1990/05/01City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahtt
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Arthur Daw
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Jonathan Borrego
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:00 p.m. on April 27, 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:
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; 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. 61-46-74; City
of Anaheim vs. Ertzen Associates, Inc., et al., SBSC No. 246402.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
d. 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: Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(6:06 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Melissa Smith, Canyon Hills Presbyterian Church, gave
the invocation.
408
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE; Councilman 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:
Law Day U.S.A. in Anaheim, May 1, 1990,
KODJ Radio Day in Anaheim, May 2, 1990,
Day of Prayer in Anaheim, May 3, 1990,
Hire a Veteran Week, May 6-12, 1990,
Day of the Teacher, May 9, 1990,
Good Posture Month in Anaheim, May, 1990; and Chiropractic Wellness Week, May 13-20, 1990,
Paint and Plant Month in Anaheim, May, 1990.
Jennifer King accepted the Law Day proclamation; Hector Gutierrez accepted the
Hire a Veteran Week proclamation; Dr. John Grogan accepted the Day of the
Teacher proclamation; Dr. Majer accepted the Good Posture Month and
Chiropractic Wellness Week proclamation; and John Poole accepted the Paint and
Plant Month proclamation.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION; A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Shirley McMahon,
Project Director, recognizing Home Helping Hands' 10th year of service to the
frail elderly of the community. Mayor Hunter and Council Members acknowledged
the important and meaningful work done by Mrs. McMahon and her organization.
119; DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION; A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing Assistance League of
Anaheim: Founders Day open house - Celebrating 50 years of service. The
Declaration will be presented by Councilwoman Kaywood at the open house on
May 6, 1990.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of regular meeting
held March 20, 1990. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler
abstained since he was not present on March 20, 1990. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,336,866.00, 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-134 through 90R-138, both inclusive, for adoption; and Ordinance
Nos. 5122 through 5125, both inclusive, for introduction)
409
Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and
ordinances. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 90R-134 through 90R-138, both inclusive, for adoption;
and Ordinance Nos. 5122 through 5125, both inclusive, for introduction. Refer
to Resolution Book.
Al. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department meeting held February 28, 1990.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission
meeting held April 4, 1990.
173: Receiving and filing a notice of public hearing regarding the
elimination of Orange County Transit District's dial-a-ride Saturday service
to be held at the Ralph B. Clark Administration Building on May 21, 1990, at
9:00 a.m.
A2. 169: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
R. J. Noble Company, in the amount of $133,857 for Shepard Street, Carpenter
Avenue & Fountain Way Street Improvements.
A3. 169: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Vernon Paving Company, in the amount of $532,463.09 for Tusttn Avenue Street
and Water Improvements.
A4. 169: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Griffith Company, in the amount of $413,231 for Crowther Avenue Street and
Bridge Improvements.
A5. 169: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Manchester
Avenue Street Improvements - Broadway to Santa Aha Street, by Sully-Miller
Contracting Company, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to
file said Notice of Completion.
A6. 158: Authorizing payment of $31,950 to Ivan Marovlc for additional
modifications to his building located at 735 North Anaheim Boulevard - North
Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening Project (R/W 3500-40).
A7, 174; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-134; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPOINTING A NEW MINORITY BUSINESS PROGRAM LIAISON OFFICER.
(Jack Plake, Engineering Contract Administrator for Public Works - Engineering
Department).
AS, 149/142; ORDINANCE NO, 5122 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING
TRUCKS OR TRAILERS ON STREETS.
410
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Ag. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 5123 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 14.32.430 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO PARKING FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS.
AiO. 160: Accepting the low bid of Buena Park Wholesale Electric Co., in an
amount not to exceed $36,324.75 for 60,000 feet of 600 volt, U.R.D. service
wire, in accordance with Bid #4816.
Ail. 160: Accepting the low bid of Pirelli Cable Corporation, in an amount
not to exceed $47,860.31 for 30,000 feet of 600 volt U.R.D. secondary wire, in
accordance with Bid #4817.
Al2. 160: Accepting the bid of Denny's Air Conditioning, Inc., in the amount
of $21,850 for the installation of approximately 300 temperature-activated
load controllers on residential air conditioners, in accordance with Bid #4830.
Al3. 160: Accepting the bid of Forbes Computer Group, in the amount of
$25,568.75 for two computers and associated hardware to be installed in
Utilities Electrical Engineering, in accordance with Bid #4829.
Al4. 123: Approving a Fourth Amendment to Agreement with Ail City Management
Services, Inc., in the amount of $397,084 for providing school crossing guards
beginning July 1, 1990, through June 30, 1991. (The fourth amendment allows
for a 5.0% increase in cost per hour of guard services provided.)
Al5. 123: Approving a Fifth Amendment to Agreement with Computtl Corporation
to extend the expiration date to June 30, 1991, and increase the processing
cost from .79¢ to .83¢ per citation, for processing and collection services
relating to parking citations issued by the Police Department and Convention
Center.
Al6. 160: Accepting the bid of Zero-Temp, Inc., in the amount of $24,822 for
the purchase and installation of a walk-in freezer in the Police Department
(Property-Evidence-Supply Detail), in accordance with Bid #4826.
Al7. 175.123: Approving a Seventh Amendment to Agreement with Fluor
Technology, Inc., at an additional cost not to exceed $6,000 to provide
additional permitting assistance for the combustion turbine project, and
authorizing the Acting Public Utilities General Manager to execute the amended
agreement.
Al8. 175.123: Approving a First Amendment to Lake Elsinore Pumped Storage
Study Cost Sharing Agreement to decrease the maximum share of the costs for
Anaheim from $40,500 to $37,725, and authorizing the Acting Public Utilities
General Manager to execute the amended agreement.
Al9, 175; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-135: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ENCOURAGING VOLUNTARY WATER CONSERVATION IN RESPONSE TO
CALIFORNIA'S DROUGHT. (As recommended by the Public Utilities Board at its
meeting of April 19, 1990.)
411
CSty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
A20, 139/172: RESOLUTION NO. 90R-136: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ENDORSING PROPOSITION 116, THE RAIL TRANSPORTATION BOND
ACT, SCHEDULED FOR THE JUNE, 1990 BALLOT. (Initiative would provide $1.99
billion funding for rail and other public transportation throughout the state.)
A21, 158: RESOLUTION NO, 90R-137: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
AZ2, 156/142: ORDINANCE NO. 5124 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 7.12 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING NEW CHAPTER 7.12 OF TITLE 7 PERTAINING TO CURFEW FOR MINORS.
A23. 156/108/142~ ORDINANCE NO, 5125 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5087, NUNG PRO TUNC, RELATING TO THE
RETAIL SALE OF CONCEALABLE FIREFIRMS. (Changing chapter and section
designations in the Anaheim Municipal Code from 4.98 to 4.99.)
A24, 161,157; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-138; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECEIVING ADOPTED OWNER PARTICIPATION AND PREFERENCE
RULES, PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COMMISSION'S REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR
THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
A25. 152/124/123: Waiving Council Policy 401, and authorizing the Community
Center Authority to select the firm of H.N.T.B. as the architectural firm for
a two-phase contract for architectural, interior graphics design and contract
documents development for Betterment IV in respective amounts not to exceed
$415,000 and $335,00.
This item was removed by staff at this time to be rescheduled for the May 8,
1990 agenda.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-134 through 90R-138, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
162,172; REQUEST FOR SPEED BUMPS - HOLBROOK AND GLENVIEW STREETS: Residents
of the Holbrook and Glenvtew neighborhood have requested, by petition, that
speed humps be installed on Holbrook and Glenvtew.
Submitted was detailed report dated April 30, 1990 from the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer, Gary Johnson, recommending that the Council disapprove
the installation of speed humps within the public right-of-way. Also
previously submitted was extensive correspondence and data from the proponents
412
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
which included their initial request dated Aprtl 28, 1989, petitions, diagrams
and answers by staff to the requests (all made a part of the record).
Mayor Hunter announced that since approximately 60 people were present on this
item, the Council would consider it before other portions of the agenda. He
assumed there was a spokesman for the group to make the presentation since
this was not a noticed public hearing. Also, the Council had received and
reviewed the data previously submitted.
Mr. Phil Dominguez, 4957 Holbrook (Mr. Dominguez also submitted a notebook of
data and photographs which contained some of the material already submitted,
as well as additional information including supporting data from other cities
relative to speed humps, overview of speed humps, a traffic report from the
City of Thousand Oaks concerning speed humps, and traffic reports from the
City of Anaheim as well as speed surveys and traffic counts made a part of
the record). Working from the aerial photo posted on the Chamber wall, Mr.
Dominguez pointed out Glenview and Holbrook Streets and explained why the
issue had arisen - the reason being that motorists traveling south on Kellogg
are using Glenview and Holbrook to avoid traffic signals on Orangethorpe and
Kellogg, causing an extreme amount of traffic traveling through their
neighborhood (2,500 cars on Glenveiw and 2,000 on Holbrook in a 24-hour period
at an average speed of 33 to 34 miles per hour). Alternatives were discussed
and two of the three were rejected with speed humps, as distinguished from
speed bumps, being the alternative that the residents would like to see on
both Glenview and Holbrook, six on each street. Turn restrictions would not
solve the problem of vehicles using the streets and cul de sacing would not
allow residents to access Kellogg.
Mr. Dominguez then narrated a slide presentation which showed Glenview and
Holbrook (the photographs submitted were representative of the slides) and
also showed Amberdale Street and Yorba Ltnda where speed humps are utilized.
They are also used in other cities (see listing in data presented). Those
cities using speed humps to control speed and cut down through traffic had
positive things to say as evidenced by the questionnaires included in the
booklet. They also did not see any liability problem which is one of the main
points of contention with Anaheim City staff. They have worked with Traffic
Engineering since November and researched the several options with them and
this is the only option they have come up with that will be a solution to the
problem, although he knows there are strong concerns about liability. The
cost of speed humps range anywhere from $200 to $1,000 each.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The device is an attempt to slow down vehicles
by means of an artificial obstruction in the roadway. There are some recent
cases where this was considered to be a liability to the City. Only in some
instances does it reduce speed. The average speed on the two streets in the
30s is not excessive for what are essentially collector streets. There is
additional traffic generated by peak car volumes that bypass the intersection
of Kellogg and Orangethorpe. The solutions which staff has put forth to
constrain traffic at the intersection of Kellogg is to restrict turns thereby
substantially reducing traffic traveling the streets and if that did not work
to the satisfaction of the neighborhood, to construct cul de sacs in such a
413
City Hall, ~Daheim, CalSfor~ia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Hay 1. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
way as not to encroach upon existing lawns. Either of those two alternatives
would create a much quieter neighborhood.
If the City opens the door to speed humps, there will be hundreds of requests
since these are not the only streets in the City experiencing such problems.
The proliferation of these devices would create a burden on the budget as well
as an inconvenience to residents. Speed humps are an obstruction to emergency
vehicles. It is staff's strong recommendation that speed humps not be
instituted. Further, the California Transportation Commission has not
approved the speed hump as a traffic control device. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers has opposed the use of these devices on the basis of
safety. He recommends that one of the other alternatives be used to curtail
some of the speeding on the streets. This has been a long-term problem in the
subject neighborhood. Staff would like to proceed cautiously first with
signing and striping changes to reduce the number of vehicles entering the
street and secondly if that does not work to construct cul de sacs. It could
be done successfully and provide access but yet would prohibit through traffic
on Glenview and Holbrook.
Discussion and questioning then followed between Council Members, staff and
Mr. Dominguez, wherein costs of the various alternatives were discussed,
feasibility of cul de sacing, liability issue, etc. Councilwoman Kaywood also
noted that according to the staff report of April 30, 1990, there was not
unanimity in the neighborhood that speed humps are the solution to the problem.
At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Hunter stated since this was the first
time the Council was presented with the issue, it was not for the Council
tonight to pick out plan A, B or C. Although the entire Council wants to help
with a solution to the concerns and problems raised, it is not possible to do
that tonight. The matter should be put back on the agenda after staff,
Traffic, Police and whoever else should be involved has worked with the
neighborhood. The Council does not have enough information tonight and the
issue needs more review.
Councilman Pickler. He agrees this should be referred back to staff and a
report subsequently submitted to the Council. As well, the data Mr. Dominguez
submitted will be incorporated into the record.
Councilman Ehrle. He would like to know the actual cost of speed humps, cost
of cul de sating, how many emergency vehicles have used the subject streets in
the last couple of years and how many traffic citations have been given.
Marsha Clark, 1760 North Glenview. The reality is it is not safe even on the
sidewalks. She has lived on the street for 6 1/2 years. She then relayed
four accidents involving vehicles that she has witnessed. In order to get an
average speed in the 30s, cars are usually traveling over 40 miles per hour.
The speed limit i= not enforced most of the time. There are many children in
the area as well as schools. Because of the California Vehicle Code, they do
not have a chance that there will be improvement. They need something more
permanent.
414
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May ~, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Upon questioning staff, it was determined that six weeks would be an
appropriate time frame to submit a report and recommendation to the Council.
Mayor Hunter. He is going to direct the City Manager to contact Police Chief
Molloy so that during the next six weeks, there will be extra traffic
enforcement in the subject area.
The matter was then continued to the meeting of June 12, 1990 and during the
interim appropriate staff is to work with the neighborhood relative to
alternatives to eliminate/mitigate the problem and a report subsequently to be
submitted by staff to include the data requested by Council as discussed in
this meeting.
RECESS; By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (7:04 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:12 p.m.)
149/108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 5117 - AMENDMENT TO VENDING ORDINANCE: Amending
subsections of Chapter 14.32 of Title 14 relating to the sale of goods or
merchandise by vehicle. The ordinance was introduced at the meeting of
April 3, 1990. (Extensive discussion relative to proposed changes to the
ordinance took place March 20, 1990, wherein the City Attorney was directed to
prepare the ordinance at the request of the Council see minutes that date).
The matter was again discussed at the meeting of April 17, 1990, and
subsequently continued two weeks to this date.
ORDINANCE NO, 5117: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS OF SECTION 14.32.310 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SALE OF GOODS OR MERCHANDISE BY
VEHICLE.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted it indicated on the
record and as discussed at the prior meeting, that the Council is considering
the ordinance based on public requests received from the vendors and not due
to any litigation currently pending. She then asked Mr. Sarmiento, attorney
representing the vendors, if he intended to ask for attroneys fees if the
ordinance is adopted.
Mr. Salvador Sarmtento, attorney representing the vendors. He discussed the
issue with the City Attorney and the difficulty he (Sarmiento) has is that
there is litigation pending at this time. There is also a Code of Ethics he
has to follow and he is not allowed to speak with a particular party being
represented by Council and Councilwoman Kaywood would have to go through City
Attorney Jack White. One issue is the litigation and one is the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She surmised that Mr. Sarmiento was not saying he would
not be seeking attorneys fees; Mr. Sarmtento answered that he will address the
ordinance but relative to the litigation, he would have to go through the City
Attorney. He clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that with regard to the
ordinance, he cannot answer the question of whether or not he would be seeking
attorneys fees if there are any changes made to the ordinance.
415
115
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1. 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Councilwoman Kaywood. Since that is the case, it will make it easy for her to
determine that there will be no changes in the ordinance. She wanted to know
if anyone wished to speak to the matter.
Councilman Pickler. The litigation filed against the City has been because of
the ordinance and the Council is considering changing the ordinance. Mr.
Sarmiento is being asked if he would withdraw asking for attorneys fees and
he, (Sarmiento) is saying he will not.
Mr. Sarmiento. If the City wanted to sit down and negotiate an attempt to
settle the whole issue together, he is not opposed to that. The litigation
was never placed on the table. The only thing discussed in the task force was
the ordinance and to his understanding, it is the only thing before the
Council. He is willing to sit down and discuss litigation with the Council
present.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She has heard from people over the years who do not
want the street vendors in the City. They do not have one good thing to say
about them. They clog up traffic, park in front of driveways, dirt is left
behind them, they are a traffic hazard, there is noise, etc. Nobody wants
them.
Mayor Hunter. He disagrees. He is down the streets all the time and he has
yet to have one person come to him to complain about the street vendors.
There may be people in the audience but they have never come to him to say
they have a problem. He believes there is a bifurcation between any
prospective law suit and working on the ordinance. They should not use it as
an excuse as to what they might do with the ordinance. The proposed ordinance
is still very strict. It ts'time there is more of a level playing field. He
is ready to vote on the ordinance. It is not a public hearing but if the
Council wants to open it up to public input, they can do so.
Councilman Pickler. He has no problem in looking at and making some changes
but he does have a problem with the attorney for the vendors indicating that
he will continue to sue and also to request his fees while on the other hand
the City Attorney is saying if the City passes the ordinance, it will place
the City in more Jeopardy. He is not ready to do that.
Mayor Hunter. He feels that is an excuse and there has been harassment to the
Chicano/Mexican people in the City for too long. It is necessary to work
together with the Hispanic community. On issues like this, there is one set
of standards for some and another set for the Hispano/Americano$.
Mr. Len Spivak, property owner, 1528 Jeffrey (corner of Jeffrey/Lynne),
property owner at that location for 12 years. Approximately two months ago,
he wrote to the Mayor commending the Council on all the fine work that has
been done in the Jeffrey/Lynne area with substantial Code Enforcement but
indicated that the one pressing problem related to the street vendors. On one
hand the Police Department is trying to eliminate the parking problem while on
the other the vending trucks are parked for long periods in the area. A
vending truck parked on his property for 2 1/2 hours last week and another
416
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
time 1 1/2 hours. He questioned why they are not abiding by the 1/2 hour
specified in the ordinance. The vendors seemed to know the hours of Code
Enforcement and police patrol and work around those hours. His parkway used
to be green but now it is a barren field because it has been trampled down.
The vendors generate and leave a great deal of trash. He is looking at the
situation from the point of consistency. Before concluding, he relayed other
problems he has experienced relative to vending in the area.
Amin David. He is present as President of Los Amigos of Orange County, as a
businessman and resident of the City. It is obvious to him that the people
addressing the issue in a negative fashion were "planted" and asked to be
present. They also could have packed the Chamber with people in support of
what is just, fair and reasonable. It is ludicrous to argue and try to enmesh
the issue of litigation with the ordinance. He considers it capricious and
arbitrary. It is a "blackmail" tactic and offensive to the dignity of the
Council to try to inject that element into it. They call upon the sensibility
of the Council to recognize when their people are constrained in such high
density proportions, they are bound to have more trash and more of the things
that are visible not only in the Jeffrey/Lynne but other areas. What Mr.
Spivak said should be attributed to Code Enforcement. If those violations are
occurring, they should be informed. He feels the Council should take a
positive vote on the ordinance tonight.
Councilman Pickler. He is going to oppose any ordinance changes until the
attorney backs off on his fees. Further, even now, Anaheim allows the longest
period for vendors to remain in on place which is 30 minutes. In surrounding
cities it is five minutes to ten minutes with fifteen minutes maximum in one
of the cities.
Fern Call. She owns apartments at 123 East Leatrlce Lane. She has stated it
would not be bad for a vegetable truck to be in the area because a lot of
women do not drive. She does not class people by race or religion. Everybody
is entitled to a decent place to live. However, she does not see how they, as
owners, can keep them decent. For example, sweeping is done on Friday and
today the area is a mess. The debris includes corn cobs which bring in rats.
She was in the area on Saturday and Sunday and the vendors were there for two
hours and still there when she left. As owners, they are not even allowed to
get a sticker to park in front of their garages. There is no place to park.
A vending truck takes about seven spaces. She questioned who the City was
protecting - the residents who live in the area or the vendors.
John Wong, 915 Chestnut Place, Newport Beach. The vending trucks park in
front of his properties for not only two hours but half a day or a whole day.
He tells them since they attract so many people and debris is left behind, it
should be their responsibility to clean the streets. The vendors refuse to do
it but the City fined him $200 last month. He asked if they were protecting
his tenants or the vendors.
Salvador Sarmtento. He feel~ it is unfair when people start mentioning
vendors and drugs with the same breath. The people he represents abide by the
statutes that exist. If a vending truck is sitting there for six hours, they
417
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
should be cited. It is not the fault of the vendors who he represents, it is
Code Enforcement. They are not doing their job. If there is a lot of trash
in the street then perhaps it is the landlord who is not taking care of the
situation. There are ordinances in force right now and there will continue to
be ordinances that are directed to those problems. He feels those should be
enforced.
Pedro Vazquez, 627 Shelton, Santa Ana, representative of the vendors, speaking
through Mr. Sarmiento as his interpreter, stated that the problem with the
vendors is directly related to the owners of the apartments. The services the
vendors give to the tenants and the City is not appreciated. He questioned
who they are supposed to serve, the owners or the tenants. He would like all
those present today to have the conscience to concentrate on his question, the
reasons why the vendors are being hurt physically, morally and economically.
They are paying for something they have not done. They do not charge
outrageous prices to their customers. They do not have apartments where they
put 20 people into one bedroom. They work closely with the community and with
the people who live in the apartments, with their people and race. They are
not asking the owners of the apartments to permit them to enter. They are
asking the Council to consider the vendors and appreciate the work they are
doing.
Oscar Picasso. He is a resident of the Jeffrey/Lynne area for the last 11
years and has been familiar with the area for the last 20 years. (He is also
a member of the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council). With all due respect,
the issue is not the trash or the many things that have been said but
something else. The police have mentioned the reason why they do not want to
have the vendors longer than certain times, is because of the certain groups
that hang around. Some years ago people used to go into the area on different
days of the week. There was competition, everything was fine, but then
somebody decided it was a good idea to monopolize the whole thing. There were
some incidents where some of the people who were in the audience got into fist
fights because of the situation. The issue is those unwanted people and
drugs. Most of those people, if not all are involved in that kind of business
on the side. He has gone right into the places and mingled with the people
that have to do with prostitution and drugs. He is not only talking about the
users but the pushers. If the Council wants facts, he is willing to talk to
them and give eye witnesses of the people involved. The City will be spendin§
thousands of dollars in the community center and mini park but the issue is
drugs. Some of the eye witnesses do not live in the area but they have talked
to the police and privately they are willing to tell them details and the
names of the persons involved. Answering Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the
time vendors should be allowed to stay in an area, they used to be there for
ten minutes and now they stay five or six hours. That is okay as long as they
abide by the law and do not mingle their business with something else. They
can sell everything as long as they abide by the law and do not hurt the
society. He can be reached through the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council and
they will give the Council a tour so they will know the circumstances first
hand and not because someone else tells them.
418
11/I
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Councilman Daly asked the City Attorney the status of the pending law suit
with the vendors and if it was practical to try to solve some of the legal
issues as part of the ordinance or to let the law suit take its course.
City Attorney White. The matter has not been set for trial date at this
time. It is still in one of the preliminary stages and motions are pending.
He anticipates it will probably be another year or so away from a resolution
in the trial court. The law suit should continue to proceed and take its
course. As part of the process, the court automatically schedules settlement
discussions and conferences. He will undoubtedly be back to the Council
talking about potential settlements of the law suit outside the context of
amending the ordinance. The record is clear as can be but the Council is
considering these amendments based on the fact that requests were made
previously by vendors to ask the Council to make these amendments and the
Council has not initiated the amendments in response to the existing
litigation just as it is clear that now these amendments will not settle the
litigation. He sees no reason why the two have to be intertwined irrevocably
at this time.
Councilman Pickler. The current ordinance is something that they can live
with. Otherwise they are bending over backwards. For example, for a standard
infraction in the City, the fee for everyone is $100 for the first offense and
then $200 and $250 for the second and third. The proposed change in the
ordinance would make it a straight $50 for this one group. He does not think
that is right especially when it involves people from outside the area. Many
of the vendors do not live in Anaheim. The present ordinance, as it stands,
is a good one and changing it will be detrimental, especially to the
Jeffrey/Lynne area.
Councilman Ehrle. There are vendors who come into the City who do not abide
by the City's rules and regulations and make it difficult for those who do
abide by those rules. In order to correct the situation, he recommends that
after all requirements have been met to obtain a business license for vending
tht a license "plate" of some kind be permanently affixed in a visual place on
the vehicle. And that way, Code Enforcement will be able to identify those
who commit violations and if that occurs two, three or four times, then it
will be necessary to look at that particular section of the ordinance.
WAIVER OF RF~%DING - ORDINANCE; The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5117)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Daly seconded the,,motton. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 511? for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5117: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS OF SECTION 14.32.310 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SALE OF GOODS OR MERCHANDISE BY
VEHICLE.
419
111
City Hall, ~Dahetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990. 5:30 P.M.
City Attorney White explained because it is necessary that all Council Members
agree to waive reading in full of an ordinance or a resolution, and there was
one no vote, it is necessary to read the ordinance in full.
City Clerk Sohl then read the ordinance in its entirety.
At the conclusion of reading in full of the ordinance, a vote was then taken
on Ordinance 5117, which had been offered by Councilman Hunter. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney to
clarify a point of possible liability for the City in case of an accident in
the proposed ordinance should the amount of space for a vehicle to be parked
from the intersection be changed from the present 100 feet to 40 feet. City
Attorney White explained the law in that regard concluding it was his opinion
the City would not accrue any liability by the change.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle and Hunter
Kaywood and Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5117 duly passed and adopted.
164/000; ADJUSTING WEIR CANYON ROAD DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT AREA: To consider
a resolution approving the annual adjustment of fees (from $5,000 to $5,250
per acre) for the established Weir Canyon Road Drainage Reimbursement Area as
required per Resolution No. 87R-509. Submitted was report dated April 3, 1990
from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, recommending approval of the
subject annual adjustment.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition
to the proposed annual adjustment of fees; 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-139)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 90R-139 for adoption, adjusting the
drainage fee for the Weir Canyon Road Drainage Reimbursement Area, as
recommended in memorandum dated April 3, 1990. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-139: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADJUSTING A DRAINAGE FEE (WEIR CANYON ROAD DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT
AREA).
420
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 1. 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-139 duly passed and adopted.
179/142; ALTERNATIVE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MEASURES FOR THE
COMMERCIAL/RECREATION (C-R ZONE); Submitted was joint report dated April 16,
1990 from the Planning Department/City Attorney - subject: Response to
Liaison Committee request regarding alternative interim development measures
for the commercial recreation (CR) area. The discussion portion of the report
gave an overview of the situation and subsequently attached to the report was
a summary of projects in process at this time in the CR area.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. The City is currently in the process of a major
study effort in the CR area, perhaps the most comprehensive ever undertaken in
that area. It is an enhancement program that addresses signage, landscaping,.
development regulations and also examines existing and future land use
projects and associated infrastructure requirements for the next 20 years.
The City has a strong desire to comprehensively plan for the area and
accommodate the ultimate growth potential for the CR area. It was in that
spirit that there have been discussions about how Anaheim could maximize the
potential for the CR area and not take steps in the interim to preclude that
potential from being realized. As was requested at a Liaison Committee
meeting, staff did examine alternatives and has identified that Alternative A,
an ordinance prepared by the City Attorney, is one that would most closely
implement the goals discussed by the Liaison Committee of letting the area
fully reach its potential. Subsequent to preparation of the report, there was
another alternative prepared by the City Attorney, the Exhibit "C" Ordinance,
that would also accomplish those stated goals.
Alan Hughes, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber, in
representing the business community has some concerns relative to the proposed
ordinance. Having just received the material, the Chamber has not had the
opportunity to look at the proposal in any depth. However, they feel there
will be heavy implications involved which will have a great affect on the
business community if the proposed ordinance is adopted. The Chamber would
like some time to take a look at it and to develop their presentation. It
would require that the Council not consider adopting the ordinance on an
emergency basis but in a more timely fashion.
Tom Kieviet, Farano & Kievtet. He is present on behalf of several developer
clients his firm is representing who have land and/or development projects
within the CR area. His comments are on their behalf. He echos the Chamber's
position that this issue has not had the opportunity to be reviewed and
afforded public input and comment by the people most affected. At the least,
they are asking that the ordinance not be adopted on an urgency basis but that
it go through the normal process. This proposal is extremely unfair to
projects that have gone through up to this point. They were before the
421
log
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Council in October to speak to Council's adoption of an ordinance requiring
all motel/hotel uses to go through the CUP process. The ordinance was
adopted, and on at least two projects his clients went through the expense,
time and effort to conduct various studies and meeting all Code requirements.
They have been approved by the Planning Commission and subsequently set for
public hearings before the Council. Since they have complied with the Code,
they anticipate the Council will look at those projects favorably. To now
stop them and change the rules when they are so near the end would be grossly
unfair. Adoption of the ordinance on this basis could seriously jeopardize
projects planned in the area. In particular is the Riviera project which is
attempting to present a revised proposal to the City. If the ordinance is
adopted, they will be unable to proceed. These projects would be a major
benefit to the City. In the event the Council does want to consider adoption
of a moratorium, which is what the proposal is calling for, to the extent
projects have met conditions up to this point in time and have had Planning
Commission approval, those projects be permitted to go forward. They are
requesting input from staff on how it will affect their ability to proceed
with the Riviera project. He asked that the Council give the matter the
serious consideration it deserves.
Casey Honeywell, Director of Strategic Planning and Development for the Walt
Disney Company. He is speaking in favor of the limited moratorium. The Walt
Disney Company has a great interest in the continuing goal in the CR area and
the maintenance of standards to ensure quality development in that area. They
strongly believe in the evolution of the CR area into a world class tourist
destination resort area. Most of the elements are in place but they feel
there are two unresolved issues inhibiting growth and development of the CR
area - the absence of a comprehensive plan to upgrade infrastructure in
support of that growth, and the absence of a cohesive set of design standards
and zoning guidelines to ensure quality development.
Anaheim has initiated a planning process under the auspices of Joel Flck,
Planning Director, and Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer,
to address these issues. The proposed moratorium would control development
during the planning period and allow for the comprehensive planning process to
study such issues as design standards, land uses and transportation measures
and ensure that projects in the pipeline would conform to the emerging
standards from that study, It is essentially a pro-§rowth moratorium proposed
for a very limited period of time as a valid planning tool. They have spoken
to a number of business interests in the community and particularly with
representatives of the Visitor and Convention Bureau. There is considerable
support particularly among hotel owners for the moratorium and particularly
for the planning process that this moratorium would support. It is necessary
for the continued growth of the CR area in general and Dtsneyland's expansion
plans in particular. They strongly propose the institution of the moratorium
as drafted.
John Swint, 707 West North Street, Anaheim. He has three projects going into
the Disneyland area which are presently in progress. Considerable funds have
been spent on the projects for traffic impact studies, sewer studies,
landscaping plans, etc. He is at City Hall three or four times a week, week
422
110
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
after week and no one has ever said there is an ordinance going to be proposed
placing a moratorium on building. It is very unfair that property owners have
not been given any notice of such a moratorium. He stands to lose at least
$150,000 if the ordinance is passed. He feels it is time for some changes but
there should be a warning.
City Attorney White. One item not discussed in the staff presentation, if the
Council, by a 4/5 vote, adopts this interim measure in any form, it will only
be valid for a period of 45 days. During that period, it would be necessary
for the Council, if they desired, to extend it beyond 45 days, to conduct a
noticed public hearing and as a result of that hearing to then again vote to
extend the ordinance, in whole or in part, for a further period of time. If
the Council fails to conduct that hearing and vote to extend the ordinance
within 45 days, the ordinance will automatically expire at the end of 45 days
and all the uses currently in effect will continue without change and any
projects in the works would be allowed to go forward at that time.
Mayor Hunter asked when the CR area study was anticipated to be completed.
Joel Fick. They are currently having meetings on an ongoing basis with the
Planning Commission. They are holding workshops and reviewing portions of the
Code. It should be completed within the next two months. They are then
planning on taking all those regulations to the business community, seeking
input from the public and coming back for the formal adoption process through
the Planning Commission and Council. The second portion of the study which is
the land use transportation infrastructure portion of the study, preliminary
results will be in towards the end of summer.
Dan Van Dorp, Consulting Engineer, 863 Jasper Circle, Anaheim. They just
received the data yesterday and have not had time to analyze it. There are
two different ordinances before the Council so it is difficult to comment.
One is a total prohibition on any construction and the other exempts certain
projects that were approved prior to April 17th provided they meet certain
other conditions. He represents Anaheim Hotel Complex which did receive
approval on December 12, 1989 for a 17-story, 750-unit motel. The ordinance
imposes additional restrictions as to the timing of building permits, etc.
which were not a part of the original CUP. He does not see legally how those
could be imposed. The ordinance states it is an emergency measure for health
and safety reasons. The City already has a comprehensive zoning ordinance.
Not one of the reasons has a justification or a finding of fact that the
current zoning ordinance does not provide for the public health, safety and
welfare. He recommends that the Council not adopt the ordinance at this time.
Phil Schwartze, 14841 Yorba, Tustin. He has been working on the Conestoga
Hotel project and the Coral Reef for about a year and is not sure whether that
project is exempt or not. He has not seen the ordinance. They had a review
by the Planning Department staff measuring their project against what he
believes is in the new CR zone requirements. He believes they meet and exceed
those requirements. If Council ultimately adopts that code, hopefully they
are already there. If there is an exemption that could be worked out, the
Coral Reef is ready to go and will be on the Consent Calendar which will be
before the Council shortly.
423
107
City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Mayor Hunter ended the public input portion of the discussion.
City Attorney White. The Council has been presented with not two but three
potential alternatives, the third having been drafted yesterday, thus being
unable to make it into the staff packets distributed in advance either to the
public or City Council. It is similar to the other two but would extend the
interim ordinance to projects that are numerated - the ten different listed
types of uses. It would extend those to projects that are not yet under
construction or further along. It would provide the projects that had building
permits but had not yet started would be subject to the ordinance as well as
those projects that did not have building permits as yet. That would be the
distinction in what he would call Alternate C.
The City Attorney continued that relative to Mr. Van Dorp's comments, there is
an adequate statement of urgency contained in the ordinance. There was one
other statement made by Mr. Van Dorp that needs clarification. The ordinance
does not apply to refurbishing or remodelings, or to obtaining water heater
permits. The language says - : ". no permit shall be issued for the
construction, erection or expansion of any of the following listed uses."
That is intended and would be interpreted by staff to only apply to new uses
or expansions of existing uses, not to any remodeling, be it interior or
exterior, that does not expand the use of the property when it falls in one of
the categories set forth in the ordinance.
Councilman Daly. Speaking to the City Attorney, he asked if Council were to
adopt one of the proposed measures, could he (White) be prepared to report
back to the Council within 30 days on a process for determining an approach
regarding all the various projects that have been approved by either the
Planning Commission or City Council to date. Is that something that he and
the Planning Department could put together.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, relayed to the City Attorney that they could do
so.
Councilman Hunter offered Urgency Ordinance No. 5126 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 512G: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AN INTERIM
MEASURE PURSUANT TO SECTION 65858 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH
A ZONING PROPOSAL THE CITY COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING OR STUDYING AND DECLARING
THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AN URGENCY MEASURE WHICH SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White confirmed for the Mayor that the
subject matter is on the agenda for Council consideration. The fact that the
ordinance was Just received by the Council is immaterial. Adoption will
require a 4/5 vote and the ordinance is required to be read in full.
City Attorney White thereupon read Ordinance No. 5126 in full.
424
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINI~ES - May 1, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Ehrle stated he is going to oppose the
ordinance, noting that in the data submitted it is obvious with the number of
projects previously approved in the subject area that hundreds of millions of
dollars are involved in these projects and the City is telling the business
community it is going to shut down that business. A moratorium is a shut
down. The area study was to have been submitted by this time and now it will
be two more months and the matter will be going through additional Planning
Commission review which will take additional time. It is not fair to the
business and development community around the CR zone. He is opposed to
moratoriums philosophically and politically. He believes it is wrong and does
not see an urgency. The Council knows what is needed in the CR zone and they
do not need more studies and moratoriums to get things done. The projects in
process should go forward in the process and pass or fail on their merits.
A CUP process is already in place. It is in the best interest of the City.
Councilman Pickler. The CR zone is the heart and life blood of Anaheim. Many
of the business people in the area have urged the City to make it attractive
and viable. It is something that must be done. He would like to see the
study expedited and to convince the City Manager to put in extra dollars into
that. It is vitally important to the citizens and the City.
A vote was the taken on the foregoing ordinance (Alternate C as read by the
City Attorney).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
Ehrle
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5126 duly passed and adopted and effective
this date.
MOTION; Councilman Daly. To address the concerns of the various people who
spoke, he moved that staff be directed to report back to Council in 30 days
with a process for determining the status of development proposals which have
already been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
155/134; ~UBLIC HEARING - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO, 293:
INITIATED BY City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is approximately 12.8 acres generally bounded
by Broadway to the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the
east, Alexis Avenue to the south and Loara Street to the west.
This is a City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
redesignattng subject area from the Medium Density Residential designation to
the Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
425
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; GPA 293 approved Exhibit A (PC90-65)
6 yes votes, 1 absent.
Set for public hearing due to General Plan Amendment No. 293.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim BulletinApril 19, 1990.
Posting of property April 19, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 20, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 12, 1990.
Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner.
Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission
based on the fact that the proposed General Plan is consistent
with the existing zoning and density of the entire area.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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. 90R-140)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-140 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-140; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 293, EXHIBIT "A".
Roll Call Vote:
426
lOG
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1. 1990, 5;30 P,M,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-140 duly passed and adopted.
134/179: PUBLIC HEARING -CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO, 294, RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-4~, REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 12c
AND 12d;
INITIATED BY City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is approximately 13.2 acres generally bounded
by Center Street to the north, Ohio Street to the east, Broadway Street to the
south and Walnut Street to the west. Excepting those properties fronting on
Center Street or Broadway between Ohio Street and West Street.
This is 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.
This is a City-initiated reclassification from the RM-1200, CG and PD-C zones
to the RM-2400 or a less intense zone; and from the PD-C zone to the
PD-C/RM-2400 or a less intense zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; GPA No. 294 denied, Reclassification
No. 89-90-41 denied, (PC90-66,67) (6 yes votes, 1 absent); Negative
Declaration approved.
Request for City Council review of these items.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bullettn Apri1 19, 1990.
Posting of property April 19, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 20, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 12, 1990.
City Clerk, Lee Sohl.
The General Plan Amendment and Reclassification were both denied
by the Planning Commission. When these items were subsequently
placed on the Council agenda under Planning Commission
Informational Items on April 3, 1990, a statement was carried
forward from the Planning Commission meeting that the Commission
was requesting that Council review the items when, in fact, the
Planning Commission had not directed that there be such a
review. The Commission did not have any concern regarding their
decision of denial. Once the error was recognized which
occurred after the Council meeting, the City Attorney determined
427
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990. 5:30 P.M.
in order to protect anyone who might have wanted to set a
hearing and allow opportunity for due process that the hearing
go forward. At that point, it was not possible to reverse the
Council's setting the matter for a public hearing and notice was
subsequently sent to property owners.
Mayor Hunter.
He first asked for a show of hands of how many people were
present on the item. There were approximately 12. He surmised
that they wanted to leave the General Plan designation and
zoning as is without any change. Since the item was on the
agenda for a public hearing today due to a misunderstanding, he
asked how many people in the audience were in favor of changing
the zoning; there was no response.
City Attorney White.
Because of the fact that this is a General Plan Amendment and
Reclassification, these are legislative rather than
quasi-judicial items. He senses that the Council is not
enthusiastic about adopting the General Plan Amendment and
approving the reclassification. It may save time and energy by
his indicating it may not be necessary for a lot of people to
speak. His sense is that it will be denied and unless someone
urgently wants to speak, there would be no need to do so.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter 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. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-141 and 90R-142)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
428
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-141 for adoption, denying General
Plan Amendment No. 294; and Resolution No. 90R-142 for adoption, denying
Reclassification No. 89-90-41.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-141; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DISAPPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT
NO. 294.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-142; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-141 and 90R-142 duly passed and adopted.
Before proceeding with the next scheduled public hearings, Mayor Hunter noted
that the next public hearing (D3) and the second to last public hearing (D6)
involved the same developer and similar projects in the same area if both
public hearings could be combined as requested by the applicant.
City Attorney White confirmed that it would be acceptable to combine the both
issues in one public hearing.
134/179; PUBLIC HEARING - CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO, 295, RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-44, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3260 - CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-45. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO, 3261;
OWNER: Raymond Dinkle
4400 Mac Arthur Boulevard, 9th Floor,
Newpor~ Beach, CA 92660
AGENT:
Magdy Hanna
4400 Mae Arthur Boulevard, 9th Floor,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION/REQUEST: (General Plan Amendment No. 295, Reclassification
No. 89-90-44, Conditional Use Permit No. 3260). The property is approximately
1.78 acres located on the south side of Jackson Avenue approximately 1,165
feet east of the centerline of Park Vista Street. The request is for
amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a
redestgnation from the existing Low-Medium Density Residential designation to
the Medium Density Residential designation.
The request to rezone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to permit the construction
of an 80-unit "affordable" deck-type housing apartment complex with waiver of
minimum butlding site area per dwelling unit and maximum fence height.
429
99
City Hall, ~nahelm, CalSfornta - COUNCI~ MINUTES - May 1. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
LOCATION/REQUEST: (Reclassification No. 89-90-45, Conditional Use Permit
No. 3261). The property is approximately 2.59 acres on the south side of
Frontera Street approximately 260 feet east of the centerline of Park Vista
Street. The request is for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 (0) to RM-1200;
and to permit the construction of an affordable llT-unit deck-type housing
apartment complex with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved GPA 295, granted
Reclassification No. 89-90-44; Granted CUP No. 3260 and waiver of code
requirement; Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, (PC90-60,61,62) (5 yes
votes, 1 no, 1 absent).
Reclassification No. 89-90-45 approved. Conditional Use Permit No. 3261
granted, code waiver granted; approved Mitigated Negative Declaration,
(PC90-63, 64) (5 yes votes, 1 no, 1 absent).
HEARING SET ON:
Public hearing necessitated by the General Plan Amendments. On
Reclassification No. 89-90-45 and Conditional Use Permit No. 3261, a review of
the Planning Commission's decision requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and
Councilman Daly at the meeting of April 3, 1990, and public hearing scheduled
this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 19, 1990 (amendment April 26, 1990).
Posting of property April 20, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 24, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 12, 1990.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
A1 Marshall, 4400 Mac Arthur Boulevard, 9th Floor, Newport
Beach, CA 92660, Newport Pacific Development.
They are requesting approval of the two subject properties for
multifamily use. The current use of both properties is oil
field production. This is the cleanest, most straight forward
presentation they have made to the G0uncil to date. The use is
the most appropriate for the properties. The neighborhood is
multiple family residential. The solution they are proposing
will remove the oil wells, all of the toxic elements in the
soil, the underground pipeline, and the tank farm adjacent to
the mobtlehome park. They have met with the representative and
residents of the mobilehome park and made three major changes at
their request. At the final meeting with mobtlehome park
residents, the end result was that the 32 people present
approved of the project and did receive their support. They are
asking for Council approval. They have concerns about new
potential state regulations that may Jeopardize expeditious
clean up of the properties and request Council review of that
this evening.
430
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing on both properties.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing on both afformentioned projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - (General Plan Amendment
No. 295, Reclassification No. 89-90-44, Conditional Use Permit No. 3260): On
motion by Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -
(Reclassification No, 89-90-45. Conditional Use Permit No, 3261); On motion
by Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council does
hereby approve a mitigated Negative Declaration on the subject project and
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code on the basis that the Planning Commission/City Council
has considered the proposal with the mitigated Negative Declaration and
accompanying Monitoring Program, together with any comments received during
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial
Study that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS; The title of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-143 through 90R-147, both
inclusive, for adoption)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 90R-143 through 90R-147, both
inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-143; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 295, EXHIBIT "A".
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-144; 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.
431
97
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3260.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-146; 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.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-147; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3261.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-143 through 90R-147, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO, 4014, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, GLASS 3:
OWNER: Henry Ulloa and Juana Ulloa
646 N. Carleton Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 606 N. Carleton Avenue. The
request is for a 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).
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Hunter and Councilman Daly at the meeting of March 20, 1990, and public
hearing.scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 19, 1990.
Posting of property April 19, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 20, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 26, 1990.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Wally Courtney, 917 Center Street, agent for Mr. and Mrs. Ulloa.
The Ulloas have a 4-year old mentally disabled grandson who
needs attention 24 hours a day. The subject property contains a
permitted rumpus room in the backyard detached from the house.
It was ideal for the family since they take turns caring for the
432
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May %, 1990, 5;30
child. The availability of the rumpus room on the property
enables a son and wife to live there. The family moved in in
September and were immediately approached by Code Enforcement
responding to complaints. The neighbors complained that too
many cars were being parked on the property and that
improvements were being made without permits. When Code
Enforcement investigated the matter they found that all the cars
were running and registered. Since a large family is involved
and live in the neighborhood, they came to the property to
help. The Ulloas were also doing extensive remodeling, all with
permits. Code Enforcement was called to the property several
times, one time because of complaints that four or five families
were living on the property which was not so. Code Enforcement
found a cooking unit in the rumpus room which is not permitted.
The variance being requested is the closest thing allowable with
the current City Code. The Planning Commission turned the
request down. The Ulloas have no intention of making the room a
rental unit. It is for their son and family for the needed care
of the handicapped child. He is asking for the continued use of
the cooking facility which was there when Mr. Ulloa purchased
the property. He clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the
child was his son's child but not the one living with him.
The City Attorney then clarified upon Council questioning that
the problem is that the kitchen facilities that are in the
second unit make that a separate residential unit and if there
were no kitchen facilities there would be no problem.
Councilman Pickler. He has a concern with making living
quarters out of a rumpus room. It does not belong in that
area. The family has to find another method of taking care of
the child. Converting the room into living quarters will be a
detriment to the area and it is something that is not legally
meant to be.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN OPPOSITION:
John Burke, 649 South Carleton, across the street.
At the last Planning Commission meeting he and his wife were
falsely accused by Mrs. Berryman, the agent who actually
represented the Ulloas, with having ethnic prejudices. He did
not respond thinking that no one would take her seriously. One
of the Planning Commission members repeated the accusations
after the public comments were closed and tried to convince the
other Commissioners to grant the variance on the basis that they
were anti-Hispanic. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
He then explained his community involvement especially on behalf
of the Hispanic community.
433
95
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
IN OPPOSITION:
IN OPPOSITION:
Last fall there were many cars parked on and near the property
in question as well as construction equipment. The number of
cars have been reduced and construction equipment is no longer
in evidence and the property looks better than it has in years.
He is happy to have the Ulloas as neighbors. The real issue is
whether or not the City will create a precedent by granting a
variance which will allow auxiliary living quarters in an area
where there currently exists no such variance. It would allow
others to do the same, condemning the neighborhood just as in
other parts of the City. If the property is sold, the variance
goes with the property. He urged the Council to ratify the
decision of the Planning Commission for the same reasons they
rejected it and for the same reasons the City has a code in the
first place.
George Sbardellati, 627 Carleton.
The owner has nine rentals in Anaheim. He and his real estate
man got together on this. They are both sophisticated and know
what they are doing. He believes they are trying to get away
with something. This should not be approved.
Cornelia Coggeshall, 640 North Carleton.
The request is to use the home as they see fit for their own
family and they are not asking to turn it into a rental. Only
one family wants to use it. If approved, when the house is
sold, there will be a duplex on their street. She suggests that
they give permission for this family to use it for the family
but when the house is sold, that the refrigerator and stove be
removed.
Phil Carlson, 645 Carleton, across the street.
The parking and property has improved, the question being will
there be a change to a rental property. It may not be the
owner's intention but he could move his family out and rent the
room for extra income. He suggested at the Planning Commission
meetings that the Code be changed so that a special needy family
could use the property with proper safeguards. The property was
being rented before. The property has turned into a rental and
the enforcement problems go along with that.
Frank Yurohara, 601 North Dwyer Drive.
If the variance is allowed, everyone else will want to do the
same thing. It should be turned down.
Paul Kott, 504 North State College Boulevard.
He is not saying he is in favor or in opposition. He takes
exception to remarks made by Mr. Sbardellati implying that there
was some inpropriety between the real estate agent and the owner
of the property. Wally Courtney is associated with his office
434
Cit~ Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, ~990, 5;30
and he is going above and beyond the call of duty on the Ulloas'
behalf. The testimony by some of the people opposed have stated
that the property has been improved from what it used to be.
The room has been a rental for the last nine years illegally and
he assures some of the neighbors will say they knew it to be
so. Now that some individual would like to come in and legalize
it for his own family, the penalty is coming into play. He
believes there could be a compromise.
Henry Ulloa.
He is the owner. He is not looking for a rental unit. It is
foolish for anyone to believe he would spend $300,000 for the
property to have a small rental room in the back that would
bring in minimal rent with the inconvenience of having strangers
on his property. His son is buying a house right now and will
be there for about another year. His daughter may then move in
to take care of the child. His grandson has been awarded to him
by the court. That is why he bought the property. He thought
it was legal. He does not like the way he has been treated by
the neighbors.
Jo Berryman, 801 South Brookhurst.
Mr. Ulloa bought the property under the impression that his
extended family could live there legally. Code Enforcement has
descended on the family and have harassed them from the day they
moved in and are still doing so. She did not know there was a
rental in the back. After trying to comply with all the rules
imposed upon him, Mr. Ulloa has actually been defeated by a
hostile neighborhood that does not understand the situation.
She feels they have been stampeded by one person who has gone
around the neighborhood with a petition saying that it was going
to change the area to R2. It is not the way to change zoning in
Anaheim. She asked that the Council give the Ulloas a variance
for 7 years. She then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that
she sold the house to Mr. Ulloa and the reason she is involved
emotionally, she has seen the Ulloas harassed and persecuted.
The house was searched three times by Code Enforcement.
Mayor Hunter.
The real issue is whether or not there should be a granny unit
granted in a residential area. The peripheral matters are not
focusing on the issue - whether or not to allow a 397 square
foot accessory unit on the property as a living area.
Henry Ulloa.
He then explained the times Code Enforcement representatives
came to his home to check his house because people had
complained that 20 people were living there. They came back
three times and also took pictures in his home. When they came
a fourth time he told them that was the last time they can come
into his house.
435
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1. 1990. 5:30 P.M.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager.
The reason they took photos, there were complaints that kept
being made and they had to substantiate those one way or the
other. Code Enforcement did not find overcrowding but found
conditions that he would think would be upsetting to the
neighborhood when the Ulloas first moved in but part of that was
caused by construction and a lot of vehicles. They have since
turned things around. He takes exception to the fact that Mrs.
Berryman stated they were harassing anyone. They do not do that
but take a humanistic approach to all Code Enforcement. This is
a difficult situation and the Mayor has outlined it very well.
The point is whether they want three people to live in a less
than 400 square foot unit in single family property, not about
Code Enforcement procedures. It is a land use issue and nothing
else.
Councilman Ehrle. He asked the City Attorney to give a brief
legal description of the granny unit; City Attorney White
confirmed that this particular application does not come under
the granny unit provisions. It is a request for a variance from
requirements in the subject zone.
IN OPPOSITION:
Bill Gebhardt.
His mother lives immediately next door at 650 North Carleton
where he had lived up to two years ago for 29 years. Mr. Ulloa
is a sophisticated investor who owns a number of properties. He
should be sophisticated enough to know the rulings that 379
square feet is not legal living space. It does not even meet
the requirement of what the government considers a sleeping
room. Mostly the neighbors are concerned about property values
going down if it has the inkling of an R-2 property multiple
family dwelling. He empathizes with the family but the concern
is for the neighborhood.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Wally Courtney.
He is aware Code Enforcement does not harass citizens of
Anaheim. They may have unwillingly been cooperating with the
neighborhood who took turns calling Code Enforcement out to the
property. As mentioned, the rumpus room was actually being
illegally rented several years prior to the Ulloas buying the
property but the neighbors did not complain. The Ulloas moved
in and Code Enforcement was called out four times. One possible
solution is to approve the CUP or variance which would then
expire at a specified time or date thereby alleviating the
neighbors concern that it may turn into a rental unit.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closeu the public hearing.
436
94
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council ratified the
determination of the City Engineer that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01 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. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-148)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-148 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 4014. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-148; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 4014.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-148 duly passed and adopted.
179~ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ADDENDUM - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.
293 (PREY, CERT.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3241:
OWNER: B.U. Patel and Loren Wagner
650 Town Center Drive Suite 190,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
AGENT:
Farano and Kteviet
100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 201 West Katella Avenue. The
request is to permit a 12-story, 384-unit hotel.
ACTION T~KEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP No. 3241 granted (PC90-47), with
modifications to Condition Nos. 8, 15, and 37, and deletion of Condition No. 9
(7 yes votes); approved Addendum to EIR No. 293, including Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Councilman Daly
and Councilman Hunter at the meeting of March 20, 1990. This matter was
continued from the meeting of April 17, 1990, to this date.
437
91
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1. 1990, 5;30
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 5, 1990.
Posting of property April 4, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 6, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 26, 1990.
An additional request for a one week continuance to May 8, 1990 was received
from the agent, Farano & Klevtet.
City Attorney White. In view of the action taken by the Council in adopting
Ordinance No. 5126 for a period of 45 days which ordinance would not permit
the approval of this conditional use permit at this time, it would be his
recommendation, based on input from the attorney for the applicant, to either
continue this for a period of not less than 45 days or to deny it on the basis
that it does not comply with the interim ordinance now in effect.
Councilman Hunter moved to continue the public hearing on Environmental Impact
Report No. 293 (previously certified) and Conditional Use Permit No. 3241 for
45 days. Councilman Daly seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Tom Kieviet, Farano & Kieviet, attorney for the
applicant, stated he was not sure he understands what staff will be coming
back with in 30 days with regard to pending projects and if this would be one
of the projects involved.
Councilman Daly asked if there was any way to continue such matters less than
45 days.
City Attorney White. The Council could continue the matter from week to week
although it is cumbersome to do so. He suggests even if staff comes back with
a report in 30 days, it is going to be very close to the, 45-day period before
any action is taken on the existing ordinance. Putting the matter over to the
closest meeting after the 45-day period, he feels would be the best that can
be done at this time. He suggested that it be a date certain since no
additional legal notices will be sent regarding the public hearing.
Councilman Hunter modified his motion that the 45-day continuance be June 19,
1990 which is the closest date to that time period.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170/155; PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO, 5 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO 13997 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
REQUESTED BY: William R. Pearce, Hunt Enterprises, Inc.
12844 Inglewood Avenue,
Hawthorne, CA 90250
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 400 West Wilken Way. At the
August 1, 1989, City Council meeting, Tentative Tract No. 13997 together with
438
City Hal%. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May %, %990, 5;30 P.M.
Conditional Use Permit No. 3168, and Reclassification No. 88-89-55 was granted
by the Anaheim City Council to permit a 2-lot, 106-unit residential
condominium complex, the first of 2-phases at 400 West Wilken Way.
The applicant now requests reconsideration and/or possible amendment to
Condition No. 5 of Tentative Tract No. 13997 which relates to construction of
a standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of Wtllowbrook Lane.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 19, 1990.
Posting of property April 26, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 26, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report from the Planning Department dated April 24, 1990.
Phil Schwartze, Agent.
Mr. Gnotta, President of the Wtllowbrook Homeowners Association
is also present to speak.
The plan posted on the Chamber wall was that which was approved
by the Council in April. It shows the extension of Willowbrook
with a crash gate located at the end. They found as they were
processing plans that there was a condition contained in the
resolution which they somehow overlooked that required a full
cul de sac to be located there. It is not their intention nor
has it ever been to build a full cul de sac there. They are
proposing a modified cul de sac. He has a copy of the plans
with him. They have met with the Willowbrook Homeowners Group
and have discussed this with them. They are in agreement with
the modified cul de sac.
Mayor Hunter asked for an update from staff.
Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer.
The matter was discussed with the Fire Department yesterday and
they have no objection to a modified cul de sac. It would also
be acceptable to the Engineering Department.
Dave Gnotta, Smoketree, 2311 South Mlrna Court, Fresldent of the
Homeowners Association.
He has been made aware that the Council probably has received
letters from different people. He had discussions with those
people who did not quite understand what had happened. The
bottom line is, eight months ago they were under the impression
there was not going to be a cul de sac because there was no
longer going to be an entrance at the subject location. That is
fine with the homeowners. The concept of the modified cul de
sac shown on the drawings Mr. Schwartze has, as opposed to what
is on the Chamber wall, that is what the homeowners want and
that is what the developer wants.
439
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Fern Call.
She owns property at 333 West Wtlken Way. She was present at
the previous meeting. She was never notified subsequently and
there was no postings on the street. She is the one the units
are going to look down on. She does not understand the
situation. Everything is "dumping" on Wtlken Way and there have
been many terrible accidents there. The Council is only
listening to the people from Smoketree and giving them
everything they want.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by
Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council does
hereby approve a mitigated Negative Declaration on the subject project and
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code on the basis that the Planning Commission/City Council
has considered the proposal with the mitigated Negative Declaration and
accompanying Monitoring Program, together with any comments received during
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial
Study that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White.
The information he has is what is on the board right now does
not show exactly the modification of the cul de sac. What is
proposed that would be approved by this differs somewhat from
the exhibit on the board.
Art Daw.
The modified cul de sac should have a minimum radius of 25 feet
and that can be constructed within the existing 64-foot
right-of-way.
David Gnotta.
He knows there was a dlseussion about the 25-£0ot radius but
within the plan Mr. Schwartze has it provides for a 20-foot
radius which would save them from getting involved in having to
purchase some of their green belt area. He clarified for the
Mayor that they would be happy with a 20-foot radius with
landscaping.
Art Daw.
The 25-foot radius is set by maintenance as minimum that street
sweepers can maneuver. There are many cars that cannot turn
around on a 20-foot radius.
Dave Gnotta.
Essentially it is a dead end right now. There are five homes
basically involved. They do not get very much traffic with a
440
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P.M,
maximum of three vehicles ever parked there. There is
absolutely no problem turning around as it is. The street
sweeper goes down there now. It misses sweeping in the corners
but the residents have taken care of that problem themselves.
There is a full-time person on site who sweeps out the corners.
They are accepting responsibility for that.
After a brief discussion between Council Members and staff on the issue,
Councilman Hunter moved to approve an amendment to Condition No. 5 of
Tentative Tract No. 13997 as follows:
"That, as approved by the City Engineer, either:
(a) A modified cul de sac having a twenty (20) foot radius
shall be constructed at the northerly terminus of Willowbrook
Lane; or
(b) A standard cul de sac shall be constructed within the
subject property in accordance with Engineering Department
Standard Detail No. 107. Any gates to the subject proposal
shall not be constructed within said cul de sac."
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179; EFFECT OF URGENCY ORDINANCE ON PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATIONAL ITEMS;
Councilwoman Kaywood. She questioned what action if any needed to be taken
relative to Consent Calendar/Informational Items which may be subject to the
urgency ordinance.
City Attorney White. Ail of the items on this agenda would be subject to the
provisions of the interim ordinance the Council adopted earlier this evening.
If no action is taken by the Council on matters that would otherwise be
subject to the interim ordinance and that ordinance expires at the end of
45 days, the item would automatically be approved and they could get a
building permit and commence construction upon expiration of the 45 days.
179; ITEMS ~ - B9 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 9. 1990 -
INFORMJkTION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 1, 1990;
Bi, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-43. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 3248 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: DENNIS AASE, DAVE AASE AND SANDRA AASE, 701 E. Cypress
Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION; 701 E, Cypress Street, Property is approximately 1.05
acres on the south side of Adele Street approximately 90 feet east of
the centerline of Pauline Street.
For a change in zone from RM-2400 to ML or a less intense zone. To
permit the storage of automobiles and parts with waivers of maximum
fence height and required improvement of parking areas.
441
87
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, ~990, 5;30
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 89-90-43 GRANTED (PC90-82) (7 yes votes).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED; does not need to pave surface,
but must treat the surface with something acceptable to EPA standards
to keep the dust down.
CUP NO. 3248 GRANTED (PC90-83) rewording Condition No. 4 to read:
"That the legal owner/developer of subject property shall construct
the driveway so as not to conflict with the existing and proposed
power poles to the satisfaction of the Electrical Engineering
Division."
Approved Negative Declaration.
B2, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3242 AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: COACHMAN/PATEL, PARTNERSHIP, 301 N. W. 63rd Street, Suite
500, Oklahoma City, OK 73116
AGENT: ROGER ANDERSON, 1663 Sawtelle Blvd., Suite 240, Los Angeles,
CA 90025
LOCATION~ 615 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 0.54
acre located on the north side of Katella Avenue approximately 200
feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard.
To permit a 6-story, 130-unit all-suite hotel with waiver of
permitted encroachment into required yard. (waiver deleted by revised
plans)
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3242 DENIED (PC90-84) (7 yes votes).
No action taken on waiver of code requirement.
Denied Mitigated Negative Declaration.
A letter of appeal was submitted by Dennis D. Bradford, Authorized
Representative for the owner and the matter was subsequently set for a public
hearing on May 15, 1990, at 6:00 p.m.
B3, WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3257 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: B. U. PATEL, 25812 Nellie Gall Road, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
AGENT: JOHN F. SWINT, Architect, 707 W. North Street, Anaheim, CA
92805-1735
LOGATION: 2171 S. Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.9
acres on the west side of Harbor Boulevard approximately 130 feet
north of the centerline of Wtlken Way.
To permit the expansion of an existing motel with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3257 GRANTED (PC90-85) (7 yes votes).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
442
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
Mr. John Swint explained that the project involved is outside the CR zone and
not subject to the ordinance adopted. The project is a hotel and it will be a
first class hotel.
Councilman Daly asked how come these historically have been outside the CR
area.
Annika Santalahti. It is because it is south of Orangewood. Ail the area
north of Orangewood is in the CR area. This is a few hundred feet away from
Garden Grove City limits and not in the commercial-recreation area. If
Council wished, they could direct staff to take a look at the situation and
consider the CR area being expanded as well as the CR zone. All the motels
south of Orangewood have been approved in connection with CUPs while with the
CR area they previously were permitted uses.
John Swint. Ail motels that are built south of Orangewood are all 10-foot
setbacks off Harbor as opposed to 35 feet for the rest.
Councilman Daly. That is why he is bringing it up. He is surprised to learn
that Orangewood is the boundary. He feels CR area runs all the way into
Garden Grove and to Chapman.
The Council took no action on this item.
B4~
VARIANCE NO, 4039, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3:
OWNER: BILL MaCALONEY, 401 North East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: DAN L. ROWLAND & ASSOC. INC., 1290 North Hancock Street,
#204, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION; 401 North East Street Property is approximately 1.63
acres located at the southwest corner of Sycamore Street and East
Street.
Waiver of improvement of right-of-way to construct a 3,780 square
foot retail building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4039 GRANTED (PC90-86).
B5,
CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO, 3264 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Rotanda Development Corp., Attn: Afshin Boghai,
2082 Michaelson Drive, #305, Irvine, CA 92715
AGENT: HOSSIEN VESAL, 2256 Seaview Drive, Fullerton, CA 92633
LOCATION; ~101 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.45
acre located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and West
Street.
To permit an approximately 2,000 square foot convenience market with
off-sale beer and wine within an existing commercial retail center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3264 DENIED (PC90-87) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and
1 abstained) due to traffic congestion on that corner and limited
access to the site.
Approved Negative Declaration, but rescinded that motion to DENY
Negative Declaration.
443
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30
B6. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3265 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION;
OWNER: SUNNYMEAD POULTRY RANCH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, TAIME
NEUTSCH, TRUSTEE, 403 N. Palm Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
AGENT: THE CORNERSTONE CHURCH, 200 N. Lawrence, Fullerton, CA 92632
LOCATION; 1250 North Red Gum Street. Property is approximately 1.06
acres located on the east side of Red Gum Street approximately 500
feet south of the intersection of Mtraloma Avenue and Red Gum Street.
To permit a church in an existing industrial building with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3265 GRANTED - for three years (PC90-88) (6 yes votes, 1
absent)
Waiver of code requirement GRANTED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concerns relative to permitted church uses
in the industrial area which uses could be extended for nine years. She
feels, in that way, churches may never move into a permanent location.
The Council took no action on this item.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3266 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: WILLIAM C. and VINCENT C. TAORMINA, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim,
CA 92805
AGENT: KAREN R. PETERS, OCDF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM, 606 E.
Chapman, Orange, CA 92666
LOCATION; 2780 East White Star Avenue. Property is approximately
1.9 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Blue
Gum Street.
To permit household hazardous materials collection in conjunction
with an existing recycling/resource recovery transfer facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3266 GRANTED (PG90-89) deleting Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6
(5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 abstained).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
B8
CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT NO, 3254 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Attn: W. P. Thornton, 1 River
Road, Schenectady, New York, 12345
AGENT: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Attn: John G. Pfrimmer, 3601 E. La
Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION; 3601 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 6.33
acres on the north side of La Palma Avenue approximately 905 feet
west of the centerline of Tustin Avenue.
To permit the expansion of poly-chlorinated biphenal (PCB) processing
and storage facility.
444
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES
May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3254 GRANTED, for five years, (PC90-90) (5 yes votes, 2
absent).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 300 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION'
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
CA 92803
LOCATION; Property is approximately 6,3 acres having a frontage of
aDDroximatelv 630 feet on the west side of Wtllowb~ook Lane, having a
maximum de~th of approximately 500 feet and located approximately 220
feet north of the centerline of Chapman Avenue,
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.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA No. 300 APPROVED (PC90-91) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
This item was set for a public hearing on May 22, 1990, at 6:00 p.m.
necessitated by the General Plan Amendment.
End of the Planning Commission Items. MOTIONS CARRIED.
170/152: REOUEST CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO, 5106; After their
discussion and action on Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12685, 12686, 12687 and
12688 within Development Areas 2, 4 and 5 of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills,
the Anaheim City Planning Commission took the following action at their
meeting of April 9, 1990:
Planning Commission requests City Council review of Council's previous actions
adopting Ordinance No. 5106 on March 20, 1990, (Item Al7) and amendment of
Council Policy No. 211, transferring final authority of review over
transitional grading areas to the City Engineer on the basis that they felt
the taxpayers should have the right to appeal the City Engineer's decision to
the Ckty Council, their elected officials.
Councilman Pickler moved to leave Ordinance No. 5106 adopted by the Council on
March 20, 1990 as it was adopted. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before further action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood spoke against the
motion. She then read from the Planning Commission's request, "they felt the
taxpayers should have the right to appeal the City Engineer's decision to the
City Council, their elected officials,." This is extremely important and is
something that should be kept.
Councilman Ehrle. It is his opinion if the Planning Commission wants to
direct policy, they should become Council Members; Councilman Hunter agreed.
The Council voted on the matter and now the Planning Commission wants them to
reconsider. The Council is the decision-making body.
445
83
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
Councilman Daly. The City already has a variety of mechanisms for reviewing
grading proposals and have allowed and encouraged the participation of City
residents throughout the process.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She feels it is most unusual to say that citizens
cannot come before the City Council.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
no. MOTION CARRIED.
179: AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. 89R-132 AND 89R-133 - NUNC PRO TUNC: Amending
Resolution No. 89R-133, nunc pro tunc, to amend the legal description in
connection with Variance No. 3899; and amending Resolution No. 89R-132, nunc
pro tunc, to amend the legal description in connection with Reclassification
No. 88-89-36.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTIONS; The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-149 and 90R-150)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 90R-149 and 90R-150 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-149; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 89R-133, NUNC PRO TUNC.
RESOLUTION NO, 90Ro150; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 89R-132, NUNC PRO TUNC.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-149 and 90R-150 duly passed and adopted.
179~ ORDINANCE NO, 5127 - INTRODUCTION; Amending Title 18 to rezone property
under Reclassification No. 88-89-36, located at 318 South Lemon Steer, from
the ML zone to the RM-1200 zone.
Councilman Daly offered Ordinance No. 5127 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5127: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclassification No. 88-89-36, 318 South Lemon Street, RM-1200)
179/142; PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO SETBACK OF BUILDINGS ABUTTING
ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS; AND REOUIRED REFUSE STORAGE AREAS AND
REQUIRED PRIVATE STORAGE AREAS FOR SENIOR CITIZEN'S APARTMENT PROJECTS:
446
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1. 1990. 5:30 P,M,
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PI~ING CONMISSION: Recommended for approval the
following proposed code amendments:
WAIVER OF RE~ING - ORDINANCES; The titles of the following ordinances were
read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance Nos. 5119 and 5120)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION C~2~RIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5119 for adoption, amending and adding
various subsections to 18.31.063, 18.32.063 and 18.34.063 of Title 18 relating
to setback of buildings abutting one-family residential developments; and
Ordinance No. 5120 for adoption amending Section 18.94.038 of Chapter 18.94 of
Title 18 of the Code, pertaining to required refuse storage areas and required
private storage areas. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO, 5119: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AN~HEIM AMENDING AND ADDING
VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS TO SECTIONS 18.31.063, 18.32.063, 18.34 063 OF Cfh~PTERS
18.31, 18.32 AND 18.34, RESPECTIVELY, OF TITLE 18 OF THE AN~EIM MUNICIPAL
CODE REI2%TING TO ZONING.
ORDINANCE NO, 5120: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAMEIM AMENDING AND ADDING
VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS TO SECTIONS 18.94.038 OF CHAPTER 18.94 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
AN~R{EIM ~DJNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Gall Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5119 and 5120 duly passed and adopted.
179; ORDINANCE NO. 5121 - ADOPTION: Amending Title 18 to rezone property
under Reclassification No. 88-89-56, located at 3625 W. Savanna Street, from
the RS-A-43,000 zone to the RM-1200 zone.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5121)
Councilman Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Daly offered Ordinance No. 5121 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5121: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MIINICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
447
Cit~ Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5121 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST;
No items of public interest were addressed.
City Attorney White. The Council should now recess to Closed Session with the
intention that after completion of the Closed Session to adjourn to 2:00 p.m.
on Tuesday, May 8, 1990 for the purpose of a Joint Meeting with the Community
Services Board and the Senior Citizen Commission.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION; By general consent the Council recessed to Closed
Session. (10:31 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:08 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent the Council adjourned to Tuesday, May 8, 1990
at 2:00 p.m. for the purposes of a Joint Meeting with the Community Services
Board and the Senior Citizen Commission. (11:09 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
448