1991/02/26City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau
CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION: Darrell Ament
CITY TREASURER: Mary Turner
COMMUNITY SERVICES SUPERINTENDENT: Steve Swaim
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
PRINCIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Christopher Dahl
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
REAL PROPERTY SPECIALIST: Frank Hardcastle
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:00 p.m. on February 22, 1991 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter opened the Council meeting, the first order of business being the
workshop portion for a presentation on the Anaheim Arena.
101: PRESENTATION - EXTERIOR TREATMENT AND THE INTERIOR OF THE ANAHEIM ARENA:
Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The schedule originally
laid out for the Arena Project is presently on target. Plans will be ready for
contractors to pick up on April 4, 1991, the bid opening will be in mid-May and
award of contract in late May with a construction start date in June. If
schedules hold, the building will be open in the Fall of 1993. He is
optimistic as to the status of construction since the construction market place
has changed to the City's benefit. He then introduced the project architect.
Mr. Chris Carver, HOK Sports Facilities Group, Project Architect. He briefed
the Council on the site plan for the Anaheim Arena and also explained in detail
the organization of the building. His presentation was supplemented by both
graphics and renderings of the arena and the site. (See illustrated booklet
entitled - Anaheim Arena - which contained an executive summary, site plan,
schematics of the various levels and sections, building elevations, interior
configuration for various activities which will take place in the arena -
basketball, hockey, concerts, etc., colored renderings and a section outlining
general requirements for a multi-purpose arena in Anaheim, site requirements,
arena requirements and finally the structural program). Mr. Carver briefed
and/or elaborated upon portions of each of the sections in the booklet.
During and at the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Carver answered questions
posed by Council Members relating to capacity for the various activities,
acoustic, exterior, color treatment, glass type and confirmation on time frame
for completion.
103
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26r 1991, 5:00 P.M.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(a),to wit:
Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 40-92-46; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
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 meet with its property negotiator to consider acquisition of
property located at 400 W. Freedman Way.
e. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
f. 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.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting to the
5:00 p.m. portion of the City Council Meeting.
INVOCATION: Pastor Jim Ritch, Anaheim Foursquare Church, 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:
Tree City USA Day in Anaheim, March 6, 1991
Women's History Month in Anaheim, March, 1991
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, accepted the
Tree City proclamation; Liz Cason accepted the Women's History Month
proclamation.
119: PRESENTATION - UNITED WAY OF ORANGE COUNTY: A facsimile check in the
amount of over $80,000 was presented to Mr. Dave Holden, Orange County United
Way Representative by Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle representing the City of Anaheim
employees contribution to United Way of Orange County. Janet Mace, the City's
Data Processing Director and Chairman of the recently completed United Way
drive was introduced and commended for her work as well as Mr. Wendell
104
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Stephens. Mrs. Mace noted that the recent drive reflected a 39% increase in
contributions from City employees, this during a time of economic downturn.
Mr. Holden on behalf of United Way expressed his appreciation for the
outstanding contributions of those involved in the campaign and especially to
the employees of the City of Anaheim. He then presented two awards - one to
Janet Mace for coordinating the effort and the other to Wendell Stephens who
assisted Mrs. Mace in the drive.
119: PRESENTATION - DISNEYLAND AMBASSADOR FOR 1991~ Mrs. Cecily Rigdon
introduced the new Disneyland Ambassador for 1991, Jill Ornelas. Ms. Ornelas
was then presented with flowers by Mayor Hunter and heartily congratulated on
her newly acquired title, Disneyland Ambassador for 1991. Ms. Ornelas gave a
brief presentation on what she hoped her new position would bring and what she
hoped to accomplish in it.
MINUTES: Council Member Hunter moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of January 8, 1991. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,298,014.69 for the week
ending February 15, 1991, and $2,121,674.86 for the week ending February 22,
1991, in accordance with the 1990-91 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:12 p.m.)
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:15 p.m.)
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos.
91R-40 through 91R-46, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance No. 5204 for
adoption and Ordinance No. 5205 for introduction)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions
and ordinances. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Hunter, the following items were approved
in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished
each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member
Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 91R-40 through 91R-46, both inclusive, for
adoption. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5205 for introduction
and Ordinance No. 5204 for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Larry Schreiber for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 18, 1990.
105
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Kenneth Landgrave for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 9, 1990.
c. Claim submitted by Harold Michael for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 23, 1990.
d. Claim submitted by Hena Selski for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about November 4, 1990.
e. Claim submitted by Michael Walters for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 27, 1990.
f. Claim submitted by Maureen T. Layton for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
September 25, 1990.
g. Claim submitted by Megumi Higa for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 12, 1991.
h. Claim submitted by William Kaplan for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 17, 1991.
i. Claim submitted by Dolores Carballo and Marie Louise Toussaint for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
June 28, 1990.
j. Claim submitted by Lazaro Gonzalez Chavez for property damage and
bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
August 1, 1990.
k. Claim submitted by Robert Wayne Buck for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 29, 1990.
1. Claim submitted by Elizabeth S. Bailey for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 27, 1990.
m. Claim submitted by Jacquie Watson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 24, 1990.
n. ela£m submitted by Kon~ane~ and A~thur With~r~ for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 26, 1990.
o. Claim submitted by Priscilla Whelchel for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 9, 1990.
p. Claim submitted by Esther C. Roberts for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 30, 1990.
q. Claim submitted by Daniel Cavaco for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 18, 1991.
106
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
A2. 156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and
Clearance Analysis for the month of January, 1991.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission
meetings held January 9, 1991, and January 30, 1991.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held
January 17, 1991.
132: Receiving and filing a re-notice from the State of California -
Department of Conservation, regarding proposed amendments to the accounting and
reporting procedures regulations pertaining to solid waste.
132: Receiving and filing a notice from the State of California - Department
of Conservation, to all certified processors and recyclers, informing them of
impending changes in the refund value per segregated and commingled pound rates
as they apply to aluminum, glass, plastic and bimetal beverage containers.
A3. 169: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of La Cresta
Avenue and Las Brisas Street Repaying by Vernon Paving Company, and authorizing
the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A4. 156: Approving a Notice of Completion of the demolition and Asbestos
Abatement - Police 2000, by Baker Pacific Corporation, and authorizing the
Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A5. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (91-lA) (To be placed with new public utility
easements on Tract 14353. Suggested public hearing date: April 2, 1991.)
A6. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (90-12A) (For electrical purposes extending easterly
from Fairmont Boulevard to Willowcreek Lane. Suggested public hearing date:
April 2, 1991.)
A7. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 5205 - (INTRODUCTION}: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION .2460 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF
TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING AND STOPPING.
(Prohibits stopping and parking - Orange Avenue, on the north side, from Knott
Avenue to the westerly City limits.)
AS. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM DEED TO AN ELECTRICAL EASEMENT.
(Granting a quitclaim deed in order to clear title at the sports arena site -
R/W 4819.)
A9. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY TO THE PRESLEY COMPANIES.
(Transfer of the Twin Peaks Reservoir site to Presley Companies.)
107
City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26r 1991t 5=00 P.M.
Al0. 173: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR A GRANT
UNDER THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED.
All. 160: Accepting the low bid of General Electric Corporation, in the
amount of $26,044.20 for ninety each 150 KVAR, 7200 volt, single-phase
capacitors, in accordance with Bid $4896.
Al2. 160: Accepting the low bid of Westinghouse Electric Supply Company, in
the amount of $57,240 for 1,728 single-phase meters, in accordance with Bid
~4907.
A13. 160: Accepting the low bid of G & W Electric Company, in the amount of
$38,350.80 for ten each three-phase SF-6 subsurface switches, in accordance
with Bid ~4906.
Al4. 160: Accepting the low bid of Shallbetter, Inc., c/o Matzinger & Kegan,
Inc., in the amount of $32,117.25 for three each 12.47 KY, three-phase
padmounted capacitor banks, in accordance with Bid ~4898.
Al5. 160= Accepting low bid of Westrux International, in the amount of
$106,483.50 for three each five-yard dump trucks, in accordance with Bid ~4913.
A16. 160: Accepting the bid of Los Angeles Freightliner/GMC, in the amount of
$29,475.42 for one each 24,000 GVW flatbed dump truck with removable
sideboards, in accordance with Bid ~4912.
A17. 160: Accepting the bid of Los Angeles Freightliner/GMC, in the amount of
$29,603.68 for one each 24,000 GVW flatbed dump truck with fixed sideboards, in
accordance with Bid ~4911.
A18. 160: Accepting the low bid of Reynolds Buick/GMC, in the amount of
$20,341.50 for one two-yard dump truck, in accordance with Bid ~4914.
Al9. 160: Accepting the low bid of Westrux International, in the amount of
$35,648.40 for one 27,000 GVW stakebed with liftgate truck, in accordance with
Bid ~4910.
A20. 160= Accepting the bid of Villa Ford, in the amount of $31,328.30
(including tax and selected options), for two each 7500 GVW cargo vans, in
accordance with Bid #4908.
A21. 123: Approving Collection Agreements with Northern Orange County Credit
Service and American Agencies for collection of past due accounts for the City
with its debtors.
A22. 140: Accepting the receipt of Public Library Fund monies administered by
the State Library, in the amount of $155,411 and increasing revenues by the
same amount in Fund 17, Program 171.
108
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
A23. 140: Accepting the receipt of grant funds, in the amount of $20,447 for
the Major Urban Resource Library (MURL) grant which will be administered
through the Central Library, and increasing revenue and expenditure
appropriations by the same amount in Fund 17, Program 173.
A24. 140: Approving a 4.2% increase in fees paid by developers to construct
the Library facility in the East Hills Planned Community (Public Library
Facilities Plan for the East Santa Ana Canyon area).
A25. 123: Approving a lease agreement with University Copy Systems for the
lease of two facsimile machines, in the amount of $3,720 per year for both
machines, and authorizing the City Attorney to execute said lease agreement.
A26. 123: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Data Processing
Director to enter into a purchase agreement and other related documents with
EMC2 Corporation, in the amount of $265,000 (including sales tax, freight and
installation of a Symmetrix Disk Array Subsystem).
123: Authorizing the Data Processing Director to enter into a maintenance
agreement with EMC2 Corporation, in the amount of $1,280 per month for
maintenance of the equipment, after the two-year warranty period has expired.
106: Amending the F¥90-91 RAP by increasing expenditures in Account
70-383-7115 by $265,000.
A27. 114: Approving the use of Council Contingency Funds, in the amount of
$5,000 for a donation to our Sister City, Mito, Japan, for partial payment of a
statue symbolizing the friendship of our two cities.
Mr. Gus Bode. He expressed his opposition to the contribution the City is
proposing to make to the subject statue.
A28. 123: Approving a Customer Service Contract with the Sony Corporation of
America, in the amount of $21,109.06 for maintenance services for the Jumbotron
Color Video Screen at Anaheim Stadium for the extended period between June 6,
1990 through December 31, 1990, and $50,000 for the year 1991; and authorizing
the Mayor to sign said contract on behalf of the City.
A29. 175: Approving a Schedule of Security Service Agreement with Pinkerton
Security and Investigation Services, at a weekly rate of $3,091 to provide
patrol and inspection services for Public Utilities facilities.
A30. 175: ORDINANCE NO. 5204 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 10.18 TO TITLE 10 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO WATER SHORTAGES. (Introduced at the meeting of February 12, 1991, Item
A21. )
Helen Carter, 1945 Bay Shore Drive, Anaheim Shores. The Association has been
stressing water conservation in their newsletter for the last two years. The
residents of Anaheim Shores are concerned about saving the artificial lake in
their community because it is a flood control basin and a wild life refuge.
Their lake is a source of great pleasure. They are very much interested in
saving the lake.
109
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from Utilities Department staff.
Darrell Ament, Assistant General Manager, Public Utilities. The proposed
ordinance contains three plans - the first is voluntary, the second is
mandatory and has a number of restrictions and the third contains all the
provisions which are mandatory and in addition establishes a base period which
measures water consumption against that base and more will be charged for water
if there is use beyond that base. The ordinance contains the frame work and
the department is working on a resolution that will enact the ordinance in
order to put it into effect. Staff is anticipating coming back to the Council
in mid-March at which time they will recommend that the Council adopt Plan II.
Staff will not be proposing implementation of the rationing portion but
mandatory restrictions. He then explained the many things the Utilities
Department is doing to assist water customers and what is going to be taking
place in the future.
Council Member Simpson. Relative to the establishment of a base year, a number
of citizens have called stating that they are and have been into water
rationing for some time. Their concern is if the department goes back to the
base year where they began their water conservation program, they will be
unduly penalized and not be able to meet the standards since they are already
conserving to the maximum.
Darrell Ament. Establishing a base year, if it is done at all, is in
Plan III. Staff will only be recommending Plan II be adopted. It is only if
the situation becomes more critical that Plan III will be recommended for
adoption. Those that have already conserved will be taken into account if, in
fact, the rationing phase is implemented. If it does, it will be three or four
months into the future. He then explained the Water Advisors that are being
added to the department who will be oriented towards helping people in this
specific area. They realize that people have a heavy investment in landscaping
and the like and the goal is not to have those investments destroyed. For
persons like Mrs. Carter who have general or specific questions, they can call
991-DRIP. Further, relative to the lake at Anaheim Shores, there is nothing in
the ordinance or resolution which anticipates restricting something that is
already existing. He reiterated that the intent is not to destroy those
improvements/investments.
Phillip Knypstra, 2520 Gelid Avenue, Anaheim. His concern is with Phase III
which he feels will cause major problems for the City. People in the Public
Utilities Department have stated they will do the right thing. He does not
want to rely on what an official may or may not do. He would like assurance
from the City Council that any plan they implement will be fair and equitable.
He recounted the campaigns the City has instituted in the last five years
urging the conservation of both electricity and water. He and a lot of other
people like him have been conserving but many have not. He is concerned that
those who have already made their sacrifice are going to be obligated to make a
percentage decline in the base year as they do in Los Angeles. It is unfair to
those who already made the sacrifice. He envisions a plan where each and every
household is allocated a fair number of billing units and all households are
treated the same. That is fair. Many cities have implemented that plan. He
believes any plan that is ultimately going to be devised by the Public
Utilities Board should give the benefit of the doubt to those who have already
sacrificed.
110
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
John Prager, 440 Bridgeview Drive. He understands that Plan I, II or III is
not going to be adopted tonight. He is present to raise questions in his own
mind as to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the ordinance. He
then briefed those portions of the proposed ordinance where he believes a
constitutional question is involved - providing that representatives of the
City may enter upon peoples properties without a warrant, making it a crime to
violate any provision of the ordinance, the provision dealing with
administrative hearings with respect to violations or penalties. He elaborated
on all three provisions. In concluding, he suggested that before going forward
and adopting the ordinance, that the Council rethink whether or not those
provisions are the ones they want to have included in the ordinance and have
the City Attorney take another look and redo the provisions he has outlined.
Council Member Daly asked that the City Attorney report back on some of the
items raised especially with regard to administrative hearings.
At the conclusion of the Consent Calendar, the ordinance was adopted
unanimously by the City Council.
A31. 177: Accepting the Emergency Shelter Grant Award in the amount of
$56,000 and authorizing the Mayor and Executive Director to sign the necessary
forms and certifications for submission of the application for federal
assistance to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD); and authorizing staff to select a qualified non-profit emergency shelter
service provider in Anaheim to receive these funds for Council consideration.
A32. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-45: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 90R-113 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME. (To create the
position of Water Advisor, effective February 15, 1991.)
A33. 123: Approving an agreement with Lifeplus Foundation, dba REACH, at an
estimated cost of $68,000 for the 1991 calendar year, for employee assistance
services, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement on behalf of the
City.
A34. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-46: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING, A LETTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM
FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (dated February 19, 1991.)
Roll Call Vote on Resolutions:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 91R-40 through 91R-46, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
111
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5204 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
A35. 178: RESIGNATION FROM ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOARD:
Submitted was letter dated February 7, 1991 by William Mills, General Manager,
Orange County Water District (OCWD) reporting that August Lenain, Anaheim's
representative on the OCWD Board since 1972 is retiring from the Board on April
1, 1991.
Council Member Daly moved to accept the resignation of August F. Lenain, OCWD
Board of Directors (Division 9), effective April 1, 1991 with regret and
directing the City Clerk to post a notice of the unscheduled vacancy. Council
Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A36. 153: ESTABLISHING RATES COMPENSATION FOR CONFIDENTIAL JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS:
Submitted was report dated February 26, 1991 from the Human Resources director
recommending changes in rates of compensation and bilingual compensation for
confidential job classifications effective October 12, 1990.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 91R-47)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 91R-47 for adoption adjusting
rates of compensation and establishing pay policies for classifications
designated as Confidential and superseding Resolutions No. 85R-428, 86R-7 and
87R-512 and amenchnents thereto. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND ESTABLISHING PAY POLICIES FOR
CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTIONS NO.
85R-428, 86R-007 AND 87R-512 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-47 duly passed and adopted.
112
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
A37. 153: NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO GENERAL CITY AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
UNITS:
Submitted was report dated February 26, 1991 from the Labor Relations Director
Garry McRae recommending acceptance of the new Memorandum of Understanding.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 91R-48 and 91R-49)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 91R-48 and 91R-49 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES IN CLASSIFICATIONS ASSIGNED TO THE
CLERICAL UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-49: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES IN CLASSIFICATIONS ASSIGNED TO THE
GENERAL UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 91R-48 and 91R-49 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS BI - B2 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7t 1991 -
DECISION DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1991 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
FEBRUARY 28, 1991:
B1.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4110, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: DAVID ALLEN AND REON BOYDSTUN YOUNGS, 519 N. Pine Way,
Anaheim, CA 92805.
LOCATION/REQUEST: 519 N. Pine Way. Property is approximately 8,740
square feet located on the west side of Pine Way approximately 177
feet north of the centerline of Sycamore Street.
Waiver of minimum rear yard setback to construct a 720 square foot
2-story addition to an existing single-family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4110 APPROVED (ZA91-07).
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
113
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
B2.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4106:
OWNER: HILL WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT CORP., 175 Riverview Drive, Suite
200, Anaheim, CA 92808
AGENT: FRANK GONZALES & ASSOCIATES, 1336 Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA
92666
LOCATION/REQUEST: Subject property consists of approximately 5.03
acres located on the east side of Henning Way approximately 1,100 feet
south of the centerline of Arboretum Road (Tract No. 11600).
Nunc pro tunc decision to add a condition to Decision No. ZA 91-05.
Property is located south side of the centerline of Arborteum Road.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved nunc pro tunc Amendment to Variance No. 4106 (ZA91-08).
End of the Zoning Administrator Items.
B3. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-14 AND VARIANCE NO. 3611,REQUEST FOR
EXTENSIONS OF TIME:
Request submitted by Thomas Kieviet, Farano & Kieviet on behalf of the
Desai Family, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340, Anaheim, CA
92805.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2240 West Lincoln Avenue
approximately 0.8 acres located 160 feet southerly of the south side
of Lincoln Avenue and 530 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst
Street. The petitioner is requesting an extension of time for
Reclassification No. 86-87-14 and Variance No. 3611, retroactive to
February 3, 1990, and to expire February 3, 1992.
Reclassification No. 86-87-14 is for a change in zone from CL to
RM-1200 and Variance No. 3611 is to construct a 34-unit affordable
apartment complex with code waivers of required lot frontage, minimum
site area per dwelling unit, maximum building height and maximum site
coverage.
This matter was continued from the meetings of December 4, 1990, December 18,
1990 and February 5, 1991 to this date.
Council Member Simpson. He asked that the matter be continued one more time.
He had asked that it be continued the last time in order to meet with the
owner's representative. He has done so and he and the attorney for the
applicant are still in contact. Council Member Daly and he are also going to
set up another meeting to see if it is possible to master plan the entire
site - that is the goal.
Council Member Simpson moved to continue the request for extensions of time on
the subject to Tuesday, March 19, 1991. Council Member Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Cl. 108: HEARING - JOLLY ROGER HOTEL TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX :
Submitted was report dated February 8, 1991 from City Treasurer, Mary Turner
recommending that the Council deny the request of the Jolly Roger Inn for
abatement of penalty in the amount of $8,674.38.
114
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Mr. Chris Young, Controller, Jolly Roger Inn. He knows that the November
payment was late since it was postmarked January 2, 1991; however, the lateness
of the September and October payments was due to the complexity involved with a
change of ownership. There was no intention to make late payments.
Mario Delessi, Manager, Jolly Roger Inn. He is present to attest to some of
the problems that occurred and to ask for an adjustment to the penalties
assessed for September and October. The problem arose due to the sale of the
Jolly Roger and the death of Mr. Dully. The Jolly Roger was supposed to be
sold in July. It never came to pass and it was not sold until the middle of
September. Due to the complications involving the estate, it may not have been
sold at all. He was gone from the Jolly Roger the month of October and was,
therefore, not able to assist in the situation.
City Treasurer, Mary Turner. Answering the Mayor, her recommendation to deny
remains the same. Pursuant to the provisions of the governing ordinance, it is
clear that the postmark date is the date of receipt. Based on the ordinance,
she still recommends denial.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Hunter closed the
Hearing.
Council Member Pickler moved to deny the request for abatement and that the
penalty assessed in the amount of $8,674.38 is due and payable. Council Member
Daly seconded the motion for purposes of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Daly asked if the business had a
history of late payments or timely prior to the ownership change.
Mary Turner. She does not have that information readily available. The tax
collected each month is due and payable 30 days beyond the due date. Even with
a change in ownership, the ordinance is very clear as to the due date.
Council Member Pickler. It seems that hotels wait until the very last day to
pay the tax. They have the opportunity to pay well before the deadline but do
not do so. He does not feel the ordinance should be compromised with the
consequence being that everyone will ask for the same consideration; Council
Member Ehrle agreed.
Mayor Hunter. He understands the necessity for the ordinance but feels that
sometimes there are mitigating circumstances. Mr. Dully owned the Jolly Roger
at the corner of Harbor and Katella before Walt Disney built Disneyland. He
was getting ready to retire but died on a fishing trip. He was one of the
pioneers of the City. Due to his untimely death, there was turmoil and a
question on whether or not the hotel and restaurant had been or would be sold.
He reiterated he feels that the circumstances of the case warrant
consideration.
Council Member Pickler again expressed his concern that allowing an exception
will open a "Pandora's Box" and other requests will have to be honored as well;
Council Member Daly. He feels there are extenuating circumstances in this
115
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
case. If he sees a trend of abuse and hotel properties starting to appeal
penalties on a regular basis, he will be tougher than anybody. In this case,
however, there are extenuating circumstances and it is appropriate to forgive
the penalty.
Additional council discussion followed relative to whether or not it was
appropriate to waive the penalty considering the unusual circumstances involved
at the conclusion of which, Council Member Ehrle stated that to forgive the
penalty in total would be wrong and that a penalty of some amount should be
assessed perhaps 1/2 or $4,300.00.
Chris Young. He feels there was negligence relative to the November payment
but due to the circumstances, that the penalty assessed for September and
October payment should be waived; Mrs. Turner stated that the penalty for
November is $2,517.92.
Council Member Ehrle proposed a motion that a penalty be assessed for the month
of November only.
City Attorney White interjected and noted that a motion was still on the floor
which needed to be acted upon first.
A vote was then taken on the motion by Council Member Pickler, seconded by
Council Member Daly to deny the request for abatement of penalties on late
payments assessed for the month of September, October and November 1990. The
motion failed to carry by the following vote. Ayes: Pickler Noes: Simpson,
Daly, Ehrle and Hunter.
City Attorney White. If a motion is made to abate all or a portion of the
penalty, it will require a finding that the abatement is necessary to avoid a
substantial injustice to the operator of the hotel and will further require a
4/5's vote to pass.
MOTION: Council Member Ehrle moved to assess the penalty on the late payment
for the month of November, 1990 for $2,517.92 and that the penalty on the late
payments for September and October be waived ($6,156.46) finding that the
abatement is necessary to avoid a substantial injustice to the operator of the
hotel. Council Member Pickler voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
C2. 108: HEARING - ANAHEIM HILTON AND TOWERS TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX:
Submitted was report dated February 8, 1991 from the City Treasurer, Mary
Turner recommending denial of the request of Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Towers
for abatement of penalty in the amount $34,121.98.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from a representative
of Anaheim Hilton and Towers or anyone who wished to speak to the issue; there
was no response.
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to deny the request for abatement of
penalties on late payment assessed for the month of November 1990 in the amount
$34,121.98 and that the amount is due and payable. Council Member Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
116
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991. 5:00 P.M.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Ron Bengochea, 1751 S. Nutwood. He thanked the Mayor and Council Members for
backing the DARE program. He referred to the ceremonies that were held at the
Celebrity Theatre for all the schools which he felt was an impressive program.
Mayor Hunter stated that over 600 children graduated in the DARE program from
the various city schools. They were brought together at the Celebrity Theatre
under the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program (DARE). He briefed the
program that took place.
Domenic DeMaria, 6758 Leafwood. Relative to the water ordinance adopted
earlier, he has a question regarding new hookups on the water system. There
are many citizens living in Anaheim for many years who are being asked to
curtail water usage but yet there are large tracts of new homes being built by
developers. He wants to know what is being done as far as mitigation of new
developments and water hookups, a good example being the proposed 8,000 home
development by the Irvine Company in Gypsum or Coal Canyon.
Council Member Daly. He requested that the Utilities Department staff and
Planning Department staff coordinate with the City Manager and get a response
back to Mr. DeMaria on his question.
Carl Bunch, 15900 Calara Court, Fountain Valley. He submitted a packet of
information to the Council on a project he is promoting called 'Rally
America'. It is proposing a telethon to raise funds for the families of those
involved in Desert Storm. Some of the families are at the point where they
have lost their homes or have to move back with their parents because of lost
of income. He is asking the Council to examine the material and will leave it
open for the Council to contact him regarding this important issue.
172:
PUBLIC HEARING - AUDRE DRIVE CLOSURE:
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at Audre Drive, between
Hampstead Street and Jeffrey Drive.
The request is to waive Council Policy 209, and to consider the
temporary closure of Audre Drive to vehicular traffic only in the
Jeffrey/Lynne area. The street will remain open for public use and be
converted into open/recreation space. The time span for this
temporary closure is 12 months.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 14, 1991
117
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated February 14, 1991 from the Director of Parks, Recreation
and Community Services recommending that the Council order a temporary closure
of Audre Drive to vehicular traffic between Jeffrey Drive and Hampstead Street
for a 12 month period and to waive Council Policy $209.
Steve Swaim, Superintendent, Community Services. At the Council workshop of
February 12, 1991, a presentation was made to the Council on the proposed
closure of Audre Drive for the development of a recreation area open space in
the Jeffrey Lynne neighborhood. (See minutes that date.) There has been a
great deal of public participation relative to the design of the proposed
recreation area and many City departments have been involved in the overall
planning process. On December 18, 1990, the City Council adopted an EIR
Negative Declaration for the Jeffrey Lynne area parksite general development
relative to any environmental concerns. It is appropriate tonight to hold a
public hearing on the issue. There already has been a great deal of input -
some people who are enthusiastic about the project, and others who are not.
City Attorney White. For the record, the CEQA has been complied with for this
project by approval of a Negative Declaration of the project on December 18,
1990 as stated by Mr. Swaim.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing.
Ron Bengochea. He has concerns if the street is closed how the Utility
Easements will be maintained as well as how street sweeping will be
accomplished. He does not like to see children get comfortable with playing in
the street. He is not sure it is the safest way to go.
Steve Swaim. The design before the Council does take into consideration
openings for maintenance vehicles - street sweepers as well as police and fire
vehicles. They also informed Southern California Edison of the concept they
are proposing for the street and Edison has no problem with that proposal.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak Mayor Hunter closed the
public hearing.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (91R-50)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered the Resolution No. 91R-50 for adoption, approving
closure of Audre Drive to vehicular traffic. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CLOSING AUDRE DRIVE TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
118
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-50 duly passed and adopted.
176:
PUBLIC ~RARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 90-18A:
To consider abandoning those certain vehicular access rights to and
from the north side of Monte Vista Road, west of Weir Canyon Road
(dedicated to the City on Parcel Map 84-233) (Abandonment No.
90-18A). (Bedford Dev. Co. of Tustin.)
At their meeting of January 15, 1991, (Item A3) the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 91R-6 declaring the intention to vacate those
certain vehicular access rights to and from the north side of Monte
Vista Road, west of Weir Canyon Road (dedicated to the City on Parcel
Map 84-233) (Abandonment No. 90-18A).
In accordance with application filed by Bedford Development Company of Tustin,
public hearing was held on a proposed abandonment of certain vehicular access
rights to and from the north side of Monte Vista Road, west of Weir Canyon Road
dedicated to the City on Parcel Map 84-233 pursuant to Resolution No. 91R-6
duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices they are posted in
accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated December 28, 1990 was submitted recommending
approval of set abandonment.
Frank Hardcastle, Real Property Specialist. Staff is recommending approval of
the proposed 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 Pickler, seconded by Council Member Daly the City Council determined
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. (91R-51)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 91R-51 for adoption, approving
vacating vehicular access rights to Monte Vista Road. Refer to Resolution
Book.
119
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-51: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
VACATING VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO MONTE VISTA ROAD. (90-18A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-51 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-19 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
This is a City initiated reclassification.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2625 West Lincoln Avenue
and is approximately 1.04 acres on the north side of Lincoln Avenue
approximately 270 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue.
The request is for a change in zone from RM-1200 to RM-2400 or less
intense zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 90-91-19 GRANTED, as modified to RM-3000
(PC91-01) (5 yes votes, 2 no votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal was submitted by Jay Culver through the Law Offices of J.
Cranor Richter.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 14, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 14, 1991
Posting of property February 15, 1991
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
see Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 14, 1991.
APPELLANT'S
STATEMENT:
J. Cranor Richter, Attorney Representing the applicants (Mr. &
Mrs. Jay Culver). The Culvers have owned the property for 13
years. The property gains access through Lincoln but it is
landlocked in all other directions. The current effort to
reclassify the property to RM3000 should be denied because the
use of the property as low-medium density is incompatible and
inappropriate for this property. He referred to the pictures of
the property previously submitted to the Council. He reiterated,
the property is in the midst of a commercial area and that is
creating a problem for the development. Being landlocked, it is
suitable to only commercial development. If the property is to
remain residential, they are asking the Council to consider not
RM3000, but at a minimum approve RM2400. It will not make a
120
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5~00 P.M.
commercial property residential but there will then be hope of a
productive development for the property. They are asking that
the current application be denied since the property is not
residential, it is commercial.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from those who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN OPPOSITION:
Joseph LaRoche, 199 N. Magnolia, President, Carbon Creek
Homeowners Association (to the north of the subject property).
The homeowners do not know exactly what the developers trying to
do with the property. Ail along they have been led to believe
the developer wants to build apartments. In the interest of
having the property look the same as the Carbon Creek property,
they felt RM2400 or RM3000 was acceptable. Since that time, the
residents have found out the developer wants to put commercial on
the property. There is no problem but he is still trying to
determine what is being proposed. At the Planning Commission
hearing, the developer stated there was no intention of making
the property commercial.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Answering Council
Member Pickler, she stated the only development proposal staff
has received was the CUP for a 36-unit deck type apartment
project on the RM1200 zoning which exists on the property. As a
result of that, the City initiated a less dense zoning in order
to preclude that from happening in the future. If the developer
is interested in commercial, the planning staff has not been
presented with any such development proposal.
Mr. Richter. The Culvers would like to put units on the
property. The property is suited to commercial because of its
location. An RM2400 development would possibly work based on its
location. The earlier application was made by an individual the
Culvers sold the property to. It was not the Culvers intent to
develop the property in that manner. Currently, the Culvers have
no plans but would like to keep their options open. The City-
initiated reclassification is going to affect the Culvers
rights. They are trying to make sure the zoning is structured to
keep the property into a designation where it can be properly
developed. He heard the Carbon Creek Homeowners say they would
be happy with RM2400. That could also work for Mr. & Mrs.
Culver. There are no plans at this time but they would like to
put units on the property. If it goes to RM3000, they would have
to seek commercial. If rezoned to RM2400, they would make every
effort to have a development consistent with what the Carbon
Creek Homeowners would like.
Council Member Daly. Redesignation to commercial is not on the
Council's agenda tonight. If at some future date the developer
wants to talk to the neighbors and ask for commercial zoning,
121
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
that can be proposed through normal channels. He suggests before
asking the City, that the owner/developer show the plans to the
neighbors. Ail that is before the Council tonight is a
reclassification from high density to low density and the owner
is appealing that proposal.
Mr. Richter. What is before the Council is to down zone to
RM2400 and that is the request he is making at this time.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She explained for Mr.
LaRoche if the property is rezoned to RM2400 at this location
they could go up to 18 units per acre and under the RM3000 zone
up to 14.57 units per acre.
Joseph LaRoche. The residents have never been presented with a
plan and have no idea what kind of complex is proposed. To make
an intelligent decision, they would have to look at specific
plans. He would like the property to stay at RM3000 until some
point in the future. If they want to build something commercial,
that may be acceptable but he does not want to wake up one
morning to find a high density apartment project on that site.
David Goldberg, 193 North Magnolia. They have attended prior
Planning Commission hearings. Although they are totally opposed
to residential units being built, it appears that is inevitable.
Thus, they are in support of the Planning Commission's approval
of RM3000. The area is already densely populated with both
residential and commercial. Any large residential structure
would greatly affect the privacy of Carbon Creek residents. A
large complex would also increase the traffic problems already
existing at Magnolia and Lincoln. He urged the Council to
support the decision of the Planning Commission.
Lee Newman, 181-B Magnolia. He favors commercial development
but, if not, he wants RM3000 zoning and not RM2400.
Dan Gerber, 185-D North Magnolia. He supports the Planning
Commission's decision that the property be rezoned to RM3000.
SUMMATION BY APPELLANT:
J. Cranor Richter. Mr. & Mrs. Culver would strongly support a
reclassification to RM2400 with the provision that they be
required to take their plans to the Carbon Creek Homeowners
Association in order to work some arrangements with them to make
sure it is compatible with what they are looking for. If the
ultimate development would be towards units, they would build
them in the same style as the Carbon Creek development. He is
requesting approval of RM2400 zoning with that condition.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Hunter closed the
public hearing.
122
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
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 - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (91R-52)
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. 91R-52 for adoption, approving
Reclassification 90-91-19 to the RM3000 zone. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN
ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-52 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2269 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND
DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS:
The request was submitted by Paul Norris, Vice President of LA Fitness
Center.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2560 E. Katella Avenue.
The petitioner is requesting a review and approval of revised plans to
permit a hair salon in a previously approved physical fitness center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
DENIED by the Planning Commission.
Informational item at the meeting of February 5, 1991, Item B7.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal was submitted by the applicant, Paul Norris, LA Fitness and
public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 14, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 14, 1991
Posting of property February 15, 1991
123
City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Doug Hayes, 4907 Hillside Avenue, Orange. His wife is the owner
of the hair salon as well as the operator. She is the only
operator in the shop. They are seeking an extension on the CUP
so that she can get a license to keep the beauty shop in the LA
Fitness Facility. The hours are 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. There is no
problem with parking until after 4:30 p.m. This operation is not
creating or increasing a problem. The problem is the parking at
LA Fitness. Her patrons are people who are members of LA
Fitness. They are not soliciting for outside business but
strictly people within the facility. They are not advertising in
the paper and are doing nothing to promote the business. The
days of operation are Monday through Saturday. She has been a
member of the facility for 11 years. Her clientele is that
facility. He reiterated it is a one person operation, not five,
six or seven chairs.
Paul Norris, Vice President, LA Fitness Center. To alleviate the
parking problem they have leased some adjoining property from the
County. They have contracted to use that property during peak
hours. It contains 55 parking spaces. LA Fitness has 125 spaces
on site. Also immediately adjacent to the club in an office park
they have contracted for 51 spaces giving an additional 106
spaces in total from 5:00 p.m. to Midnight five days a week. In
addition they have acquired a second facility in Anaheim at
Euclid and Katella of approximately 20,000 square feet. It has
400 to 500 spaces with similar amenities to the subject
facility. The goal is to help alleviate the parking from the
subject facility. Patrons will now have another facility to go
to only 3 1/2 miles away. He then explained other steps they
have taken with regard to parking and patrolling of their lots.
The extra services they are providing to their patrons brings
additional sales tax to the City and additional services to their
membership.
Mr. Norris and Hayes then answered questions posed by Council
Men%bet Pickler. It would be difficult to close the hair salon at
4:30 p.m. instead of 5:00 p.m. That additional time is needed.
They would be receptive to that restriction if it was deemed
necessary. There are two chairs and two dryers in the business
but only one operator. The 1/2 hour from 4:30 to 5~00 has little
effect because the people who utilize the business are already on
the premises. No one is coming to the salon specifically to get
their hair cut. They would also be receptive to the Council
placing a restriction using one chair only if necessary.
Georgia Ann Lovett, 5150 East Cherry Wood, Orange. She has been
a customer of Carolyn's (owner of beauty salon) for 17 years.
She has also been going to her business since she has been
located at LA Fitness. There are never more than two people
there at one time. Regardless of whether or not they allow the
business to stay it will not effect the parking problem but will
effect a very nice lady who has been building a business for many
124
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
years. She (Lovett) does not work out at LA Fitness. She
specifically goes to the salon because she was part of the
clientele at the former location in Orange. She is an exception
because other clients are members of LA Fitness.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Council Member Hunter moved to approve revised plans to permit a hair salon in
a previously approved physical fitness center. Council Member Daly seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: REHEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4091 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: RICK BYERS and KATHY BYERS, 4590 MacArthur Blvd., ~550,
Newport Beach, CA 92660.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2831 West Ball Road and
is approximately 0.48 acres located on the north side of Ball Road and
approximately 440 feet west of the centerline of Dale Ave.
The request is for waivers of minimum number of parking spaces,
minimum floor area per dwelling unit and minimum distance between
building walls to retain an illegal dwelling unit within existing
12-unit apartment complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4091 was denied PC90-251 - 4 yes votes, 2 no votes.
Approved Negative Declaration.
A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by the
owners, Rick and Kathy Byers and public hearing scheduled before the City
Council on November 27, 1990. At that meeting, the City Council denied the
request for Variance No. 4091. Subsequent to the public hearing before the
Council, a request for rehearing was submitted by the owners, Rick and Kathy
Byers. The request for the rehearing was continued from the meeting of January
8 to January 15, 1991. On January 15, the request for a rehearing was denied
by the Council.
At the request of Council Member Ehrle, on February 5, 1991 the City Council
reconsidered the request for a rehearing and granted such request and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 14, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 14, 1991
Posting of property February 15, 1991
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated October 22, 1990.
City Attorney Jack White. If the applicant will agree to incorporate all the
evidence and testimony taken at the previous hearing (see minutes of
November 27, 1990) new and additional information could be presented without
125
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
the need to repeat the evidence and testimony given at the previous hearing.
Council Member Ehrle. He urged the rehearing on this matter. Mr. Byers
indicated there was new testimony to be given which he (Ehlre) would like to
hear and the Council can then make a decision on the matter.
James Barone, Agent for the owner. He first agreed to the incorporation into
the record of the testimony and evidence given at the hearing of November 27,
1990. The new information is that they immediately checked with the
Redevelopment Agency and found that there is certain criteria for establishing
the definition of a low-income housing unit. What the applicant proposes is
that unit ~13, which is an illegal unit built 13 to 15 years ago, be
reclassified as one where the tenancy is limited to one who qualifies pursuant
to the City's definition of a low-income individual to retain occupancy of that
unit. In doing so, they would preserve someone living in that unit who does
have an affordability problem. Eliminating that unit is not going to alleviate
any substantial parking problem that exists in the area. In addition, the
applicant agrees to the other 19 interdepartmental conditions as listed in the
October 22, 1990 report to the Planning Commission, a number of which are quite
financially burdensome. In addition, they would suggest that the unit stay as
a low-income unit.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She confirmed for the Mayor that the
Council can add the condition that the unit be designated as an affordable
housing unit.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Hunter 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. 91R-53)
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. 91R-53 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 4091 subject to 19 interdepartmental conditions as listed in the
October 22, 1990 report to the Planning Commission and an added condition that
the unit (unit 13) be a iow-income affordable housing unit. Refer to
Resolution Book.
126
City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-53: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 4091 AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 90R-419 (REHEARING).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-53 duly passed and adopted.
155: PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-1:
OWNER: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 19 Corporate Plaza,
Newport Beach, CA 92660.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The subject property consists of approximately 8.0
acres generally bounded by The Highlands Development Areas 6 and 7 on
the north, Serrano Avenue on the south, and further described as
Development Area 8 of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
SP87-1.
The petitioner is requesting an amendment to Ordinance No. 4860
pertaining to The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1
Code Section 18.70.030.) to revise the methods and procedures to allow
for the processing of a parcel map prior to site plan approval and
amending Ordinance No. 4861 (Condition Nos. 3 and 5) to require
submission of precise plans prior to site plan approval. Subject
property consists of approximately 8.0 acres generally bounded by The
Highlands Development Areas 6 and 7 on the north and the extension of
Serrano Avenue to the south and further described as Development Area
8 of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Amendment No. I to The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan No.
87-1 APPROVED (PC90-247) subject to condition that no commercial
parcel less than eight acres may be approved without accompanying site
plan review and approval; and an additional condition regarding
recordation of unsubordinated convenant. (6 yes votes, 1 absent.)
Informational item from the meeting of November 13, 1990, Item Bi.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 14, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 14, 1991
Posting of property February 15, 1991
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated October 22, 1990.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. David Boyle, Engineer, Presley Company.
answer any questions.
He was present to
127
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter then asked to hear from those who wished to speak either in favor
or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hunter noted that the requested amendments are technical in nature.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - EIR NO. 273: On motion by Council Member Hunter,
seconded by Council Member Ehrle, the City Council finds that Environmental
Impact Report No. 273 for the Highlands at Anaheim Hills certified June 23,
1987 by the City Council address the Environmental Impacts and mitigation
measures associated with the development of the commercial site (Development
Area 8) and, therefore, EIR No. 273 is adequate to serve as the environmental
documentation for the development of the commercial site and that the request
neither changes the intended use or intensity of the land. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (91R-54)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 91R-54 for adoption, amending
Specific Plan 87-1. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING AND ADDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-1 FOR THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS, AND AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-253 ACCORDINGLY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-54 duly passed and adopted.
OP/)INANCE NO. 5206 - INTRODUCTION: ~unendment No. 1 to the Highlands at Anaheim
Hills Specific Plan No. 87-1.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance 5206 for first reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5206: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 18.70.030 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL AND ADDING A CONDITION TO ORDINANCE NO. 4861 RELATING TO SPECIFIC
PLAN 87-1 ZONING (THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS).
155: PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 280 PREY. CERTIFIED.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SP88-3 SANTA FE PACIFIC PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN - REVISED SITE
PLAN:
OWNER: CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT, 1065 North Pacific Center Drive, Suite
200, Anaheim, CA 92806.
128
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26. 1991. 5:00 P.M.
AGENT: PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE, 27132-B PASEO ESPADA, STE. 1222, San
Juan Capistrano, CA 92675.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is approximately 26 acres located at
the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue.
The request is to permit the addition of 'warehouse and distribution
facility in support of permitted on-site office uses' and 'indoor
physical recreational facilities in support of permitted on-site
office uses' as accessory uses and structures for Development Area 1.
Informational item at the meeting of February 5, 1991, Item B3.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 14, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 14, 1991
Posting of property February 15, 1991
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 14, 1991.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. Phil Schwartze, PRS Group, Agent for the applicant
representing Catellus Development. He was present to answer any
questions relative to the proposed amendment request.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished
to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response he closed
the public hearing.
Council Member Pickler asked staff if they had any problems relative to the
proposal; Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that staff nor the
Planning Commission have any problem with the proposed amendment and uses
however, any building on the property is required to go back before the
Planning Commission for review and approval under the specific plan for the
property.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 280 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED): On motion by
Council Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Pickler, Environmental Impact
Report No. 280 certified by the City Council on February 28, 1989 in
conjunction with approval of Specific Plan No. 88-3 address the environmental
impacts and mitigation measures associated with the development and it is
determined that there will be no additional impact from the proposed amendment
and, therefore, the subject request is in conformance with the previously
approved EIR No. 280. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (91R-55)
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. 91R-55 for adoption, amending
Specific Plan No. 88-3. Refer to Resolution Book.
129
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-3 FOR SANTA FE PACIFIC PLAZA AND AMENDING
RESOLUTION NOS. 89R-59 AND 89R-60 ACCORDINGLY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-55 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 5207 - INTRODUCTION: Amendment No. i to SP88-3, Santa Fe Pacific
Plaza Specific Plan, revised site plan.
Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5207 for first reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5207: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 18.73.020.100 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
SPECIFIC PLAN 88-3 ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 5045 AND 5046 ACCORDINGLY
(SANTA FE PACIFIC PLAZA).
172:
PUBLIC HEARING - JULIANNA STREET CLOSURE:
Accepting public testimony and considering alternatives concerning the
closure of Julianna Street between Citron Street and Harbor Boulevard
as requested by petitioners.
Submitted was report dated February 20, 1991 from the Director of Public Works
and City Engineer Gary Johnson recommending that after hearing public testimony
relative to the proposed closure, that the Council deny the request.
Mayor Hunter asked if the residents were given the two alternatives listed in
the subject report (Alternative No. i and No. 2) with the attendant cost -
Alternative No. 1, a wrought iron fence and gate, $19,500 and No. 2, cul de sac
and wall, $300,000.
Chris Dahl, Principal Traffic Engineer. Both alternatives were submitted to
the neighborhood representative, Mr. Parsons.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Don Parsons, 700 West Julianna. The report by the Traffic Engineering
Department was not well received in the neighborhood. He briefed points that
were not provided in the report relative to traffic. Their neighborhood is
wedged in between the Citron - Hall area and La Palma Park and the Welfare
Department. They are seeing things in their neighborhood that they have not
seen over the years. The petition for the street closure was initiated after
approximately 3 months of continous gang disturbances on the street on the
weekends such as fighting, graffiti, the 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. cul de sac
parties, etc. The police cannot respond to all their complaints. He also
briefed other problems occuring in their neighborhood. That is why they have
130
City Mall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
asked for a wall. The neighborhood is not causing problems, but it is the
neighborhood that has to suffer through those problems. They would like the
City Council to work with them. The street should be closed. The costs for
the closure given by Traffic Engineering, he feels, are ludicrous. Council
Policy 209 should be waived. It is a public safety issue and something needs
to be done.
Melody Lopez, 521 West Julianna. She lives on the other end of Juliana,
furthest away from the apartment area. She relayed an incident which occurred
2 months ago where gang members entered her home and raped her 16 year old
daughter. Her 15 year old son has been beaten up. She does not feel the
police department is being supported unless the street is closed.
Manuel Faulkner, 715 West Julianna. He is in favor of a wall except it would
cut off his and his neighbor's home from the street. He saved 16 years to buy
his home and if a wall is put up and if he is cut off, he will lose substantial
property value. His is the last house on the north side of the street. He
receives the brunt of all the shopping carts, trash and bullets going off on
holidays but he believes it would be completely unfair to cut off his home and
his neighbor's home and put those houses in with apartment buildings. There
has to be another way. He should not be required to take the brunt in
alleviating the problems. The petition that was circulated was not circulated
to him or his neighbor. Another problem in the area is that people put their
trash out before trash day which adds to a lot of the problems.
Rick King, 711 West Julianna. He is the neighbor of Mr. Faulkner. He agrees
with what he said. There are a lot of problems. He could agree to speed bumps
but not a wall. A real estate representative told him he would sustain a
reduction in value. He is against the proposed closure. The only single homes
that would be west of the wall would be his home and his neighbor's home. He
thereupon submitted a photograph handed to him by a person in the audience
showing Julianna Street and his home and Mr. Faulkner's home which would be the
only two houses outside of the closure area if it occurred.
Worth Paulsen, 622 West Julianna. The residents would like to see the
cul de sac that was originally on Julianna put back but as a sidewalk. This
would eliminate the traffic. He has lived there for over 25 years. The
neighborhood at one time was peaceful but since apartments were built to the
west of the area, many with three or four families living in each apartment, it
has changed the neighborhood. The second alternative which would leave the two
houses outside of the closure would not be the way to go. A closure with a
sidewalk area would accomplish the same thing.
Marjorie Leon, 701 West Julianna. She has lived there ever since the houses
were built. There was a cul de sac when they moved in and that was the reason
they bought the house. Subsequently the street was cut through and they
attended many Council meetings to stop that from happening some 28 years ago.
The two houses beyond the cul de sac were moved onto the street. The value of
the properties have dropped considerably since the apartments were built. When
they were first built, they were nice but since have deteriorated. There is
loud music, drinking, shooting, drugs and drug trafficking. Something needs to
be done.
131
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. It is his understanding that Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director
of Community Development has been working on some issues in that area.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She is involved
with the area in terms of Community Development. The subject area is not in
the Redevelopment Project area but the Block Grant Area under the Patrick Henry
Neighborhood Council. It was a part of the original AIP Program. They were
finally successful in revitalizing the Park Vista (Chevy Chase) area, but are
still working on the adjacent area. Staff is currently working on an urban
design plan doing some of the things done with the Park Vista Project. Staff
has also been working with the owners as well. The issue of the wall is not
something they have studied that closely. They would not have any problem with
a barrier or cul de sac approach from strictly a planning perspective. They
want the people to know they have been working quite extensively in that
neighborhood and do have a long-range plan to submit to the Council shortly.
What they are working on now is a way to finance the plan and make it happen.
They do want to bring to the Council the physical design issues.
Answering Council Member Daly, Mrs. Stipkovich stated the area she is talking
about is the apartment area and not the single family areas - basically from
Citron, Julianna, Hall and Victor. Bertha Chavoya, Housing Manager assisted
Mrs. Stipkovich in pointing to the areas involved working from an aerial map.
Mrs. Stipkovich then answered questions posed by Council members. Staff thus
far has only been working with apartment owners because that is where the
problem has been. The plan they are submitting would be to improve apartment
properties and also to recommend closure of streets. One was not going to be
Julianna. If people are interested in staff pursuing how some type of barrier
or physical delineation between single family and multiple family areas could
be worked out, that is something that could be addressed by the land use
planning firm they are presently working with. There may be some way to do it
where vehicular traffic is prevented but not necessarily creating a 'Berlin
Wall". One of the key issues is a traffic flow issue and they are not working
on that aspect at the present time. If the Council would like Community
Development to look at any kind of planning solution, they are capable of doing
that. Community Development is presently involved in trying to solve some of
the problems in the area.
Council Member Daly. If Community Development is working right next door in
the aDartm~nt ne£ghborhood~ and a Drofessional architect and land-use 91anner
is working with staff, it would be beneficial to look at Julianna all the way
through to LaPalma to see if they can incorporate some of the solutions
including what one of the gentlemen suggested, i.e., a sidewalk closure instead
of a wall. There are all kinds of alternatives that can be explored.
Lisa Stipkovich. Staff will be happy to do that and to involve the
neighborhood in that discussion.
Don Parsons. He is concerned that everyone wants to help out the apartments
but not single family areas. The single family areas are not the cause of the
problems. Problems are coming from the apartments and going to the apartments
with the single-family areas bearing the brunt of those problems.
132
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. Through Community Development, the City is looking at some
long-range goals to clean-up the whole area. If the area was cleaned up there
would be no need for a gated community. Instead of doing something in haste it
is necessary to give some time, perhaps 30 days in order to get together with
the Community and come back with a plan.
Mark Hepner, 605 Julianna. It is necessary to be persistent in trying to solve
the problems otherwise nothing will happen.
Council Member Daly asked if there was a way to organize a meeting with the
residents of Julianna Street, the single family portion, to inform them what
Community Development has been doing in the area and incorporate the residents
into the planning effort.
Lisa Stipkovich. Answering Council Member Daly, she stated that staff could
set something up as early as next week. Typically on issues such as this they
have held meetings at the Patrick Henry School. She can make arrangements to
get a room at the school making it convenient for the people. A notice can be
sent by house-to-house flyers or a mailer to people on Julianna and Victor.
Notices will be sent to everybody in that area. A meeting can be set within a
week or two.
ADDITIONAL INPUT WAS THEN RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE:
Fred Helmack, Huntington Beach. He owns the property at 710 - 714 Julianna,
the first property west of the proposed barrier on the south side. It is six
individual family units on one lot. He was not contacted by the homeowners who
circulated the petition. He feels a barrier will create a danger for the
children in the apartments west of the barrier because they will be forced to
go up to Victor and down Harbor or walk along La Palma to get to school.
Kathy Driscoll, 1302 West Colonial. To put up a wall when there is a gang
problem is not a good idea. Problems have been increasing for years. Streets
are over crowded. A hedge instead of a wall placed further down the street
would be better than a wall and people would not be isolated.
Mike Kimroe, 14201 Bowen, Garden Grove. He owns property at 623 Victor. If
Julianna is blocked off, the problem will transfer to Victor which is also
heavily traveled. When there is a traffic study done it should also take into
account Julianna and adjoining streets. Trying to solve one problem will cause
a negative impact to other areas.
Mr. Santos, 705 West Julianna. He does not feel a wall is going to help. A
speed bump will help more.
Denise Burns, 625 West Victor. Trying to clean-up the apartments is not going
to happen next week. Park Vista is beautiful but she questions why she has to
sit in her neighborhood and be exposed to all the activities that are going on
- rapes, drug activity - selling and use, etc. If Julianna is blocked off,
Victor street will suffer because the problems will only escalate on Victor.
She would like to see something done as soon as possible and not in the future.
133
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26. 1991. 5:00 P.M.
Joe Cherko, 1785 Pheasant Street. Six years ago he was involved in the closure
of Kensington and Temple wherein the residents petitioned the City to close off
the streets which was done. He supports the people in their request today.
There is a tremendous problem in the City and they cannot let it continue.
They continue to have problems in his neighborhood even though the streets were
closed. The problems transferred to another street. The police are doing a
good job but there are not enough to go around.
Nancy Holloway. Her parents have lived at 520 West Victor since 1955. She is
present on their behalf. They are 78 and 80 years old. It is out of the
question for them to move. Property values have deteriorated over the last 15
years and especially the last 5 years because of what is happening in the
neighborhood. More and more liquor licenses are being granted in the small
strip commercial center at the corner of Victor and Harbor. The 24-hour
laundromat has a lot of drug traffic. She relayed incidents that have taken
place. She would like to see more restrictions on that commercial strip.
Further, if Julianna is closed, Victor has to be closed also.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hunter. As discussed the Community Development Department will contact
the residents in the Victor - Hall - Julianna area and set up a neighborhood
meeting at Patrick Henry School. Subsequently a report is to be submitted to
the Council with the results to be considered and discussed at a future Council
meeting.
Before concluding, Council Members expressed their appreciation to the
residents for coming to the Council and addressing issues of concern to them.
ADJOURNMENT: Council Member Hunter moved to adjourn. Council Member Daly
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:12 p.m.)
ANN M. SAUVAGEAU, CITY CLERK
134