this commercial business which
is disruptive to their residential areas belong in residential neighborhoods.
Many people have said that it does not. Code Enforcement says it has hundreds
of violations and that the situation cannot adequately be policed. They are
saying it is racial or cultural. When he cleans up the trash, he does not
know who created it. He does not know who is pushing the horn creating the
noise. He asked that they give back his guarantee of what a residential
582
City Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, '1992 - 5:00 P.M.
neighborhood should be. Eliminate the trash and noise and act on the matter
as soon as possible.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais. He is not directly affected by the issue but has
friends who have been inconvenienced. To him the issue is also one of having
an accessible food delivery system. He suggested that the produce be replaced
with passenger seats. That would be an effective delivery system to provide
access for people to buy the commodities. They need to see the real problem
and open their minds to solving that problem.
Floyd Hill. He owns an apartment in the City. The staff report says it all -
there are violations and they are documented. Anaheim has the potential to
become a world class city. One of the things the City does not need is to
have vendor trucks in residential areas. Of the tenants in his building, one
out of 16 buys from the trucks and only rarely. The quality of life in
Anaheim is deteriorating. It is necessary to reverse the trend. It will help
in cleaning up the neighborhoods to not allow vendor trucks. If Disneyland is
willing to spend 3 billion dollars in Anaheim, he feels the Council would
wisely adopt the ordinance they have just offered.
Ann Davis, 624 Be!lview (15 years). She is trying to relocate because of the
general harassment she ts experiencing. The first question she asked when
looking for a new apartment is - are there vendors in the area. She has to
relocate to get away from the noise, littering and loitering and children in
the streets.
Sandra Park. Her father is a small business owner. He owns a liquor store on
a corner where the trucks are located. He goes by every law and he is located
in the proper zone. That is why the City has zoning. Next door is the
Rodriguez's small business owners who are a produce and meat shop. At that
corner, they can provide whatever the residents need and they do not have to
walk a couple of miles to the store.
Don Jansen, Satellite Market, Katella and Hastier. His is a family owned
business for 29 years in the same location. His concern is how the Health
Department can pull an inspection on the vendors. The Fire Department
inspects his business, the Department of Weights and Measures, etc. He
employs about 15 people. His business has dropped tremendously. A business
belongs in commercial areas of the City and not residential.
Fern Call. She explained how she came up through life the hard way, worked
very hard and eventually went into real estate and purchased the apartment she
currently owns. She is now 71 and only two of her six apartments are rented
because people tell her they do not want to live where there are ~treet
vendors. (Also see testimony given by Mr. Call at the August 11, 1992
meeting.) She feels she may just have to board her apartments up and leave
them.
Mayor Hunter. On one side of the issue there are the neighborhoods which he
totally agrees with that they have the right to have a clean, safe
neighborhood. On the other side there are people trying to make an honest
living. An ordinance was put together a few years ago which, although not
perfect, was a compromise. He has heard some offers tonight by Los Amigos and
by the vendors to the NOVA people to sit down and talk. The people from NOVA
said that has not occurred. He believes compromise is appropriate. If the
vendors are banned from the residential areas, it will make a lot of people
happy and also put a lot of people out of work. One of the suggestions made
to him from the vendors is to suspend the ven~ing ordinance for a period and
583
C~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
have no vending in residential areas while having both parties get together,
work out a compromise and bring it back to the Council with a recommendation.
He was also told there are too many vendors - that there should be only 35 or
50, not 162. He feels they should get together as a people on the issue. If
they adopt Ordinance Alternative C, banning vendors from residential areas,
that is the easy way out. The hard way is "sweat equity" - Latinos and
Caucasians sitting down and working out a solution.
Council Member Pickler. The issue has been talked about for many years. An
ordinance has been introduced tonight and he sees no reason to refer it back
anywhere. If there is an ordinance the Mayor wants to introduce, he should do
so. Vendors do not belong in residential areas. It is necessary to take a
stand. In the past, there have been meetings by a task force but it has not
worked. He reiterated vendor trucks do not belong in residential zones no
matter who drives the trucks.
Council Member Ehrle offered Ordinance Alternate A and Ordinance Alternate B
for introduction.
ORDINANCE NO. - .... INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 14.32.310 RELATING TO VENDING OF MERCHANDISE/GOODS BY
VEHICLE.
ORDINANCE NO. - .... INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
PERMITTING STREET VENDING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES BUT IMPOSING ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS.
He continued that all three ordinances will be considered next week. In
reading them, there are things he would like to change. He has some ideas, a
few of which he made last week. The City Attorney has informed him that some
things can be done and some cannot. He appreciates the offer by the Vendors
Association to sit down and find out where the common ground might be and how
they can coexist. (He recounted the situation with the mobile-home park
owners and mobile-home renters and how he chaired a task force a few years ago
where, although they did not come to a perfect solution, there was a
compromise.) He feels there is room for compromise on this issue and he will
be happy to assist. He feels they can all agree on certain things - 162
vendors is a number that is totally out of control. It has to be better
regulated and it can only be done together. Anaheim is a multi-cultural
community and it is about time the community starts growing together.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (7:54 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:07 p.m.)
D1. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 91-1lA:
In aeeo~danc~ with application filed by Denni~ P. Hill, a public hearing was
held on proposed abandonment of that portion of Jackson Street east of Armando
Street and south of Frontera Street pursuant to Resolution No. 92R-156 duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated June 4, 1992 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment subject to the following conditions:
1. Installation of a new sewer manhole.
2. Reservation of public utility easements over the entire street.
584
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIN//TES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
3. Provide turnaround in front of gate.'
4. Provide 20-feet opening at gate and access for the Fire Department,
Police and Maintenance personnel.
Mr. Richard Santo, Senior Real Property Agent stated 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 determined
that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 of the
City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact
Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements 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-180)
Council Member P~ckler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 92R-180 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 91-1lA. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-180: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF JACKSON STREET LYING EASTERLY OF APdZANDO STREET
(91-1lA) INCLUDING THE CONDITION RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-180 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-180 duly passed and adopted.
D2. 179: CONTINUED 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.
HEARING SET ON: The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the Flour
Family Trust (Agent, Cecil Wright) and public hearing scheduled and continued
from the meeting of August 11, 1992 to this date.
585
City Hall, Anaheim, .California- COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18~. 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. A letter was received from the agent for the applicant
Mr. Cecil Wright requesting an additional one week continuance to August 25,
1992.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone present who wished to speak to the
reclassification or was opposed to a continuance of the public hearing; there
was no response.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 91-92-19 to Tuesday, August 25, 1992. Council Member
Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D3. 179: PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND CONDITION NO. 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 92R-105,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3417 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
REQUESTED BY: Sim C. Hoffman, M.D., Advanced Professional Imaging, 585
S. Knott Street, Anaheim, CA 92804.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 545-595 S. Knott Street
and is approximately 0.63 acre located at the northwest corner of Knott
Street and Orange Avenue. The request is to amend or delete conditions
(specifically Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 92R-105) of Conditional
Use Permit No. 3417 pertaining to the time limitation and permitted days
of operation of a previously-approved mobile medical unit within an
existing medical complex.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - August 6, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 4, 1992
Posting of property - August 7, 1992
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report dated August 6, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator, Annika
Santalahti recommending that the Council approve an amendment to Conditional
Use Permit 3417, contingent upon there being no adverse testimony about noise
problems during the public hearing.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent; there was
no response.
Mr. Jerry Doskew, representing Advanced Professional Imaging stated that
Dr. Hoffman submitted a letter indicating there was a death in the family and
he would be unable to attend the meeting this evening. He request a possible
rescheduling of the public hearing.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She wanted to comment on the matter.
She does not believe Dr. Hoffman had seen a copy of the staff report and she
has not talked to him. If the Council is prepared to view the request
favorably, staff recommends approval assuming no one is present in opposition.
Code Enforcement has looked at the property in the last two weeks to determine
586
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COtrNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
if the petitioner installed the sound attenuation equipment which was
required. That has been done.
Mayor Hunter. He confirmed for Mr. Doskew that staff is recommending that the
Council proceed with the public hearing even though Dr. Hoffman is not
present.
Jerry Doskew. They have complied with everything and they do need the second
day as requested.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present to
speak in opposition; there was no response.
Mayor Hunter thereup.on closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council
Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, 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 - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-181)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-181 for adoption, granting
the requested amendment to Resolution No. 92R-105 which approved Conditional
Use Permit No. 3417, which will add an additional permitted day of operation
of a previously approved mobile medical unit within an existing medical
complex. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-181: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3417 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92R-i05.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-181 for a.doption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-181 duly passed and adopted.
D4. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400~ REQUEST FOR
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Requested by Anaheim Indoor Market Place, Les Lederer, EDGA Enterprises.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1440 S. Anaheim Boulevard
and is approximately 14.7 Acres at the Northeast corner of the
intersection of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, further described
as 1440 South Anaheim Blvd. (Anaheim Indoor Market Place) The
petitioner requests that the City Council consider amendments to
Condition Nos. 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 of CUP 3400 as established in Resolution
No. 91R-165, 91R-238 and 91R-239. CUP 3400 was granted for 10 years
587
C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
subject to a 5 year review by the Planning Commission, for a commercial
retail center (indoor swap meet).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission
recommended modifications to Conditions 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 of CUP
3400.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - August 6, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 6, 1992
Posting of property- August 7, 1992
City Clerk Sohl. This matter is to be heard in conjunction with Item B8 on
today's agenda in which the petitioner is asking for code interpretations
relating to Special Events Permit.
.
B8. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
INTERPRETATION OF CODE SECTIONS 18.05.074 AND 4.02.060 PERTAINING TO SPECIAL
EVENTS PERMITS:
REQUESTED BY: Tom Kieviet, Farano & Kieviet
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard (ANAHEIM MARKETPLACE)
Petitioner requests Planning Commission interpretation of Code Sections
pertaining to Special Events Permits.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:'
Planning Commission recommended to City Council that amendments be made
to Condition Nos. 5, 6, 13, and 14 of the Resolution for CUP NO. 3400
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Tom Kieviet, Attorney, Farano and Kieviet. He is present on behalf of the
property owners, Les Lederer and the Lederer family in connection with the
request to amend certain conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 and
also to obtain some Council action with regard to Special Event Permit use.
He then briefed the Council on the background of the Anaheim Market Place and
the events that have taken place since it was opened. He also noted that the
former owners were no longer a part of the Anaheim Market Place having created
problems with the City and with the businesses within the Indoor Swap Meet.
It was in April of this year that his client had commenced to rectify the
situation. The Lederer family has owned the property for approximately 20
years. Tonight he is asking for additional time to comply with certain
conditions imposed when previous operators made application for the CUP, as
well as asking for additional signage that the previous CUP did not allow
which is important for the continued growth of the facility. The facility has
the capacity for 300 stalls. There are 130 at present &n~ it has grown ~rom
the time his client took over with 20+ additional stalls. They need more time
with more promotional activity to make it viable. They made a request that
went to the Planning Commission already to amend conditions and to get an
interpretation of the Special Events Permit. Re thereupon submitted a capsule
summary outline of the request (made a part of the record). They are asking
that the Council confirm the Planning Commission recommendations concerning
the resurfacing and restriping of the parking lot, which has been complied
with, to amend Condition No. 6 that it be completed within 9 months of the
Planning Commission hearing, to also amend Condition No. 13 calling for the
petitioner to submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning
Department to be completed within 9 months of the Planning Commission hearing
and also to provide the landscape setback of a minimum 10 feet wide along
Anaheim and Cerritos Blvd., within 3 months of a Planning Commission hearing.
588
City hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINI3TES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Council Members posed questions to both Mr. Kieviet and staff for purposes of
clarification relative to conditions previously imposed as well as questions
relating to bonding requirements.
City Attorney White. Subsequently, he explained that the existing CUP issued
by Reso~ -ion No. 91R-239, Condition No. 25 provided that Condition Nos. 5, 6,
13 and 14 shall be bonded and a bond posted ta guarantee completion and that
the bond was to be posted prior to either the issuance of a building permit or
commencement of activity. He is apparently hearing that was done.
Tom Kieviet. He believes there was a bond put up for the parking lot
landscaping and is in the City Engineer's office.
City Attorney White. The bonding is not a new requirement. The 1991 permit
required bonding; Tom Kieviet he is asking that additional bonding
requirements not be imposed. He can provide copies of the bond paperwork.
City Attorney White. If the bonds meet the requirements of Condition No. 25,
there will not be more required. If the City Council wishes to act favorably
upon Mr. Kieviet's request, it probably could be done by amending only two
conditions. Condition No. 12 relates to sign size. Condition Nos. 6, 13 and
14 relate to delaying the time which could be accomplished by amending
Condition No. 25 that requires those conditions to be met one year from
July 23, 1991 rather than amending each of the individual conditions. He does
not see that Mr. Kieviet would have any objection to doing it that way. It
would be amending only two Conditions, Condition No. 12, sign size, and
Condition No. 25, which would delay the time frames for complying with
Condition Nos. 6, 13 and 14. It has been indicated that Condition No. 5 has
been satisfied.
Tom Kieviet. In view of the fact that the Planning Commission favorably
recommended the delay in compliance with certa'in conditions, they are asking
the Council to adopt those recommendations. The signage is separate and their
request is different than what the Planning Commission recommended. As noted
in the rendering, they inserted the preferred sign which they are requesting
that the Council adopt at this time.
They are asking for a sign up to 36 feet high with pennants at the top. It
was designed to effect a festivals/bazaar type atmosphere needed to create
business. Because the building sits back over 600 feet from the street, it
was essential from a business perspective to have a sign closer to the street.
He then briefed the outline submitted to the Council entitled - Requested
action by City Council - Conditional Use Permit No. 3400, Anaheim Market
Place, 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim. (Also, see ~etter dated July 23, 1992
from Fred Boyles and Company, designers of the sign as well as letter dated
July 30, 1992 from Mr. Kieviet in which gave the details of the request to
extend and amend conditions of CUP 3400 along with their request for a waiver
of Special Event Permit limits.)
Their request for modification of the Special Event Permit limitations was
listed under Items 3 and 4 of the outline submitted - basically to allow a
large roof top balloon and parking lot decorations of balloons and banners in
the parking area until the permanent sign is erected and thereafter allow roof
top balloon and parking lot decorations to be in place on weekends and
holidays only and allowing, instead of only two special event permits of
14 days each under the code, that they be allowed to have promotional outdoor
activities as indicated under Item 4 on weekends and holidays only. These
changes would greatly enhance the ability of this business to bring in
589
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
additional businesses and revenue for the City. They would not be in conflict
with other businesses in the area.
Les Lederer. He is one of the partners that owns the property which they have
owned for almost twenty years. He explained the history of the property
during that period. He is present to seek help and support. He is interested
in having a viable property that can generate income. He took over possession
of the property on April 23, 1992. He believes he has rectified every single
one of the problems that had existed under the prior management. He explained
all of the problems that had occurred with the former tenant and all the
things he has done since. He explained the importance of the signage proposed
relative to the success of the business as well as the request related to the
modification of the Special Events Permit. The sign will take three to four
months to build. He also confirmed that a bond was put up for landscaping and
he has already hired 'a landscape man to plan t'he landscaping.
Extensive questioning of Mr. Lederer followed by Council Member Daly as well
as questions to staff relative to the widening of the Santa Ana Freeway and
the affect it will have on the Anaheim Boulevard interchange, etc. In
concluding, Council Member Daly stated that they should keep in mind that the
City has the subject area in a redevelopment study area and are trying to
improve access to the freeway and there will be a lot more traffic on that
street for the merchants which is part of the context in which they have to
make a decision about the balloons and special events.
Tom Kieviet. He thereupon submitted a petition in support of the request
signed unanimously by all the vendors in the facility. There is also support
of the Community Development Committee of the Chamber. They made their
presentation to them and there is no opposition from surrounding property
owners.
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She explained for Council Member
Pickler that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and concurred with
the signage to the extent of not including the banners on the top and agreed
with the delay on the timing. However, they did not agree with the special
events proposals as being consistent with the intent of special events in the
City and staff agrees. The Planning Commission did not agree with
Mr. Kieviet's proposed interpretation of the code, but that special events
should only be allowed as any other business - two events per year totalling
fourteen days each time. The ordinance relative to special events has been in
affect for over 22 years and it has worked surprisingly well.
City Attorney White. Relative to the special events request, the code states
each business or shopping center and the interpretation being requested is
that each of the vendors within the swap meet or individual businesses and,
therefore, ~ince there are fifty or so that, in essence, there could be a
separate two week permit for each of those year round - an outdoor carnival,
clowns, balloons, flags and several other things they have requested. If the
Council makes that interpretation, it would apply not only to this applicant,
but also citywide. There is an option. The code also provides upon
application made that the City Council can waive the two-week limitation for
any given permit. That is not in front of the Council tonight. The fact that
the Council would disagree with the applicant's interpretation would not
preclude the applicant from seeking an extension or waiver of the two-week
limitation due to the circumstances that may apply to this property that do
not apply to other properties.
590
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINT/TES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Daly. He interrupted and suggested that the Council do what
Mr. White is suggesting. He thereupon recommended that they allow the
balloons and banners in the parking lot until the permanent sign is installed
including the banners/pennants on the top of the sign as depicted in the
renderings and also allow the delay in time as approved by the Planning
Commission but not allow anything further relative to the Special Events
Permit.
City Attorney White. Before action was taken, for clarification, he noted
there are two different issues - one which is not controversial is the timing
amendments, Condition No. 25 and the second is amending Condition No. 12
relating to the sign. The resolution that Council Member Daly proposed would
be to approve an amendment to Condition No. 12 in accordance with Exhibit A
which includes the banners on the top of the sign. That modifies the Planning
Commission decision. The first action would be to offer the resolution
amending Conditions 12 and 25 of CUP No. 3400 as stated.
Council Member Daly explained for Mr. Kieviet that on the outline submitted,
he would be getting all of number one, all of number two, part of number
three, but does not get number 4.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council
Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Simpson, 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 - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-182)
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-182 for adoption, approving
amendment of Conditions 12 and 25 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 as
articulated by the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-182: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 AND AMENDING RESOLUTIONS NOS. 91R-165 AND
91R-239.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-182 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-182 duly passed and adopted.
City Attorney White. With regard to special events for flags, banners and
balloons, he interpreted Council Member Daly's intent to be to allow an
extension of the application for flags, banners and balloons for 90-days from
this date, but allowing flags, banners and balloons only and not the other
things requested.
591
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Daly confirmed that was the intent and after the permanent sign
is installed, that is it as far as special events.
City Attorney White. It is necessary to understand that the applicant could
come back and seek relief later, but this would limit the activity to 90-days.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to allow an extension of the application
for flags, banners and balloons for 90-days from this date (August 18, 1992).
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Kieviet posed questions for purposes of
clarification which were answered by the City Attorney that they could have
the flags, banners and balloons for 90-days only. If the permanent sign is
not up in 90-days, the flags, banners and balloons cannot remain.
Tom Kieviet. They would still like to have separate independent action on
Item No. 4 - special events - to verify if the Council has a concern or
problem with what they are requesting. It is promotional activity on weekends
only. They are not asking so much for an interpretation as for request of the
Council to modify the regulations.
City Attorney White. At present, two Special Events Permits per year of
14-days each is allowed. They are asking to permanently be able to have
special events on weekends for the activities proposed in Item 4 of
Mr. Kieviet's letter. He suggested since presently they have a right to get
two permits for 14-days each or 28 days, that during that time the City would
be able to monitor the situation and Code Enforcement could determine if there
are any concerns. At that time, the applicant can come in and state that they
have done this for 4 weeks, Code Enforcement was not unhappy and they would
like an extension.
Les Lederer. He has used his 28-days and there have been no problems with
Code Enforcement. He needs the help and he is asking now for a further
extension.
City Attorney White. The problem is tonight the appropriate staff is not
present to give Council input from the City side.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion allowing flags, banners and
balloons only for 90-days from this date, but that if the permanent sign is
not installed in 90-days there could no longer be flags, banners and balloons.
MOT ION CARRI ED.
City Attorney White. To dispose of all the requests, it would then be in
order to deny the application for an extension of the Special Events Permit
for outdoor entertainment at this time (see Item B8 on today's agenda).
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to deny the application for an extension of
the Special Events Permit for outdoor entertainment in connection with the
Anaheim Market Place. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Council Member Pickler moved to adjourn, Council Member Hunter
seconded the mot ion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:12 p.m.)
.
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
592