1990/03/20City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER: Art Daw
CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Ftck
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Anntka Santalahti
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:40 p.m. on March 16, 1990 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION; City Attorney Jack White requested a closed
session to consider the following items:
mo
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.
Campanula Properties Inc. vs. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 61-46-64; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City
of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 61-46-82;
Los Angeles Rams Football Company Inc. vs. City of Anaheim, et al.,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 61-46-75.
City of Anaheim vs. County of Orange
To meet with and ~ive directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters pursuant
to Government Code Section 54957.
do
To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
Mo
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.
253
Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS; Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Pickler, and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting. (5:32 p.m.).
INVOCATION: Pastor Don Crider,. Free Methodist Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Tom Daly led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS; A Declaration of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Ron Dominguez on
being named Americana Man of the Year, 1990, by Cypress College. Mr.
Dominguez was personally congratulated by the Mayor and Council Members.
MINUTES: Approval of the Minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,515,541.91 for the week
ending March 16, 1990, in accordance with the 1989-90 budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES; The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos.
90R-79 through 90R-81, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance Nos. 5104
through 5106, both inclusive, for adoption.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR; On motion by Councilman Hunter,
seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Hunter offered
Resolution Nos. 90R-79 through 90R-81, both inclusive, for adoption; and
Ordinance Nos. 5104 through 5106, both inclusive, for adoption.
Al. 118. The following claims were filed against the City and action taken
as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Robert L. Benedict for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 25, 1989.
b. Claim submitted by Stephante E. Seipp for property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 15, 1990.
A2. 105/174: Receiving and filing minutes of the joint meeting between
the Senior Citizens Commission, Community Services Board and Community
Development Block Grant Committee held November 4, 1989, regarding Human
Services Needs Assessment and Action Plan.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting
held December 14, 1989.
105/150: Receiving and filing minutes of the joint meetings between the
Senior Citizens Commission, Community Services Board and Community
254
229
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTgS - March 20, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Services Division Staff held January 11, 1990, and January 25, 1990, regarding
Human Services Needs Assessment and Action Plan.
156: Receiving and filing Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance
Analysis for the month of January, 1990.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting
held February 8, 1990.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting
held February 8, 1990.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held
February 15, 1990.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission
meeting held February 28, 1990.
A3. 169: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Excel Paving Company, in the amount of $1,068,712.76 (for Alternate A -
Asphalt) for Broadway Street and Storm Drain Improvements from 500 feet west
of Harbor Boulevard to Manchester Avenue.
Councilwoman Kaywood posed questions which were answered by Staff relative to
the economics of justifying asphalt vs. concrete.
A4. 164: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Hillside Contractors, in the amount of $6,566 for Patrick Henry Ramps
Romneya Drive, Harbor Boulevard to Ralston Street, a HUD funded project.
A5. 123: Awarding to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Heritage
Construction Company, in the amount of $97,475 for Cerro Vista Way Storm Drain
Improvement Santa Aha Canyon Road to Cerro Vista Drive.
A6. 158: Approving an agreement with Soil and Testing Engineers, Inc., at an
amount not to exceed $200,000 per annum, renewable at one year intervals for a
maximum of four y~ar~, for testing, inspection and consulting services for
Capital Improvement Projects.
A7. 123: Authorizing the payment of $248,960 to Melville Gene Kannard
pursuant to agreement on file, for modifications to his building located at
746 North Anaheim Boulevard - North Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening Project
- R/W 3500-52.
A8. 176: Approving a First Amendment to Agreement with Eberhardt and Stone,
Inc., to revise the fee schedule to reflect the fee increases for testing and
inspection services for the 1990 calendar year.
A9, 160; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-79; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
255
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (89-12A)
Al0. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agentto
negotiate and issue purchase orders as required without advertising or
solicitation of sealed bids in .an amount not to exceed $98,000 for eight
passenger vehicles for various City departments.
Ail. 160: Accepting the bid of Los Angeles Freightliner/GMC, in the amount
of $88,206.63 for one "bulb snatcher" aerial truck, in accordance with bid
#4783.
Al2. 160/123: Accepting the bid of and approving an agreement with American
Transformer Corporation, in the amount of $16,100 for the lot purchase of
current surplus transformers; and in the amount of 70¢ per transformer KVA for
the purchase of additional transformers as they are declared surplus for a
period of one year from the date of execution of the agreement, in accordance
with bid #4767.
Al3. 123: Approving an agreement with Oliver, Stoever, Barr and Vose to
provide legal services in connection with eminent domain proceedings.
Al4. 123: Approving an Affordable Housing Agreement with
CWDOC-Schultz-Catalpa-90 (Century West Development, Orange County, Inc.) for 6
affordable units (out of 18 senior apartment units) on property located at
1680 Catalpa Drive. (In connection with CUP No. 3176.)
Al5. 161.177: Approving the Redevelopment Housing 20% Set-Aside
Implementation Plan for Fiscal Years 1989-90 and 1990-91.
161.177: RESOLUTION NO, 90R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE USE OF MONIES FROM THE LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREAS FOR THE PROGRAMS
DESCRIBED HEREIN WILL BENEFIT THE PROJECT AREAS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS.
Al6, 150; RESOLUTION NO. 90R-81; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
GITY OF ANAHEIM SUFFORTING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965.
Al7, 170/142; ORDINANCE NOS, 5104, 5105 AND 5106 RELATING TO GRADING AND
AMENDING COUNCIL POLICY 211 RELATING TO GRADING; (1) amending Section
17.04.115 of Chapter 17.04 and Section 17.06.047 of Chapter 17.06 of Title 17
of the Anaheim Municipal Code Relating to Grading - Notice and Hearing, (2)
amending Section 17.04.160 of Chapter 17.04 and Section 17.06.281 of Chapter
17.06 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code Relating to Grading - Decision
of the City Engineer to be final and (3) amending Section 17.06.030 of Chapter
17.06 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code Relating to Grading -
Transitional and Contour grading.
Mr. Patrick Pepper, 269 South Hillcrest, Anaheim, President of Anaheim Hills
256
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
Citizens Coalition (AHCC). Relative to the proposed ordinances, he is
concerned with Ordinance No. 5106 which proposes to grant the City Engineer
the right to interpret Council Policy and to make the final decision regarding
transitional and contour grading. By granting the City Engineer the ability
to do so, it does not allow the. public the opportunity to appeal the decision
to the governing body, the City Council, which body set that Policy. The only
recourse is to file a law suit which is something that nobody wants to see
happen. This is unlike the contour and other grading issues that are
technical in nature. Transitional grading is more aesthetic in nature.
Likewise the Council, by instituting the policy, has no review of how their
policy is being implemented. Their only choice is to fire the City Engineer
if there is no review provision included in the Ordinance. He is asking the
Council to consider including an appeal to the City Council in that particular
Ordinance, Ordinance No. 5106, the portion relating to transitional grading.
Councilwoman Kaywood. It is a good point and she would be concerned with the
Council and City Planning Commission giving up their rights to hold the
hearings for rights of appeal. It is important that the Council keep that
ability.
Councilman Daly asked to hear from the City Attorney regarding Mr. Pepper's
concerns since other cities follow the procedure Staff is recommending.
City Attorney White. The rationale behind bringing this as a Policy issue to
the Council is that under the current Ordinances and Council Policy, the City
Engineer has the authority to approve grading plans. However, the approval of
transitional and contour grading is set forth as being the prerogative of
either the Planning Commission or City Council under the current Ordinance and
Council Policy. All of the other decisions relating to grading are made by
the City Engineer but currently there is no procedure established as to how to
coordinate the City Engineer's approval of all the other grading aspects with
the Planning Commission or City Council's approval of the transitional and
contour grading areas. Another procedure could be instituted establishing
another set of hearings or criteria by which these would be phased decisions
which would add to the layers of government by having some of the decisions
made by the City Engineer, some by the Planning Commission and some by the
City Council. Rather than do that, the Council may by Policy wish to place
all that decision making responsibility as it relates to grading with the City
Engineer. The Policy issue is whether Council wants to continue unto itself
or the Planning Commission making the decision as to the transitional and
contour grading and having that as a separate and distinct process. What Mr.
Pepper stated is correct with regard to the fact that the City Engineer's
decision would be final and subject only to court action as to whether his
decision complied with the Ordinances and Council Policy that the City Council
had enunciated as being criteria he would be guided by.
Councilwoman Kaywood. A law suit would be after the fact and the damage would
already be done; City Attorney White. Timing of the filing of the law suit
would be no different regardless of whether the City Engineer or City Council
or Planning Commission approved it. The procedure would allow the aggrieved
257
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P,M. __
party to seek a restraining order to prohibit the grading activity to be done
pending the law suit. The City Engineer's decision is going to be guided by
the City's Ordinances and Council Policies. A hearing would be required as to
all of the grading plans that would subsequently be issued other than if the
Council adopts Ordinance 5106 which would exempt those for which public
hearings had already been heard as to Development Agreements approved on or
before May 11, 1989. As to everything else, there would be a noticed public
hearing required in front of the City Engineer that would include all aspects
of the grading plan.
Patrick Pepper. He reiterated and emphasized their concern is only with
transitional grading and not with contour grading. He feels the issue is just
as important now as when the original Anaheim Hills development was
presented. There are a few areas in the Mohler Drive area where transitional
grading might be of concern as with a few other lots throughout the hills
where homes would be impacted. It is still a major concern. If there is a
way to separate the transitional from contour grading, that is what he is
asking. They are not questioning the technical expertise of the City Engineer
in the other areas.
Mayor Hunter. He asked the City Engineer how much grading a land owner could
perform with a permit from the City Engineer without any further analysis or
input from the Planning Department or public prior to development.
Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer. It is dependent upon
the property and the zoning. If it is a one, two or three lot development
that has already been parceltzed and the development is in compliance with all
the Zoning Codes and they chose to come in and grade the pads, at that point
if it fell within the Hillside Grading Ordinance, a grading plan would be
submitted and they would hold a hearing. When heard, residents who attend all
have a different idea of how they would like to see the property graded. The
Engineer submits a plan with all the technical requirements but realistically
the property could be graded one of 100 different ways. If the grading
complies with Council Policy and the Ordinance and is technically correct, the
issues normally dealt with are - should there be a wall or a slope, the view
pad from the home, etc. They are aesthetic issues and not technical.
Typically those are involved. In the last five years, there have been two
appeals made to the City Council. When a controversy occurs he typically
continues the hearings. Relative to the proposed change, he does not have a
preference. He is comfortable with the current Ordinance as it stands but if
the Council would like him to have the responsibility, he is also comfortable
with that.
Councilwoman Kaywood. Her concern is with the residents who will be
"saddled" with all the expenses. Homeowners Associations have to take care of
all the hills, slopes and landscaping which runs into a large expense for the
residents. They have a right to know what is coming in and be able to have a
say. She is concerned there is no recourse and that the projects that were
approved prior to May 11, 1989 would not be affected by this and she is not
sure why. Any grading permits should be subject to the City Engineer's
approval.
258
223
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
City Attorney White. What is before the Council are three distinct
Ordinances. The Council can adopt all, one or only two of them. The reason
it is being proposed to exempt projects for which a Development Agreement was
approved before May of 1989 is that a technical legal issue exists and has for
some time between the developer~ who were parties to those Agreements and the
City as to the legal ability of the City to impose the requirement of a public
hearing as a new requirement after the date those agreements were entered
into. Rather than continue to have a dialogue and possibly the matter
litigated, the first Ordinance would exempt out the three ranches that have
Development Agreements in existence prior to that date along with any others.
They would still need to get a grading permit, the only issue being whether or
not it would be a noticed public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood. When Anaheim Hills was first developed, the developer
came in with a concept of contour grading which was magnificent and different
from what other cities were doing. She does not want to see anything happen
to that concept.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance Nos. 5104 through 5106, both inclusive,
for adoption without any changes. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO, 5104; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 17.04.115 OF CHAPTER 17.04 AND SECTION 17.06.047 OF CHAPTER
17.06 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GRADING.
ORDINANCE NO, 5105: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 17.04.160 OF CHAPTER 17.04 AND SECTION 17.06.281 OF CHAPTER
17.06 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GRADING.
ORDINANCE NO. 5106: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 17.06.030 OF CHAPTER 17.06 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GRADING.
Roll Gall Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5104 through 5106, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Councilman Hunter moved to amend City Council Policy No. 211 relating to
hillside grading as proposed by Staff. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Al8, 170: ORDINANCE NO. 5108 (INTRODUCTION): Adding definitions to section
17.06.020 of Chapter 17.06 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
pertaining to crib wall/retaining wall.
259
City ~all, A~ahetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 90R-79 through 90R-81, both inclusive. The
motions of the consent calendar were also acted upon by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly., Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-79 through 90R-81, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar.
Al9, 000/124; PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHING FIVE YEAR RENTAL RATE SCHEDULE
FOR THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER: To consider a Resolution establishing a
schedule of rates (5-year Rental Rate Schedules) to be charged for rental of
space at the Anaheim Convention Center for shows and exhibit space. Submitted
was report dated February 20, 1990, from the Convention Center Manager, Lynn
Thompson, recommending that the Council approve the five year rate schedule as
outlined in exhibit A attached to the report.
Mayor Hunter opened the hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak;there
being no response he closed the public hearing.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-82)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the Resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-82 for adoption establishing a
schedule of rates (5-year Rental Rate Schedules) to be charged for rental of
space at the Anaheim Convention Center for shows and exhibit space. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR RENTAL OF SPACE AT
THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-82 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 89-3A; In accordance with application
submitted by Alan D. Stewart, 175 Starlight Drive, Anaheim, 92807, public
260
225
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20. '1990, 5;30
hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an easement located on the south
side of Cerro Vista, west of Lakeview pursuant to Resolution No. 90R-47 duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated January 29, 1990, was submitted recommending
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 Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Daly, the City Council determined that the
proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 35.01 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. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was'
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-83)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 90R-83 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 89-3A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-83; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF CERRO VISTA STREET WEST OF LAKEVIEW AVENUE.
(89-3A).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS'
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-83 duly passed and adopted.
107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVE ON PERMIT 194 VINTAGE LANE: To consider
the application of Ron and Betty Waltz to move a residential, single-family
structure from 206 North Olive to 194 Vintage Lane (parcel 35-232-33).
Submitted was report dated February 7, 1990 from the Planning
Department/Building Division recommending approval of the Housing Move On
Permit to move a single-family structure to 194 North Vintage Lane.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 8, 1990
261
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 20, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
Posting of Property March 9, 1990
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet
March 7, 1990
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak;
there being no response Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the City Council
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
35.01, Class 3, 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. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-84)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 90R-84 for adoption, approving a
special permit to move a single-family structure to 194 North Vintage Lane.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-84; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO MOVE A SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE TO 194
NORTH VINTAGE LANE IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-84 duly passed and adopted.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF THE HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE (PARCEL MAP
NO, 88-108) AS IT RELATES TO THE LOGATION OF LOT LINES ADJACENT TO SLOPES:
LOCATION OF PARCEL MAP 88-108: South of Martella Lane at the northerly
terminus of Willdan Road.
The request is to consider waiving the requirement of the Hillside Grading
Ordinance, Section 17.06.290 as it relates to the location of lot lines
adjacent to slopes, Section 17.06.120.040 and Table 17-A.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The waiver was approved by the Commission.
262
227
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 20, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in the Anaheim Bulletin March 8, 1990
Posting of property March 9, 1990
STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 29, 1990 from the
City Engineer recommending approval of the waiver.
Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer. The request is to permit a lot line to be
within the mid slope rather than the top of the slope. The properties in
question are all owned by a family. There is a slope maintenance agreement
which has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office which will
cover the maintenance of the slope. Engineering recommends approval of the
request.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Ehrle moved to approve the Waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance
(Parcel Map No. 88-108) as it relates to the location of lot lines adjacent to
slopes as recommended in memorandum dated January 29, 1990. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
134/155; PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 288 AND NEGATIVE
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
California 92803.
LOCATION: The property is located at 1750 West Romneya Drive
This is a City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
redesignattng subject property from the Commercial Professional designation to
the Medium Density Residential designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
General Plan Amendment No. 288 approved exhibit A, (PC90-31) - redesignation
to Medium Density Residential. Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Public hearing necessary on a General Plan Amendment.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in the Anaheim Bulletin March 8, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 7, 1990.
Posting of property March 9, 1990.
STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 29, 1990.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. This General Plan Amendment is in conjunction
with the on-going housing study. It is more of a housekeeping item since the
property is fully developed. It would bring the General Plan into conformity
263
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
with the Zoning. Original approval was granted 12 or 13. years ago.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak
either in favor or in opposition; there being no response he closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman 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 Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-85)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-85 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 288, Exhibit A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-85: A RESOLUTIO~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THc LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 288, EXHIBIT "A".
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-85 duly passed and adopted.
179/142; PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 300, SPECIFIC PLAN
NO, 90-01, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS;
OWNER: TAUBMAN WESTERN ASSOCIATES
P. O. Box 200
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48303
AGENT: Trammell Crow Company
625 The City Drive, Suite 110
Orange, California 92668
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at the southwest corner of Santa
Aha Canyon Road and Roosevelt Road.
The request is for consideration and adoption of a Specific Plan (including
Zoning and Development Standards and a Public Facilities Plan) for the
proposed "Anaheim Hills Festival" to provide for the development of a 56.4
264
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
acre commercial development area, a 4.5 acre 150-room hotel and restaurant
area and a 17.7 acre business commercial area.
ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Specific Plan approved (PC90-48) subject to modifications, additions and
deletions. Zoning and Development Standards approved. Certification of
Environmental Impact Report No. 300 recommended.
HEARING SET ON:
Public hearing is required before the Council for this project.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Published in the Anaheim Bulletin March 8, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 7, 1990.
Posting of property March 9, 1990.
STAFF INPUT:
See extensive Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 26, 1990.
Joel Ftck, Planning Director. The subject project has undergone substantial
Staff review and interaction through the preparation of a comprehensive
Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. There has also been a
significant amount of public interaction and review both with Staff and
Trammell Crow in terms of presentations with the neighborhood. As a product
of the contact they have had with both the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition
and some of the residents, Staff is recommending added conditions. Each of
the conditions have been reviewed with Trammell Crow and they are in agreement
with the changes:
Changes to Conditions - Condition No 29 - Parking Lot Standards: Staff is
recommending that that Condition be deleted. The revised Ordinance, since the
Planning Commission meeting incorporating the Commission changes, is actually
more restrictive and is in accordance with the Commission recommendation.
Condition No, 51: Staff is recommending it be changed to require 24 hour
on-site security. This was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.
Condition No, 52: Staff would like to clarify and revise the condition that
the wall not necessarily be along the property line but that the six foot high
ornamental wrought iron type fence separate the developed portion of the
property from the residential properties to the south with the location of the
fence being approved by the City Engineer. It removes an inconsistency.
Addition to conditions;
1) That prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy that the
traffic signal on Monte Vista and Bauer Ranch Road shall be provided if
required by the City Traffic Engineer.
265
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 20, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
2) That prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, petitioner shall submit
for review and approval by the City Engineer an erosion, siltation and dust
control plan. Trammell Crow is in concurrence.
One final item for a point of c%arification, Trammell Crow would like to point
out that fast food uses are permitted in both Development Areas 1 and 2.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Brad Geier, Divisional Partner, Trammell Grow, 625 City Drive,
Orange (A Joint Venture Development of the Trammell Crow Company
and Taubman Company). The property is the site of the original
Bauer Ranch. It was originally purchased by the Taubman Company
in 1979 at which time the site was zoned General Commercial with
a regional center overlay. Today they are proposing a regional
center concept for the site consisting of 570,000 square feet of
retail, restaurant and entertainment uses, 240,000 square feet
of additional retail or office use and a 150 room hotel. The
project will generate approximately 20% fewer average daily
trips (ADT) than the project originally proposed for the site.
Among their objectives is to create a sense of place for the
hill and canyon area - minimize grading, provide regional draw
shopping by combining four shopping centers in one - an upscale
supermarket, a general merchandise and apparel anchored
community center with retailers including Target, Marshalls, T J
Maxx and Miller's Outpost, home furnishings and design center
with tenants like Drexel Heritage, Barker Brothers and
Pennsylvania House and a theatre and restaurant oriented
specialty center including an eight screen theatre complex and a
variety of primarily sit-down restaurant uses.
Most significant are the design elements. The site is bisected
by a loop road which provides additional circulation for the
project. The plan terraces up the hillside away from Santa Ana
Canyon Road. There is a 20 foot vertical difference between the
lower and upper level of the shopping centers. The site plan
incorporates a 360 degree design. As seen in the rendering,
they are using Santa Barbara style Spanish architecture. Their
plan is expected to generate between $1.3 and $2 million
annually in tax revenue.
Relative to the conditions, they have agreed to all but one of
the Planning Commission's recommended changes, that being in the
area of additional screening for roof mounted equipment. The
Specific Plan provides for the screening of roof mounted
equipment through the use of parapet walls and architectural
projections which completely screened the equipment from street
views and views within the center and the use of paint colors
for the equipment to match the roof colors. Additionally,
landscaping on the south slope of the project in between the
shopping center and residential above allows them to screen the
266
Clt? Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 20, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
down views of the center while maintaining the views to the
hillsides in the distance. It is the best method of screening
and they are asking for Council's approval based on the language
included in the Specific Plan.
Regarding signage', subsequent to the Planning Commission
hearing, they have been approached and have been in discussion
with several major retailers and desire a modification to the
stgnage section of the Specific Plan in the area of major retail
identification. Currently, on page 56 of the Specific Plan, it
allows a sign area of 160 square feet with a minimum sign height
of six feet and sign width a maximum of 40 feet wide. Sign
letters are a maximum of 36 inches. To be consistent with other
retailer identification signage in the canyon area including
Vons, Thrifty and Hughes Market (Fairmont and Santa Ana Canyon
Road) they are asking to increase the letter height to six feet
maximum and maintaining the total sign area and maximum sign
height and width as indicated in the Specific Plan. Also with
respect to the condition that the shopping center identification
signs not be lit between midnight and 6:00 a.m., they are
concerned with the possibility that the major supermarket might
want to be open 24 hours a day. They are requesting that
signage that includes the message of the market on Santa Aha
Canyon Road will be allowed to remain lit during their hours of
operation.
In concluding, Mr. Geier stated that they have been working with
Staff the past ten months and appreciate their help and
resourcefulness. They have spent time at the Anaheim Crest
Homeowner's Association, East Hills Homeowner's Association and
with the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition. Those groups have
given their input and tried to be responsive to the home
owners. Taubman has been working on the project for over 10
years. The residential growth in the area can now support the
type of regional shopping center being proposed. They are
pleased to bring forth the highest quality shopping center
available and are looking to the favorable vote of the Council.
They expect to be under construction by June of 1990 with the
opening of the shopping center in the fall of 1991.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN FAVOR:
Patrick Pepper, 269 South Hillcrest. He is speaking as Chairman
of the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition. He extended special
thanks to Mr. Geier and Bill Schrader for their extra efforts in
working with the citizens of East Hills and the Anaheim Hills
Citizen's Coalition. There were many concerns at the outset.
One of the members of the Homeowner's Board of Anaheim Crest has
a few points he would like to make regarding refinements of some
of the conditions. The project is a welcome development to the
East Hills. It will bring much needed retail and restaurants
and will be an asset to the community.
267
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 20, 1990, 5;30
Mike McKinney, 8085 Kendra Court, Board of Directors of Anaheim
Crest HomeownerVs Association, representing 15 homes closest to
the center. He first submitted exhibits to the Council
(Exhibits 1 and 2 - made a part of the record). He agrees with
the overall scope, of the project. He would like the Council to
consider the following: relative to the heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment to be mounted on the
rooftop, Exhibit 1 shows how close some of the homes are on
Kendra Court to the center. They are recommending that the
equipment on Major A (the Target Store) and on the stores
closest to the residents on Bauer and Kendra Court be mounted on
the ground rather than the roof. Trammell Crow is concerned
that there would not be enough room. There could be enough room
if planned appropriately. If it is not mounted on the ground,
the residents feel it should have to comply with the proposed
ordinance prepared regarding screening on the rooftops.
Lighting - Condition 29 and 29a of Planning Commission
Resolution PC90-48 calls for light standards 30 feet high. In
the proposed ordinance and in Trammell Crow~s proposal, they
provided for a limitation of 12 feet in height for Development
Area 4 where the proposed office building would go. The intent
of the 12 foot high standards would be in consideration of the
residents immediately to the south of the area. If that intent
is accurate, the homes on Kendra just to the east should also be
given consideration as far as limiting light standards to 12
feet along the southern portion of Festival Drive and in the
upper level of Development Area 2.
Relative to the theatre, in the Specific Plan, the theatre box
office is supposed to be oriented in a northerly or westerly
fashion. Currently the site plan does not identify where the
box office area of the theatre will be. One corner faces
directly north. The widest portion faces northeast and one of
the ends of the theatre faces northwest. The residents would
like the theatre to be oriented or rotated so that none of the
homes south and east of the theatre could see the box office or
the wide area or, in the alternative, limit the theatre company
to a box office facing northwest.
Mr. Fick has talked about the traffic signal at the intersection
of Bauer and Monte Vista and also the security issue. The
proposed ordinance refers to Exhibit 7A in the Specific Plan to
identify the various development areas in the center. It was
his understanding that that should have been Exhibit 7 instead
of Exhibit 7A.
There was no other public input, either in favor or in opposition, or
additional comments.
268
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
Brad Geter. They feel strongly that the HVAC roof mounted
equipment is most effectively screened from the homes above
using the methods they have proposed, particularly the
landscaping in between the homes and the shopping center. With
respect to the T&rget building, that building including the HVAC
equipment will be a height of approximately 27 feet. Added to
the building pad elevation of 440, it is still 33 vertical feet
below the residences above. In addition, the overwhelming
expense of locating HVAC equipment for a building of that size
on the ground would make a transaction with this particular
store or any other store of that size uneconomical.
With respect to lighting standards, they believe because they
are proposing the 30 foot lighting standard on Festival as well
as in the parking lot, it is the most efficient way from a
safety standpoint. Additionally those standards are only
marginally higher than the top of the building adjacent to the
residences. There is a 30 foot vertical difference They do
not believe there will be any light impact on those residences
because of the vertical differences between the residences and
Festival Drive and the landscaping on the community slope in
that area.
Relative to the theatre building and trying to orient it in such
a way that the box office will not be visible from any of the
residences, they are at a point where the layout is such that
the box office may be visible by five or a maximum of ten
homes. It is at a great distance, or over 1,000 feet. The
layout was done to accommodate parking efficiencies and
efficiencies of the circulation plan in the upper level of the
center.
COUNCIL ACTION; Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked with regard to the screening on
the rooftops whether they have tried painting in all colors to
see how it blends in or what Staff's feeling is on that.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff has not had a use like the
one proposed. When the shopping center was planned and when the
Scenic Corridor Ordinances came into being in the mid 7Os, they
did not have any large commercial sites planned and programmed
for the hill and canyon areas such as this and the other site
the Council will be considering next week. Some of the issues
are new issues which will be dealt with through the Specific
Plan process.
Mr. David Ware, Vice President of Taubman Company. They
acquired the property in 1979. He has enjoyed the association
with the City during this time. He commended the fine people of
269
Cit% Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 20. 1990. 5:30 P.M. --
Anaheim and the Staff for their tremendous support. He is
pleased to be present tonight to show the Council the fruition
of many years of effort. He looks forward to a successful grand
opening of the project for everyone involved.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 300 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact
Report No. 300 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the
Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the
State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon
such information and belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, that Environmental Impact Report No. 300
is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and
State guidelines as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Councilman
Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-86 and 90R-87)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 90R-86 and 90R-87 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-86: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-01 FOR ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-87; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PLAN
90-01 FOR ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Daly asked if the actions included the
developer's technique of screening; Mr. Geier asked if it included their
request relative to stgnage as well.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Answering Councilwoman Kaywood he
explained that Staff spent a great deal of time working with
Trammell Crow and in doing so reduced a number of signs
originally proposed. Staff felt the channel lettering proposed
was quite conservative. What is being proposed tonight,
subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, Trammell Crow
received input from major tenants and surveyed other shopping
centers within the canyon area. What they are asking for is
sign channel letter comparable to those other centers. Based
upon that and also the distance from that lettering to Santa Ana
Canyon Road, which is even a greater distance on the site, it is
not something Staff would have a problem with.
270
219
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Hunter confirmed that in offering the Resolutions he is
including the modifications to the conditions as explained by
the Planning Director (Conditions No. 29, 51 and 52) and
including the two additional conditions as articulated by the
Planning Director as well as the developer's request relative to
slgnage (height of channel lettering) and that sfgnage for the
proposed supermarket be allowed to remain lit during the
market's hours of operation.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolutions including
modification and addition of conditions and the developer's request regarding
signage.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-86 and 90R-87 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance Nos. 5109 and 5110 for First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO, 5109: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 18.74 RELATING TO ZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-01 (SP 90-01) ZONE.
(ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL)
ORDINANCE NO. 5110; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-01, ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL)
RECESS; By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes (6:50 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. Councilman Pickler was absent. (7:00 p.m.)
179/155/134/185, ITEMS BI - Bll FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 26, 1990;
BI, VARIANCE NO. 4014, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3;
OWNER: HENRY ULLOA AND JUANA ULLOA, 646 North Carleton Avenue, Anaheim,
California 92801
LOCATION; 646 North Carleton Avenue
Waiver of minimum lot size for accessory living quarters to retain a 379
square-foot accessory living quarter with kitchen facilities.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
Variance No. 4014 DENIED (PC90-46) (5 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1 abstained).
271
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members Hunter and Daly, and a public hearing will be scheduled at a later
date.
B2, ADDENDUM - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 293 (PREV, CERT.),
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3241:
OWNER: B. U. PATELAND LOREN WAGNER, 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 190, Costa
Mesa, California 92626
AGENT: Farano and Kteviet, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 3410, Anaheim,
California 92805
LOCATION; 201 West Katella Avenue
To permit a 12-story, 384-unit hotel.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Conditional Use Permit No. 3241 GRANTED (PC90-447), with modifications to
Condition Nos. 8, 15 and 37, and deletion of Condition No. 9 (7 yes votes).
Approved Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 293, including Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Daly and Councilman Hunter and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled
at a later date.
B3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3225, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: OKEH CATERERS
Attention: Jim Ingrassia, 7221 South Atlantic Avenue, Bell, California 90201
LOCATION; 2115 East Orangewood Avenue
To maintain two (2) existing office trailers in conjunction with a catering
business.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
WITHDRAWN by the Applicant.
B4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 300, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90o01, ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
OWNER: TAUBMAN WESTERN ASSOCIATES, P. O. Box 200, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
48303
AGENT: Trammell Crow Company, 625 The City Drive, Su£te 100, Orange,
California 92668
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Roosevelt Road
Request for consideration and adoption of a Specific Plan (including Zoning
and Development Standards and a Public Facilities Plan) for the proposed
"Anaheim Hills Festival" to provide for the development of a 56.4 acre
commercial development area, a 4.5 acre 150-room hotel and restaurant area and
a 17.7 acre business commercial area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
Specific Plan APPROVED (PC90-48) subject to modifications, additions and
deletions (7 yes votes).
Zoning and Development Standards APPROVED (request for Ordinance) (PC90-49).
Recommended Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 300.
272
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
This item was set for a public hearing which is being held today.
B5, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3243 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: PALMALL PROPERTIES, INC., 1428 West Bay Avenue, Newport Beach,
California 92663
AGENT: Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, 300 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim,
California 92805
LOCATION; 300 South Manchester Avenue
To permit a drive-through lane for an existing fast food restaurant with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
Conditional Use Permit No. 3243 GRANTED (PC 90-50) (7 yes votes).
Waiver of code requirement GRANTED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B6, VARIANCE NO. 4031, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11~
OWNER: KENNETH E. SARVAK, 424 Old Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California 92663
AGENT: Victor Staff, 424 Old Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California
92663
LOCATION; 2283 West Lincoln AvenUe
Waiver of signs permitted in residential zones to construct one freestanding
sign.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
WITHDRAWN by the Applicant.
B7, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 291-1 AND 291-2 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
California 92803
AREA 1; REQUEST; Redesignation from the Medium Density Residential
designation to the General Commercial designation.
LOCATION - AREA 1: Property is approximately 2.0 acres located west of the
northwest corner of Ball Road and Dale Avenue, beginning approximately 180
feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue, having a frontage of approximately
144 feet on the north side of Ball Road and extending north approximately 590
feet.
AREA 2; REQUEST: Redesignation from the General Commercial designation to
the Low Density Residential designation.
LOCATION AREA 2; Property is approximately 0.36 acre located on the
southwest corner of Devoy Drive and Dale Avenue, having approximate frontages
of 144 feet on the south side of Devoy Drive and 135 feet on the west side of
Dale Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
General Plan Amendment Nos. 291-1 and 291-2 APPROVED (PC 90-51) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
273
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P,M, ~
Set for public hearing before the City Council to be held April 17, 1990, due
to General Plan Amendment Nos. 291-1 and 291-2.
B8, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 292, RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-42 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
California 92803
LOCATION: Property is bounded by Pearl Street to the north, West Street to
the east, the alley south of Pearl Street to the south and Carleton Avenue to
the west.
A City initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
redesignating subject area from the Medium Density Residential designation to
the Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
A City initiated reclassification of properties from the RM-1200 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less
intense zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
General Plan Amendment No. 292 GRANTED (PC90-52) (7 yes votes).
Reclassification No. 89-90-42 GRANTED (PC90-53).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Set for public hearing before the City Council to be held on April 3, 1990,
due to General Plan Amendment No. 292.
B9. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 282 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
California 92803
LOCATION; Parcel 1; Approximately 2.52 acres having a frontage of
approximately 400 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, having a
maximum depth of approximately 275 feet and being located approximately 512
feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street.
Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redestgnating subject
area from the General Industrial designation to the General Commercial
designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
General Plan Amendment No. 282 APPROVED
Approved Negative Declaration.
EXHIBIT A (PC90-54) (7 yes votes).
Set for public hearing before the City Council to be held April 3, 1990, due
to General Plan Amendment No. 282.
B10, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 289 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO, 89-02;
AGENT: Sari Ranch Associates, c/o Hillman Properties, 450 Newport Center
Drive, Suite 304, Newport Beach, California 92660; and Koll Company,
Attention: Ron Keith, 4345 Von Karmen, Newport Beach, California 92660-221
274
205
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
AGENT: Community Systems Association, 1717 South State College Boulevard,
#100, Anaheim, California 92806
LOCATION; 1001 to 1100 Pullman Street (Marketfatre at Anaheim)
To govern and permit the construction of a commercial retail center, one free
standing restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages and entertainment, one
drive-through restaurant, an automotive repair center, a service station and
mini-mart with fast food and off-sale beer and wine, and an automotive car
wash, with building heights in excess of 35 feet, with waivers of minimum
number of parking spaces, required site screening and required landscaped
setback.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Development Agreement No. 89-02 GRANTED (PC90-55) (7 yes votes).
Environmental Impact Report No. 289 (Previously Certified) APPROVED.
Public hearing held March 13, 1990 on this project and continued to March 27,
1990 at the request of the applicant. The subject development agreement will
also be considered at that time.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Bll, 179, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 2934 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF REVISED
PLANS FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
PLANS:
REQUESTED BY: DAVID R. JACKSON, FAIRMONT SCHOOLS
LOCATION: 1557 West Mable Street
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
APPROVED.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
B12, 179; ORDINANCE NO, 5107: Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 5107
for adoption, amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No.
88-89-90, located at 3700-3750 West Savanna Street, from the RS-A-43,000 zone
to the RM-2400 zone. Refer to Ordinance Book.
WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCES: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the Gity Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5107)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO, 5107; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
275
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5107 duly passed and adopted.
B13, 179, ORDINANCE NO, 5111 (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 56-57-57 located at 2283 West Lincoln
Avenue, from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the CL zone.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5111 for First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5111: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
el, 108/114; DISCUSSION OF VENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4725: The discussion was
requested by Mayor Hunter and at its meeting of November 7, 1989, the City
Council approved the formation of a 7-member Task Force to be comprised of 3
Vendor representatives, 3 City Staff members and one representative from the
Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of reviewing Ordinance No. 4725,
recommending any changes, and submitting to the Council any findings. The
matter was then scheduled for discussion at the Council meeting of January 9,
1990, when it was continued to February 13, 1990 and finally continued to this
date.
Submitted was letter dated March 5, 1990 from Alan B. Hughes, Chairman of the
Vendor Committee Task Force which contains the final Vendor Committee report
and recommendations. (See pages 1-3 attached to the letter). The report
listed certain code sections and, where applicable on points of contention,
listed the vendor's request, the Staff recommendation and the Committee
Chairman's recommendation (made a part of the record).
Councilwoman Kaywood. She moved that since Councilman Pickler was not present
today because he was representing the City in Mito, Japan, that the matter be
continued for one week.
Council Members Hunter and Ehrle spoke against a continuance of the matter.
The Mayor noted that there was a large ri%umber of people present tonight who
expected to be heard on the issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood. The people could be heard this evening and then the
matter continued for one week for a full Council.
The foregoing motion for a one week continuance failed for lack of a second.
Staff input: John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He referred to the report
submitted from Alan Hughes which summarized the meetings of the Task Force.
Mr. Hughes is not present tonight since he is in Europe. He (Hughes) outlined
each of the concerns and what the Chamber of Commerce agreed with and the Code
Enforcement recommendations. He is present to answer any questions. He
confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that there was a typographical error on
page 2 wherein the fine for the third offense should have been $250 and not
$25,000.
276
City Hall, Anaheim, Galifornia - COUNGIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30
Mayor Hunter. He thanked John Poole and his Staff, Alan Hughes and the
Chamber of Commerce as well as Sal Sarmiento, the Vendors' representative and
Pedro Vasquez who were on the Task Force that discussed the current Vending
Ordinance. He asked to hear from a spokesman for the vendors.
Salvador Sarmiento, Attorney, 9'00 West 17th Street, Suite D, Santa Aha. He
has been representing the vendors for a couple of years. It is hard to
respond to the letter submitted by the Chamber since he just received it. He
would like to speak to the individual items that exist within the Ordinance
today. He then explained the process that was followed by the Task Force. He
noted that the code sections referred to in Mr. Hughes' letter are directed to
the proposed ordinance and not to the existing ordinance, which may cause some
confusion; Mr. Poole confirmed that the numbering system is different but
there are only about five or six items where there is an issue.
Mr. Sarmtento then spoke to the following issues:
Distance in parking from an intersection: The current ordinance is 100 feet.
In the meetings, the City recommended 60 feet. The vendors want 40 feet and
that is their current position.
Length of time a vendor is allowed to park to sell his wares: At one point
the vendors recommended that 30 minutes would be okay if the ordinance would
allow the vendor to continue to sell until there was nobody there to sell to.
The City wanted a fixed period. The vendors then recommended 60 minutes.
Business hours during which vendors are allowed to sell: At present, hours
are 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. In the winter, sunset is 5:00 p.m., in summer
there is daylight until 9:00 p.m. At one point the vendors recommended
different hours for winter and summer. Staff disagreed and recommended 9:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The vendors agree with those hours of operation.
Amplified music: It is the vendors' position that the ordinance as presently
written is unconstitutional. Two judges in the area have declared it to be
SO. If there is to be a provision about amplified music, it should be written
in such a form that it will be upheld by the courts. The vendor has to notify
the customer of his arrival. There is no problem once the vehicle is parked,
but they want the opportunity to let the customers know they are present.
There was no agreement in this area.
Punishment for a violation and revocation of permit: At present if a vendor
is cited by Code Enforcement or a Police Officer, it is a misdemeanor and the
person can go to jail. They want violations to be an infraction. Vendors
have to make actual court appearances where several days of work are lost. If
tickets are issued and the vendor feels he is guilty, they should have the
opportunity to take care of it just as with any other infraction by putting it
in an envelope and mailing it in. Another problem in this regard is the power
of revocation of a permit if there is a violation of the ordinance which he
will speak to later.
277
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 20, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Insurance: Through the long discussions, no one was able to respond to their
concerns in a manner which met their wish. The insurance the City is
requiring is unavailable to the vendors because of cost. Risk Management gave
names of people the vendors could talk to but nothing materialized. If the
City continues to impose the same kinds of insurance requirements, very few
vendors are going to have that insurance. If the vendors have an accident,
the City is going to be sued. If the City accepts the vendors' proposal
relative to insurance, the vendors will have the necessary insurance to cover
such costs.
Vendors' and operators' permits: Everybody who owns a truck has to have a
business license, a health permit, an operator's permit and a vendor's
permit. They feel there is some duplication and the cost is getting to be
quite high. They would like a process whereby the operator makes application
to the City and gives the City any information they wish, including employees,
and subsequently the City can do whatever they wish with that information. If
there are employee changes, it would be the operator's responsibility to
inform the City of the change. Other employees in the City have the same
kinds of contacts as the vendors but none have to go through an extensive
check such as the vendors have to go through.
Revocation of permit: An operator can lose his permit through one violation.
The ordinance should be written in such a way that good cause has to be shown
before revocation. Good cause, for instance, would be drug use but not
parking in an unlawful manner.
Councilman Ehrle. Vendors are sometimes cited because they do not have a
current business license or health permit, etc. One of the issues is that
there are vendors coming into Anaheim from other areas to do business in the
City but who do not meet the requirements of the City. The vendors who play
by the rules are sometimes harassed . He suggested that in order to resolve
this problem area, that a sticker be devised which would be fluorescent in
color so that it is at once easily seen denoting that all Anaheim City
requirements are met and are up to date.
Mr. Sarmiento stated they would also like to have a temporary sticker so that
the vendor can start working in the meantime while the investigation is being
done. Also the cost should be on a proportional basis. If an applicant
applies one or two months before the next license renewal, they should only
have to pay for that portion of the time.
Pedro Vasquez, 627 South Shelton, Santa Ana, street vendor in Anaheim. The
vendors are present tonight to straighten out this matter. Their attorney has
done a good job of explaining the vendors' concerns and wishes. He also
thanks Staff for their concern and their efforts in trying to assist. (Mr.
Vasquez then asked that Mr. Amin David be his translator for the few comments
he wanted to make.) Mr. Amin David, translating for Mr. Vasquez, stated that
the problem is very complicated. The operators/vendors have many
responsibilities and obligations. The treatment they receive should be just.
Their expenses are very high. He is asking that the vendors and their
278
207
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
businesses be given consideration by the Council. They need an opportunity to
increase their businesses and to make them better.
Amin David, Anaheim businessman, 419 South Cole Street. He is speaking as a
member of the Task Force and he has been deputized by Los Amigos of Orange
County to recommend approval for the vendor proposals before the Council
today. They are the poor of the county asking for consideration so that they
can earn a decent and honest living. They have also been designing something
that is compatible and reasonable both to the City and others and also to the
staunch and sometimes unmovable Staff. Mr. Poole does engender a lot of
consideration and a lot of empathy but the bureaucratic chains he has to deal
with do not permit flexibility. They should yield to what is reasonable and
let the vendors who aspire to seek the track of the honorable Carl Karcher who
started out as a street vendor.
Ed Dart, 151 Celito Lindo, President, Orange County Food Cart Association. As
a member of the Task Force, he agrees with Mr. Hughes' recommendation that
relative to human powered devices, that City Staff reconsider their position
of opposition and that pushcarts be allowed in the City. What the Association
is proposing during the next meetings is the most restrictive ordinance in the
State in relation to pushcarts. He elaborated on some of their provisions
that will be recommended to be included in an ordinance.
Mayor Hunter interjected and clarified that today the consideration was with
regard to vending from vehicles. Pushcarts can be discussed sometime in the
future.
Mr. Dart. They had addressed the issue of pushcarts and went through the
process. He is asking that the Council send it back and give them the
opportunity to come back with an ordinance later on.
Mayor Hunter. He gave his input and recommendations relative to proposed
changes to the current ordinance following the outline on page 1-3 of the
attachment to the Chamber letter. He agrees with the following:
.0205 being able to park 40 feet from an intersection.
.0206 a 60 minute time limit
.0210 - that business hours be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
.0211 he asked for clarification by the City Attorney if amplification was
covered in another code section.
City Attorney White. There is a provision contained in Code Section 6.72
relating to all amplified sound in various areas of the City. Under this
provision, no amplified sound for commercial purposes is allowed within any
residential zone or within 200 feet of any residential zone. Amplified sound
is permitted between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. in commercial zones for
commercial purposes. If the Council were to delete what is in the current
vending-by-vehicle ordinance, it would not change 6.72 that would contain
those limitations. If the Council wants to modify those limitations, it would
be necessary to change both the vending ordinance and Code Section 6.72.
279
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P,M. __
Mayor Hunter. Relative to .0212 - violations should be considered as
infractions.
John Poole. Ail violations are currently already infractions. He does not
know how they are considered misdemeanors. They are working with the courts
to streamline the process so that the vendors do not have to sit in court.
Mayor Hunter noted that the vendors are requesting that fines be no more than
$50.
Sal Sarmiento. There is a penalty assessment added to fines which is 140% of
the fine. Therefore, a $100 fine becomes $240 and $250 becomes $570, which is
outrageous for a parking ticket. That is why they are recommending a lower
amount with maximum fines set at no more than $50.
Mayor Hunter. Under Section .030 - insurance requirements are
$250,000/$500,000 for vendors whereas taxicabs are required to have
$100,000/$300,000 coverage. Vendors travel less and do not carry passengers.
Tom Vance, Risk Manager. Staff recommended that the vendors contact two
individuals at the meeting of the Task Force of February 8, 1990. Staff
understood the issue was availability rather than cost in a monthly pay plan.
Staff gave the vendors the names of two brokers or agents they contacted and
in both cases the individuals said coverage was available to the assigned risk
plan. Coverage is always available to the assigned risk plan if there is a
law requiring a level of insurance. Both organizations said a monthly pay
plan was available. Staff did not search further than that. It is a surprise
to learn there is a problem relative to the issue. Relative to the $1,000,000
combined single limit, there is a difference of approximately $350 on an
annual basis between the $100,000/$300,000 and the $250,000/$500,000 coverage.
Marian Thomas, M. Thomas Insurance, 605 South State College Boulevard. She
represents most of the vendors. Approximately 90% of the vendors are
present. They are in the assigned risk and those rates are running $2,088 per
truck. If the Department of Insurance increases their rates 143% as they are
scheduled to do by June, the premium per truck will be almost $6,000. There
is almost a $900 diff~r~nc~ for th~ y~ar p~r truck b~twa~n th~
$100,000/$300,000 and $250,000/$500,000 coverage. On assigned risks, they are
only allowed to pay monthly for five months. If it is brought down to
$100,000/$350,000 she can get their insurance as low as $100 a month and where
they can pay $100 per month for 12 months and in that way the City of Anaheim
will be able to have the vendors insured at all times.
After further Council discussion, Mayor Hunter stated he assumes that a
revised ordinance would be coming back to the Council with proposed changes.
City Attorney White. He would assume the motion to be to instruct the City
Attorney to draft and bring back an ordinance with the proposed changes. He
is not certain on amplified sound he heard exactly what the Mayor wanted;
Mayor Hunter clarified that he wanted something where the vendor could have
some reasonable music in a residential area.
280
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 20, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
City Attorney White assumed it was reasonable amplified sound as opposed to
non amplified which the vendors now can have.
Mayor Hunter. Relative to Section .080, he feels there must be some good
cause for a license to be revoked since now it seems a license can be revoked
because of an infraction.
Councilman Daly. He posed questions to Misters Poole and Sarmiento relative
to amplified music and the practice in other cities as well as insurance
requirements and time limitations, noting that as Councilwoman Kaywood pointed
out, in six surrounding cities, time limitations range from only five to
fifteen minutes. Thirty minutes in Anaheim is three times longer than any
other cities. On the face, sixty minutes appears to be reasonable but the
marketplace all around Anaheim is limiting vendor sales five to fifteen
minutes.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. At this time they did not look at the
amplified sound issue, but in 1986 most cities had restrictions on amplified
music; in some cities, insurance requirements are more and some are less.
Mr. Sarmiento. He does not know why time limits are much less in other
cities. Each city has particular problems that are addressed differently.
There are vendors in Anaheim and Santa Aha making arrangements with private
property owners and parking on private property to allow additional time.
MOTION; Mayor Hunter moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare a proposed
vending ordinance clarifying the following changes and when prepared, that it
be submitted to the Council for first reading: change 60 feet to 40 feet, 30
minutes to 60 minutes, operating hours 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., insurance
coverage $100,000/$300,000 instead of $250,000/$500,000, that there must be
good cause for revocation of a permit/license and that fines be a maximum of
$50 and not on an escalating scale. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Hunter stated he has felt from the inception
that the ordinance was unduly burdensome. It has taken almost six years to
clean it up and make it fair, reasonable and equitable for the Hispanic
business person to do business in the City.
Councilman Ehrle asked Mr. Sarmiento if he would have a problem with some type
of sticker as he previously discussed to distinguish Anaheim vendors from
others as well as being a means of knowing that all permits were in order; Mr.
Sarmiento answered no, as long as there is no additional cost.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
no. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned that Council did not have the courtesy
to wait for a full Council. Further, to have heard the matter without the
Chairman of the Task Force being present does not make any sense.
281
210
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 20, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Councilman Daly. The ordinance will be coming back to the Council for first
reading which will give Mr. Hughes an opportunity to be present to give any
input he might wish to give.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST;
Ed Dart. He asked if, under the discussion and action on the pending
ordinance, if that included directing Staff to continue with what Mr. Hughes
would like to see relative to pushcarts. He is asking that the Council direct
that a Task Force be formed to discuss that issue or continue with the present
Task Force.
Mayor Hunter. He feels pushcarts are a separate issue, one which the Council
would be taking up at a later date.
114/169; STREET IMPROVEMENTS WEST STREET/LINCOLN AVENUE INTERSECTION;
Councilman Daly. He would like a report from Staff on the subject street
improvement which was one of the intersections that recently received a new
set of traffic lights. At one point in construction of the traffic signals, a
narrow median strip was installed on West Street, not allowing traffic to
cross West Street from Center Street. The median was then removed but the
striping which accommodated that situation was not changed to reflect the
removal.
City Manager Bob Simpson stated he would check into the matter.
114/163; DISCUSSION - ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL COORDINATING COMMITTEE;
Councilman Daly asked that a discussion be scheduled on next week's Council
agenda, the subject of the City's relationship with the seven school districts
in Anaheim in order to develop a concerted approach to issues such as drug
use, gangs, public's use of facilities, etc. Problems now are dealt with as
they come up. He is suggesting that they develop a formal Anaheim City School
Coordinating Committee, a formal working Committee to address issues of mutual
concern where the school districts could suggest issues to be discussed as
well as the City. Representatives of all agencies could meet on a monthly or
quarterly basis and report back their recommendations to all concerned
parties. He would have more suggestions to offer next Tuesday.
City Attorney White clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that there was nothing
in the City Charter prohibiting the City and school districts from working on
school siting issues.
Mayor Hunter. Earlier this year, he and City Manager Bob Stmspon and Alan
Hughes met with all the superintendents of schools at several meetings and
talked about having coordination with regard to certain issues such as drugs
and gang activities and the like. Some schools have the D.A.R.E. Program,
others Just Say No, etc. It evolved into parochialism with different schools
saying, do not interfere with my program. They attempted to have meaningful
discussions but did not get very far.
282
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
It was determined that a discussion of the possibility of forming an Anaheim
City School Coordinating Committee be scheduled for the Council meeting of
March 27, 1990.
ADJOURNMENT; By general consent the-Council adjourned. Councilman Pickler
was absent. (8:26 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
283