The URL can be used to link to this page

1990/06/05City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5, 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 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT PLANNER: Jonathan Borre§o REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Richard Santo A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 4:00 p.m. on June 1, 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; Nies vs. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 55-63-68. b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. d. To meet with its Negotiator regarding the possible acquisition of land from the Phoenix Club German Association of Orange County located at 1566 South Douglass Road, Anaheim California, and the possible lease or sale of such land to Ogden Financial Services Inc. or other entity for a multipurpose sports and entertainment arena. e. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). f. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any of the matters will not be considered in closed session. AFTER RECESS; Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:47 p.m.) 528 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5, 1990, 5;30 P,M. INVOCATION: Captain Joe Huttenlocker, Salvation Army, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119; PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Hunter and authorized by the City Council: Flag Day in Anaheim, (urging citizens to pause at 7:00 p.m. for the pledge of allegiance) June 14, 1990. 119: DECLARATIONS OF THANKS: Declarations of Thanks were then presented by the Mayor/Council to 13 volunteer group participants commending them for their participation in "Paint and Plant month" helping to keep Anaheim graffiti free. Eight hundred and twenty-five hours were donated by these community minded volunteers. 119: PRESENTATION; Certificates of Recognition were then awarded by the Mayor to those who achieved distinction in the Daughters of the American Revolution citizenship essay contest: Bryan Wagner, 6th grade level; Joyce Fisher, 5th grade level; Donald Meeks, 5th grade level and having received the Banner for the State of California, and Joshua Fullman, 3rd grade level. The Mayor and Council members commended the recipients on their achievement. Later in the meeting (6:00 p.m.) Chairman Hunter reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. 161,157; JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BETWEEN COUNCIL/AGENCY/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Mayor/Councilman Hunter called to order the Joint Session of the Community Redevelopment Commission, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and City Council noting that the Members of the City Council also sit as Members of the Redevelopment Agency. The purpose of the Session is to conduct the subject Joint Public Hearing. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Doug Renner, Robert Dory, Donna Berry, Steve Bristol, Bob Anthony and Fernando Olivares ABSENT: Paul McMillan Co-Chairman, Community Redevelopment Commission (CRC), Donna Berry called to order the Commission and also introduced each Member of the Commission for audience information as requested by the Mayor. Mayor/Chairman Hunter then introduced Lisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development for the City of Anaheim, to provide the background relative to the proposed Plaza Redevelopment Project. Lisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development. Prior to giving the overview to the redevelopment process, she is going to address a neighborhood flyer that was distributed in 529 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P,M, the area yesterday or today west of the proposed project area. The flyer claims that the proposed redevelopment project includes the redesignation of two areas; the parking lot on Loara Street between Price Elementary School and Westmont (the Loara site), and the Cal Fed parking lot between Euclid and the post office (Cal Fed site) as medium density housing which allows 18 to 20 apartments per acre without a further public notice. The anonymous author either was provided erroneous information or is attempting to mislead the community. A redevelopment plan does not change permitted land uses. Only general plan amendments, zoning ordinances and zoning amendments, adopted after a properly noticed public hearing, can change permitted land uses. The Cal Fed site is identified in the General Plan and in the proposed redevelopment Plan as commercial and not residential and it is consistent with its current use which is commercial. The portion of the Loara site fronting on Loara is currently designated medium density residential in the General Plan which allows up to 36 units per acre. The redevelopment Plan recommends an alternate land use subject to subsequent amendment to the General Plan and zoning ordinances a reduction in density to Iow medium which would allow up to 18 units per acre. The back portion or the one closest to the neighborhood to the east is designated low-density residential under the General Plan allowing up to 6 units per acre. The proposed Redevelopment Plan makes no suggestion to an alternate use and would be consistent with the General Plan in allowing for a low density residential use. That site is currently zoned commercial (later further explained that it is zoned RSA-43,000) and any change in zoning would require notification of all property owners within 300 feet whether or not in the redevelopment project area. Perhaps some of the confusion was caused by the post office site which is identified in the General Plan which is commercial and that the post office in the alternate land use would be identified as low medium residential use allowing up to 18 units per acre. That would require a general plan amendment, an additional public hearing and an amendment to the current zoning. It is a federal use and they would have to determine whether or not they would like to move out of the area some time in the future. That is a future possibility and it is not proposed. She emphasized the redevelopment action they are asking for tonight tn no way changes any land uses. The adoption of the Redevelopment Plan would be to form the boundaries of a redevelopment project area and create the financing mechanism known as tax increment. Any future land use changes would require public hearings and notification of all surrounding property owners. 530 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5:30 P,M, Mrs. Stipkovich then gave a presentation on the history and background of the project and the reasons for undertaking the project. The area has been under consideration for some time. There are many problems and deficiencies in the area, both economic and physical, identified throughout the proposed plaza redevelopment project area. The declining and economically declining plaza shopping center has ranked near the bottom of all regional centers in Southern California in terms of sales productivity. In addition, there are many other problems throughout the area - inadequate infrastructure, inadequate sewer and storm drain systems, lack of sidewalks, curbs and gutters in portions of the area, deficient intersection capacities, inadequate traffic circulation for the area as well as proposed impacts by the Caltrans widening. The area does suffer from a poor image, poor parcelization in parts and confusing and inadequate access to the freeway. The area has been under consideration for some time and much more intensely since December of 1988 when they asked the Urban Land Institute to do a study. The Land Institute came up with a recommendation that the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency look into putting the area into redevelopment. Since spring 1989, the Agency has been working on all the legal documents necessary for project adoption, including but not limited to, a preliminary plan, Draft EIR, preliminary report and Final EIR. Many workshops have been conducted including four public workshops, an open house at Anaheim Plaza, six news letters distributed to the 900-member mailing list and staff has attended all of the task force meetings at the Chamber of Commerce which were 10 to 15 meetings. In summary, the information binder previously submitted to the Agency/Council/Commission as well as the items submitted as supplemental information today is the information to be used for their analysis in determining the feasibility of the proposed project. As well, all of the photos and exhibit boards posted in the Council Chamber relative to the project should become part of the record. (See information binder entitled - Joint Public Hearing on Proposed Redevelopment Plan Plaza Development Project which explains all aspects of the plan in detail and which includes among other documentation, the final environmental impact report and all required documentation relative to plan approval. Also see supplement to report to the City Council on the proposed redevelopment plan for the plaza redevelopment project - made a part of the record). The affidavits of publication and of mailing notices to property owners and taxing agencies were then submitted to the City Clerk also to be entered into the record. City Clerk Leonora Sohl then announced that as of this moment, approximately 9,200 signatures have been received in favor of the plaza redevelopment project and one resolution in favor of 531 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P.M. the project from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce signed by Donald E. Natenstedt, President. No written comments in opposition to the project have been received. Mayor/Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing to receive testimony or questions. The following 20 people spoke to the project. Their comments/questions are summarized. Of the 20 people, one spoke in opposition, one did not feel saving the plaza was feasible, others had questions regarding disposition of their property or wanted clarifications relative to certain aspects of the plan. (A verbatim transcript of the proceedings is on file in the City Clerk's Office). Chuck Cooper, Plaza Merchant (owner, Hickory Farms). He represents COMBAP (Concerned Merchants for the Betterment of Anaheim Plaza). He has been in business in the Anaheim Plaza for 15 years. He has a resolution to be entered into the record after it is read. Mr. Cooper then read a resolution from COMBAP (made a part of the record) supporting the formation of the Plaza Redevelopment Project Area and asking the Agency/Council to implement the plan immediately, expedite redevelopment of the project area and to take "all action necessary to see that the development of Anaheim Plaza and the project area, be undertaken in a timely manner to enhance the business atmosphere in Anaheim and assure stability of the project area to the City." Charles M. Farano, Farano & Kievtet, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Attorney for COMBAP. Their estimates are if something is not done as soon as possible, if the redevelopment plan is not adopted, the plaza will be 50% vacant by the end of this year. It will basically spell "death" for the plaza. The property owner in the past has neglected and not kept up the property. There are several problems with the infrastructure and the traffic pattern surrounding the property that can only be overcome through redevelopment. The merchants in the plaza and the entire community have joined together with the help of the City to try and boost sales £n the plaza area but it has not been enoush. There is no time to waste. He is not present merely to urge the Gouncil/Agency but to plea on behalf of the merchants of the plaza for them to adopt the plan. There is much support for it. Paul Bostwick, 1411 South Anaheim Boulevard. He does not have property in the area, but he is currently the Committee Chairman for the Community Development Committee of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and within that is the Plaza Area Redevelopment Task Force. He then read in full the proclamation from the Chamber of Commerce previously submitted, strongly recommending that the Agency and Council adopt and implement the formation of a redevelopment project area known as the Anaheim Plaza Project Area and that such action be taken as 532 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5. 1990. 5:30 P.M. quickly as possible. He also read excerpts from the Loesser report previously commissioned and submitted to the Agency relative to the project as well as Strategy 8 in the City's Vision 200 Plan, which were statements of further justification to put the redevelopment plan in place. Mayor/Chairman Hunter at this time asked for a show of hands of those present in favor of establishing the proposed plaza redevelopment project. Approximately 100 people inside the Council Chamber raised their hand (chairs were also set up outside the Chamber for the overflow crowd). He then asked for a show of hands of those in opposition; there were two people who were in opposition. Christopher Whorton, President, Anaheim City School District, 2074 Della Lane. He was accompanied by his fellow Board Members and Superintendent. While the District has taken no position on the project, the City School District believes the agreement in concept reached between the School District and the Redevelopment Agency will be of benefit to the project, City of Anaheim in general and the students of the District. Under the terms of the agreement, the Agency will assist the District in acquiring a new downtown school site or in capital improvements to their existing school facilities. The cooperation exhibited by the Agency is refreshing and they wish the City well with the project. Marshall Krupp, business person in the community. He has a unique perspective on the redevelopment project. As past Chairman of the City's Economic Development Board, they were very much involved in evaluating the opportunities for Anaheim in terms of revitalizing and enhancing the economic environment throughout the community. One of the primary objectives the Board conveyed to the Council was the need to address Anaheim Plaza and the constraints in terms of redevelopment and development activities surrounding the plaza. This is the only opportunity the Board saw for bringing together the public and private sector to enhance the quality of Anaheim Plaza. It has been a community effort to come to where they are today. Although Anaheim is one of the larger cities in Orange County, it is the only city without a viable regional shopping center and Anaheim Plaza is the location where it should be. He knows there is only one decision to make and that is a vote to revitalize Anaheim Plaza. John Machiaverna, 608 South Hilda, and owner of a jewelry business in the Anaheim Plaza. (J. Mac Jewelers). He has approximately 300 more signatures on petitions signed today in the Westmont/James area. He is on the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Merchants Association. He then read a document from the Board wholeheartedly endorsing approval of the Anaheim Redevelopment Plaza Project (made a part of the record). 533 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P.M, Doris Taylor, 1461 West Beverly Drive, Anaheim. She is representing herself but many of the neighbors in their area (Westmont) have discussed the matter many times. They do support redevelopment of Anaheim Plaza and would very much like to have a regional shopping center that works for everyone. It is very unfortunate that the flyer previously discussed was distributed since it caused great concern and mild panic. The implied threat of many apartment buildings brought out many homeowners. It is regrettable that the misunderstanding took place and she is grateful that the matter was cleared up. They need assurance the City is looking out for the residents' best interest. Jeff Kirsch (opposed), 2661 Palais, Anaheim. He does not support the redevelopment project and he has expressed opposition in the past to redevelopment projects. He expressed his opposition and concern relative to tax increment financing. Later in the meeting, Mr. Kirsch again expressed his concern relative to such financing and posed a line of questioning on tax increment financing answered by Mrs. Stipkovich. Mr. Kirsch also questioned if over time is it not reasonable to expect in that area as well as other areas that costs to the Gity will increase with more costs going to police services and the like. Lisa Stipkovich. It should have the impact of lessening all the social services and police requirements for the area. If there is better housing, better commercial areas, better managed properties, it can be shown statistically that there are less problems in terms of crimes and other issues. There should not be any increase in additional City services for the area. It is targeting the money to go back into that area to help solve problems. The theory in tax increment is that without redevelopment spurring on the new development, they would probably not get any additional increment. Without the Agency/City there to help in redeveloping the plaza, it would probably stay stagnant or else go downhill. She invited Mr. Kirsch to come to the Agency's offices where staff would be happy to answer any further questions or expand on those posed tonight. She will also put his name on the mailing list to receive any additional information on the project. Lorretta Bowen, 1208 North Street, in the project area. (Staff confirmed that Mrs. Bowen's home was not, in fact, inside the project area). She supports the project as far as redeveloping Anaheim Plaza but she also has concerns relative to the financing and if additional public hearings were going to be held regarding the financial effect on the taxpayer. She also stated that in a General Plan, variances and ordinances can be changed without public notice. 534 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5, 1990, 5:30 P,M, Lisa Stipkovich. She first clarified that the only way to change zoning is through a zoning ordinance. She then deferred to the City Attorney. City Attorney, Jack White. Any action that would change the land use of any of the property within the proposed redevelopment area would have to be done either by a general plan amendment or a zoning ordinance, conditional use permit or variance, all of which require noticed public hearings. There is no action that the City could take to change the land use for the property that would not require a noticed public hearing before the City Council or Planning Commission. Lisa Stipkovich. Relative to tax increment financing, it is really a misnomer. The people who are in a redevelopment project area pay no additional taxes. It is a redistribution of who gets the taxes. The property tax base is frozen at the time a project is adopted and any additional property tax normally paid due to a sale or property being developed because it is a higher density or value is still based upon the same rate everybody else pays. That increment would go to the Redevelopment Agency rather than the taxing entities that currently receive it. It is more of a redistribution. What it guarantees is that the money the Agency gets would be reinvested only in that area. It is a way of directing funds to help an area. There is no impact of the redevelopment project of increased taxes in and of itself. That money would then be utilized in a different way and the Agency would have the capability of putting it back into the area. Alfred Diaz. He is the owner of Anaheim Plaza Travel, 500 North Euclid, and is speaking in support. An item not mentioned is the decrease in sales tax revenue that the City has suffered because of deterioration of the mall. If the project is approved, the City will receive additional sales tax revenue over the years. Michael Yawn, 1414 West Wedgewood, Anaheim. While he is in favor of redevelopment of the plaza, the neighbors are concerned about the apartments that are going to be built. Mrs. Stipkovich interjected and again explained the situation relative to the concern expressed by Mr. Yawn which she had explained earlier in the meeting. The Loara site is currently general planned for 1/2 of that property as low density and the other half medium density. It is now zoned commercial. If anyone wanted to come in and build units on that property, they would have to first get a zone change which would automatically 535 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5:30 P.M, trigger a public hearing and the neighbors could give input. If the plan is approved, it will be consistent with the General Plan and be the exact same land uses, iow and medium density. Knowing the concern in the area, they are recommending even lowering the density further as an alternate land use. The General Plan and the zoning would have to take place and could only be done through the public hearing process and those within 300 feet would be notified. The zoning on that portion of the site (closest to the residents) is residential agricultural but would require a zone change because the agricultural zone calls for only one unit per acre. She believes the misapprehension and misinformation that was given out was that in some way that was going to be considered tonight and that is not true. Roberto Queva, 1221 West Dwyer, Anaheim. Twenty-seven years ago when he came to Anaheim, the plaza was very profitable despite its limited access from the freeway and surrounding streets. The location is not one that anyone would choose today to build a shopping center. Further, it will be competing with the shopping centers in Buena Park, Orange and Brea as well as South Coast Plaza, which is one of the best in the United States. It is not a good location and there is no land to expand. Lisa Stipkovich. Some of the comments made relative to competition are legitimate; however, the site is certainly large enough for a regional mall since it contains almost 50 acres. The problems of access are also very accurate and that concern is part of what the proposed redevelopment project will address - improve all access to the plaza. One of the things government can do, working in conjunction with the private sector, is to use the financing mechanism to improve access for the public. It is not bailing out the private sector but there are times when government needs to step in. In this case, it will make the site more viable to create the catalyst to make something happen. It is not costing any additional money to the taxpayer. She reiterated it is a redistribution of property tax and not an additional tax. She then answered additional questions posed relative to how access would be improved and stated she would be very happy to discuss this with Mr. Queva further. Michael J. Sofia, (28-year resident). He works, plays and lives in the City and he would like the privilege of spending his money in Anaheim. They should not be second to any city. He is an optimist and not a pessimist. He would like to continue shopping at Anaheim Plaza and urges the redevelopment of the plaza. 536 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 Dr. Elwood Wiseman, 1246 Dwyer Drive. Most of the people in his neighborhood are aware of the problems in Anaheim Plaza and agree that changes and improvements need to be made but they need some reassurances. They.feel one of the most dangerous City intersections is Loara and Westmont and they would like reassurance that area will be protected so it will be safe for those who live in the area and safe for the children who go to Adelaide Price School. Lisa Stipkovich. The ultimate Caltrans widening would eliminate the off ramp on Loara and thus would minimize traffic at Westmont and Loara. Ed Holmes, 1435 Beverly Drive. He is in favor of the redevelopment program but the owners of the plaza have shown great reluctance to improving anything. He asked how the Agency was going to inspire them to do something. Lisa Stipkovich. The owners do have the property up for sale and there is significant pressure on them to do something. It is being marketed by the firm of Goldman & Sachs and that firm has talked to them extensively about what redevelopment could or could not do. Most developers the Agency has talked to have said that they need the help in order to improve the infrastructure. Mr. Holmes continued that he believes the Agency has recommend that the plaza become a discount shopping center that would generate high traffic as opposed to a regional or "higher class" center. Lisa Stipkovich. Although the prior Urban Land Institute Report proposed a value oriented center, in subsequent meetings since December of 1988, they have hired the firm of Con§leton & Associates to do an additional study as to what potential repositioning of that center might be. They came up with several concepts. The Agency feels there is a market for some of the international stores currently not in the Southern Galifornia area which will be the type of development that might be pursued. It is difficult to give specifics until they know who the developer is. The direction from the Council and the Commission is to get the highest quality development possible something exciting and a unique retail experience. Leonard Lahtinen, 2731 West Savoy, Anaheim. He wants to clarify the ownership of the Anaheim Plaza. He is a teacher in Anaheim. The plaza is owned by the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) but the teachers have no control over it. It is a state government agency that taxes and invests the teachers earnings. The teachers are very concerned about the 537 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5:30 P.M. plaza property. The Anaheim Secondary Teachers Association and Anaheim Elementary Educators Association have petitioned STRS asking them to move on the property. Two months ago they sent resolutions to STRS to advise them that the teachers are concerned about the demise of the property. They live in the community and want the community's economy to be healthy. They are pleased to report they did receive a response indicating STRS was aggressively attempting to sell the property, have several prospective buyers and expect to complete a sale within 60 to 90 days. An unidentified gentleman spoke in favor of the proposed redevelopment project and thanked all involved for the work they had done to bring the matter to where it is today. Jan Myers, 2443 East Olive, business at 1771 West Lincoln. She asked questions specifically relative to her property within the project area which were answered by Mrs. Stipkovich. She wanted to know if the project is approved, how many years or months before her property is involved. Mrs. Stipkovich explained that there were no immediate plans for anything at this time other than Anaheim Plaza which presently is the number one priority. Eventually they would like to sit down with all property owners and businesses in that District to talk about improvements and will probably be setting up planning workshops in the next six months. The project is a long-range one with changes that might occur over the next 35 years but not in the immediate future. There are also no specific plans for acquisition of property in the area. Michael McFadden, J. Mac Jewelers, Anaheim Plaza. He was born, raised and educated in Anaheim and is now co-owner and operator of the subject business in Anaheim Plaza. In the beginning, it was a nice mall but at this time he is not proud to say his business is in Anaheim Plaza. He would like to be able to do so in the future. Dennis Bass, President of the Corporate General Properties. They own and control the 17-acre parcel at Euclid, Broadway and Lincoln, which has been sitting there since 1984. They were ready less than a month ago to proceed with a facelift of the existing center and adding on additional footage. The total sales tax revenue maximum to the City would have probably been less than $200,000. With the project, they can put into the property a quality center that would produce almost $500,000 of sales tax to the City. They will not be looking to the City to put money in their pocket but they will self-generate from the revenues created and work with the Agency. They are not going to be dealing with 1990 land prices on the property but 1984 land prices. They have been working with the Agency which is an excellent one. Benefits accrue more to them than to the City. 538 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P.M, Chuck Cooper. He thanked all who came in support this evening. Speaking for himself and on behalf of the merchants of the plaza, he commended the City Manager, City Council, Commission, Mrs. Stipkovtch and her staff for doing an outstanding job and for the tireless effort put forth to get the project going and bring it to fruition. Staff has had many public meetings and met with whoever has been interested. He thanked everyone involved and urged them to go forward and to be prerogative instead of reactive. Lisa Stipkovich. She thanked all the people at Anaheim Plaza who have been extremely cooperative and have been working on the project with staff for a long time. They have gone through many meetings together. There has been great support and cooperation. They are very sincere and earnestly interested in wanting to see a better place. She also thanked the members of her staff. Mayor/Chairman Hunter. There being no further testimony or evidence to be received, he closed the public hearing on behalf of the Council and the Redevelopment Agency. Donna Berry, Co-Chair, Community Redevelopment Commission. There being no further testimony or evidence to be received, she closed the public hearing on behalf of the Community Redevelopment Commission. Commissioner Doty offered Resolution No. CRC90-9 for adoption, considering the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared and certified by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency for the Plaza Redevelopment project. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, CRC90-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. R011 Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSION MEMBERS: COMMISSION MEMBERS: COMMISSION MEMBERS: Renner, Dory, Berry, Bristol, Anthony, Olivares None McMillan The Co-Chairman declared Resolution No. CRC90-9 duly passed and adopted. Commissioner Doty offered Resolution No. CRC90-10 for adoption, approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Plaza Redevelopment Project and recommending City Council approval. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. CRCgO-IO: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CONSIDERING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED AND 539 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P,M. CERTIFIED BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSION MEMBERS: COMMISSION MEMBERS: COMMISSION MEMBERS: Renner, Dory, Berry, Bristol, Anthony, Olivares None McMillan The Co-Chairman declared Resolution No. CRCgO-10 duly passed and adopted. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; Chairman/Agency Member Hunter offered Resolution No. ARA90-21 through ARAg0-23, both inclusive for adoption, the first approving and adopting Relocation Assistance Guidelines for the Plaza Redevelopment Project, the second approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Plaza Redevelopment project and recommending City Council approval, the third finding that the use of taxes allocated from the Plaza Redevelopment project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community's supply of iow and moderate income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA90-21; A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AND ADOPTING RELOCATION ASSISTANCE GUIDELINES FOR THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO, ARAg0-22; A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. RESOLUTION NO, ARA90-23; A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS' AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter None None The Chairman declared Resolution Nos. ARA90-21 through ARAg0-23, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-179 through 90R-181, both inclusive, for adoption) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 540 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P,M, Mayor/Council Member Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 90R-179 through 90R-181, both inclusive, for adoption, the first considering the Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared and Certified by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency for the Plaza Redevelopment Project, the second finding that the use of taxes allocated from the Plaza Redevelopment Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community's supply of low and moderate income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project, and the third ruling on written and oral objections to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Plaza Redevelopment Project. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 90R-179: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONSIDERING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED AND CERTIFIED BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO 90R-180; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO, 90R-181; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. 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-179 through 90R-181, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Celeste Brady, Community Development. Because no written objections were lodged prior to this hearing or at the Joint Public Hearing, the Council may take action relative to the proposed ordinance. Gouncllman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5136 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO, 5136; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Mayor Hunter noted that the ordinance will be coming back to the Council next week for adoption. Council Members then gave their closing comments relative to the just approved Plaza Redevelopment Project. By general consent, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting was adjourned. (7:32 p.m.) 541 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P,M. By general consent, the Community Redevelopment Commission meeting was adjourned. (7:32 p.m.) RECESS; By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (7:33 p.m.) AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, .all Council Members being present. (7:43 p.m.) WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES; The titles of the following resolutions and ordinances were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 90R-182 through 90R-187, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance No. 5137 for introduction; and Ordinance No. 5131 for adoption) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and ordinances. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 90R-182 through 90R-187, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance No. 5137 for introduction; and Ordinance No. 5131 for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Books. Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected; application for leave to present late claim denied and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Talosia & Tricia Seumanutafa for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 11, 1989. b. Claim submitted by Frank A. Vlacilek, Jr. for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 7, 1989. c. Claim submitted by Craig Martinkovich for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 7, 1989. d. Claim submitted by Signal Maintenance Inc. for indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 23, 1990. e. Claim submitted by Flakey Jake's for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 25, 1990. f. Claim submitted by Salvador Duarte for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 11, 1990. 542 6O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5. 1990. 5:30 P.M. g. Claim submitted by Automobile Club of Southern California for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 28, 1989. h. Claim submitted by Jose Rodrtguez for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 22, 1989. Application for leave to present late claim d. enied: i. Application submitted by Herltnda Gomez for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 28, 1989. A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting for April 25, 1990. 140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistical Report for April, 1990. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held May 3, 1990. 175: Receiving and filing correspondence regarding an application recently filed by Southern California Edison with the California Public Utilities Commission requesting an increase in the authorized rate of return on investment in utility facilities to 11.18% from 10.70%. A3. 167: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Dynatran Division of Dynalectric Company, in the amount of $1,161,207 for the base bid and additive alternate for installation of traffic controllers, Katella Avenue Interconnect Project Dale Street to Douglass Road. A4. 150: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Hondo Company, Inc., in the amount of $97,966 for La Palma and Boysen Parks Tot Lot Renovation. A5. 150: Approving the Notice of Completion of the construction of Clover Stadium Public Address System Improvements by Valley Sound Electronic Systems, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion. A6. 176; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-182: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (89-16A) (Setting a date for public hearing to consider abandoning that certain storm drain easement located generally east of Fairmont Boulevard, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Suggested public hearing date July 10, 1990. A7. 151: Approving payment of $5,000 to Santa Fe Railroad to quitclaim their right-of-way in the Stadium parking lot. 543 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P,M, AS. 123: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement with Orange County Water District in order to monitor water quality for 18 wells at various locations throughout the City, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A9. 123: Approving an agreement with the City of Los Alamitos to implement their portion of the Katella Signal Coordination Project from Interstate 605 to Beach Boulevard. Said agreement will allow Anaheim to receive its fair share of funds for the project from the Orange County Transportation Commission. Al0. 175.123: Approving an agreement with the Cities of Garden Grove and Stanton and County of Orange to implement their portion of the Katella Signal Coordination Project from Dale Street to Douglass Road. Said agreement will allow Anaheim to receive its fair share of funds for the project from the Orange County Transportation Commission. Ail. 175.123: Approving a First Amendment to Agreement with CH2M Hill California, Inc., to include in the Central City Sewer Deficiency Study an additional area of approximately 2.8 square miles bounded by Magnolia Avenue, Orange Avenue, Euclid Street and the Santa Ana Freeway at a fee of $23,500 (to be reimbursed through a cooperation agreement with the Agency). Al2. 144: Approving an Arterial Highway Financing Program Project Administration Agreement with the County of Orange (Project #1224) for Anaheim Boulevard - Cypress Street to Lemon Street (R/W), and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement in the amount of $400,000. Al3. 158/152: Approving and authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute the Right-of-Way Certification for the Western Avenue - north city limits to south city limits Federal Aid Urban Project M-MllO (001). Al4, 170/000/142; ORDINANCE NO, 5137 INTRODUCTION; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO AMEND SECTION 17.30.070 OF CHAPTER 17.30 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT FEES. Al5. 160: Accepting the bid of Westrux International, Inc., in the amount of $59,991.16 for one asphalt patch truck to be assigned to Street Maintenance, in accordance with bid #4844. Al6. 160: Accepting the bid of Sangamo c/o McAvoy & Markham Engineering and Sales Company, in the amount of $34,302.81 for 500 urban network meters to be used by the Utilities Department, Electrical, in accordance with bid #4824. Al7. 160: Accepting the bid of McMahan Desk, Inc., in the amount of $62,742.22 for furniture and furnishing/installing modular panels at the Convention Center, in accordance with bid #4843. Al8. 160: Accepting the bid of Safety Storage, Inc., in the amount of $26,103 for two safety storage buildings to be located in Utilities warehouse yard for hazardous waste storage, in accordance with bid proposal #4835. 544 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5. 1990. 5:30 P.M. Al9. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, without competitive bidding and advertising, to Emergency One, Inc., in the amount of $403,240 for one 75' Quint Fire Truck. A20, 128: RESOLUTION NO, 90R-183: A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF CITY OF ANAHEIM 1990 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES. Finance Director, George Ferrone. Today, ten bids were received on the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRAN) issue of $22 million. The iow bid came in substantially below expectations at 5.8983% resulting in a substantial savings for the City. He introduced the Managing Partner of Siedler & Fitzgerald to give the recommendation. Kenneth Ough, Managing Director, Siedler & Fitzgerald. The City received ten bids with the lowest from Manufacture's Hanover Trust Company at an interest rate of 5.8983%. The market yesterday for a 13-month note was 6.15. The bid was 25 basis points lower than the market. The recommendation is to award the notes to Manufacture's Hanover Trust Company. A21. 175/152: Approving the establishment of a citywide utility undergrounding policy whereby all overhead utility facilities in Anaheim, including all new and existing cable television, telephone and telegraph and electrical transmission and distribution (69ky and lower) facilities, shall be undergrounded, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street. He expressed concern over the proposal and the effect it will have on electrical rates noting that the rough estimate to underground all overhead electrical facilities in the City is $300 million to be completed in 50 to 60 years. He agrees that undergrounding should occur in the CR area and the bed tax used to help defray the cost. He can see no reason to act on this item at this time. City Manager, James Ruth. The report recommends at this time that the Council enact a rate increase of 4% over five years to assist in the financing of undergrounding utilities. There is not a specific plan or a time schedule associated with it. Staff will evaluate the proposal on that basis throughout the City and come back to the Council with a specific plan for Council action at that time. Councilman Daly. He thanked Bob Kazarian who headed up the special Gommittee. He worked with Bob Messe, Joe White and a number of other individuals. The report is an excellent one and a starting point for a major Citywide undertaking. There are many decisions that will be made in coming months. It is a great beginning for a long overdue Citywide beautification. A22. 175.123: Approving a letter agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County to delay construction of the Booster Pump Station at the Diemer Filtration Plant for the Allen-McColloch Pipeline Flow Augmentation Project and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said letter agreement on behalf of the City. 545 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5, 1990, 5:30 P.M. A23. 175.123: Authorizing the Public Utilities Department to enter into a contract with the State Department of Health Services to receive a $25,000 grant in order to perform a study to identify means by which City of Anaheim departments may reduce their generation of hazardous waste; and authorizing John J. Hills, Environmental Services Manager, to sign such contract on behalf of the City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department. A24. 123: Approving an agreement with Magnolia Elementary School District to provide Park Ranger patrols of school facilities from June 8, 1990 through September 2, 1990. A25. 123: Approving an agreement with Boys and Girls Club of Anaheim in the amount of $15,000 in Community Development Block Grant Funds for FY 1989/90 to provide an after-school and summer recreation, sports, and arts and crafts program at Abraham Lincoln School for low-income children. A26. 126: Approving an agreement with Anaheim City School District to lease a portion of Benjamin Franklin Elementary School to accommodate a modular child care building. A27. 123: Approving an agreement with Pepsi-Cola Company to accept a $15,000 donation of play equipment and facilitate the installation of the play equipment at Sage Park as part of the "Let's Build a Pepsi Playpark" program. A28, 109/150/152: RESOLUTION NO, 90R-184~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE UBRAN FORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION BOND ACT OF 1988 FOR THE ARBOR (ANAHEIM REFORESTATION BEAUTIFYING OUR ROADWAYS) PROGRAM. 109/150/152: Authorizing the City Manager to sign the application and act as the City's representative in all matters concerning the application. A29, 144/150/152: RESOLUTION NO. 90R-185: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY URBAN PARKS PROGRAM. (For Little People's Park Expansion - $100,000 and Pearson Park-New Restroom/Recreation Control Building $125,000.) 144/150/152: Authorizing the City Manager to sign the applications and act as the City's representative in all matters concerning the applications. A30. 158: Authorizing payment of Rancho Del Rio Stables Relocation Claim in an amount not to exceed $4,630.40 (for a landscape architect). A31. 106/156: Amending the RAP by increasing Revenue Account 01-3948 by $30,000 and increasing Expenditure Account 01-188-6230 by $30,000 to reflect higher than anticipated damages to Police vehicles. A32. 123: Approving the Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement with various agencies within Los Angeles and Orange Counties for the purpose of establishing a plan to facilitate and encourage public works mutual aid in the 546 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5:30 event of a local emergency, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A33, 113; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-186; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (Internal Audit documents.) A34. 185: Determining that on the basis of the evidence submitted by Gary Theiler of IDM Commercial Development Corporation (agent for the property owner), that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 88-05 for the 1989-1990 period under review. A35. 185: Determining that on the basis of the evidence submitted by Woodcrest Development (the property owner of Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan development area), that Woodcrest Development has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 88-01 for the 1989-1990 period under review. A36, 158; RESOLUTION NO. 90R-187; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OR INTERESTS THEREIN. A37, 155/142; ORDINANCE NO, 5131 - ADOPTION; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 1.12.095 TO CHAPTER 1.12 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROCEDURAL MATTERS. (Establishing maximum time limits for completing Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.) A38. 106: Approving the revised time schedule for the review and adoption of the 1990/91 Resource Allocation Plan. A39. 123: Approving a First Amendment to Agreement with Parker, Stanbury, Babcock, Combs & Bergsten for an increase in hourly rates for attorney services, and authorizing the City Attorney to sign the First Amendment to Agreement. A40. 179: Approving and issuing the report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of Ordinance No. 5126 - prohibiting certain uses of property in the Commercial-Recreation ("G-R") zone. Councilman Ehrle. He is voting against this recommendation. He feels the report is somewhat distorted. In a memorandum of August 21, 1989, staff reported the CR area report would be completed in six months. Now it is reported that it will not be completed until December of 1990 and next week before the Council is the issue of possibly extending the moratorium in the CR zone. He cannot support a moratorium. It is costing the City, developers and hotel people a lot of money. The business community is concerned about an extended moratorium. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 90R-182 through 90R-187: 547 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5. 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 Nos. 90R-182 through 90R-187, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5131: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5131 duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED. 175/153: APPOINTMENT OF NEW PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: City Manager, James Ruth, stated he was pleased and proud to announce the appointment of Ed Aghjayan as the City of Anaheim's new Public Utilities General Manager, effective July 30, 1990. The City Council in Closed Session unanimously approved the appointment. Mr. Aghjayan comes to the City with a tremendous amount of background, knowledge and experience in Utilities field. He is pleased to have a man of Mr. Aghjayan's capability and leadership becoming part of the City's management team. 142/127; PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS: Submitted for Council review and approval were the second group of proposed Charter Amendments - Article 601, 604, 705, 706, 904 and 1100 (technical corrections); Article 8 Articles 900, 902 (substantive amendment). (See Joint Report dated May 31, 1990 from the City Attorney and City Clerk attached to which were the proposed Charter Amendments listing them with corresponding measure numbers). Councilman Pickler moved to approve the wording for the proposed Charter Amendments and corresponding ballot language on the technical amendments - Sections 601, 604, 705, 706, 904 and 1100; Article VIII as submitted and proposed by the Charter Review Committee. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Daly asked relative to Measure 9 (Article VIII) repealing that article - re: Board of Education, if the question could be worded in such a way that there could be a preface to it "because the City Charter duplicates state law, shall Article VIII be repealed." City Attorney White. He agreed this was a good point. In an earlier draft, he had language similar to that. If there is general consensus, he will make that modification and give the Council a copy of the proposed wording. Councilwoman Kaywood. Relative to Measure 7 and 8 (Charter Sections 604, 705 and 706), she would like to see included wording stating that these changes 548 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P.M, would save the City money, i.e., contracting of services through a centralized purchasing system and authorizing the Treasurer to use either negotiable instrument (check) or warrant system to pay demands against the City. City Attorney White agreed that was also a good point, the difficulty being there is a fine line between an impartial analysis and wording on the ballot as opposed to treading on an area that could be construed as potentially an argument in favor of a measure. Arguments will be allowed and the Council will have a chance to authorize who they wish to prepare those which could address that issue. Councilwoman Kaywood. She noted that the impartial analysis did indicate, "because warrants are not negotiable instruments, banks charge more for processing warrants then for processing checks." She does not know how many people will go through the entire ballot wording and it is important to have that information. Perhaps the City Treasurer could supply a figure on what it costs the City every year for what the bank charges on warrants. City Attorney White. He will take a look at that and at the same time he submits revised wording on Measure 9, he will suggest an alternative on Measure 8 as well. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, with the modifications as recommended and wording to be provided to the Council by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler. Relative to Section 502 (Measure 7) relating to Council salaries, he suggested that instead of the $1,200 per month recommended by the Committee that it be $800 a month. Councilwoman Kaywood. She noted that the City Attorney did provide the wording on what general law cities have in place relative to Council salaries (see report dated May 24, 1990 from the City Attorney. They are able to increase salaries up to 5% a year without an election. For cities with population of 150,000 to 250,000 it is $800 a month. She feels that would be appropriate and if increases are limited to 5% a year, it is clearer than having to go through the motion of the CPI adjustment. Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the $1,200 salary figure recommended by the Committee be decreased to $800. Before further action was taken, Councilman Ehrle stated that he disagreed. They asked the Charter Review Committee to look at the issue which they did and figures ranged from $2,400 down to zero. Placing on the ballot what the Committee recommended is fair and equitable. Councilman Daly. He asked if Councilwoman Kaywood was proposing that they use the language the City Attorney prepared in response to her question on May 22, 1990; Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believes it is much clearer and the $800 a month would be something the people could say yes or no to. 549 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5:30 P,M. Councilman Daly asked if the voters could change Anaheim's Charter to set Council salaries and future increases to conform to the procedure used by general law cities. City Attorney White. He confirmed that it could be done by repealing the existing section which would leave it up to the City Council to set the salaries with no limitations. The other would be to refer in a Charter Amendment to repeal the existing language and provide that the Council salaries and increases be in conformance with state law as to general law cities which would then start tracking whatever the state legislature adopts. The third alternative is what is before the Council today - establishing their own provision that would not automatically track with any changes in future state law. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion by Councilwoman Kaywood which he noted was the suggestion he had made. After brief Council discussion, Mayor Hunter recommended that the Council discuss the issue further, which in any case is going to be decided by the voters. MOTION; Councilman Pickler moved to continue discussion and consideration of proposed Charter Amendment No. 502 (Measure 17) for one week to June 12, 1990. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler. Relative to Section 900 and 902 (Measure 13) regarding appointment in terms of City Boards and Commissions, he would like the Council to review the possibility of each Council Member appointing their own person on Boards and Commissions and electing additional members at large. City Attorney White clarified that under the current City Charter that would not be permitted. If the Council would like him to look at a Charter Amendment that would allow what Councilman Pickler suggested, he could do so and submit language to the Council that would accomplish that. Section 902 is the section that would need to be amended. It presently provides that, "the members of each Board or Commission shall be appointed by the City Council." What Councilman Pickler is proposing is that individual Council Members be given the power to appoint members to those Board~ and Commissions. To find a way to accomplish that would be contrary to the current proposed wording. The change being proposed does not relate to what Councilman Pickler is requesting but would require an additional change. MOTION; Councilman Pickler moved to continue discussion and consideration of proposed Charter Amendments 900 and 902 for one week to give the Council further opportunity to deliberate the issue as well as possible alternatives. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, there was additional Council discussion wherein Councilman Pickler stated he would personally like to see each Council Member appoint their own member to Boards and Commissions and that they stay in those positions for as long as that person is on the Council. When another Council Member is elected they can do the same. 550 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5, 1990, 5:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood. If all Board and Commission members are to be removed and new members appointed it becomes strictly political which she feels would be a disaster for the City. It is crucial to have continuity on Boards and Commissions and not "throw people off" who have been an asset. If they are, it is opening the way to repeating the same mistakes over and over again. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion for a one week continuance of the matter. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that another technical amendment she would like to add to the ballot is that of eliminating the requirement to waive reading in full of ordinances and resolutions by motion. Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the City Attorney prepare wording to be submitted to the Council eliminating the requirement to waive reading of ordinances and resolutions. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney White. He will prepare wording on that item to be submitted to the Council when the next group of amendments are presented. 179: ITEMS BI B4 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF MAY 17, 1990 DECISION DATE: MAY 24, 1990 1990: INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JUNE 8, BI, VARIANCE NO, 4044, GATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5: OWNER: MR. MRS. JIM MORALES, 5883 East Mountain Loop Trail, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: GARY HOUSTON, 4054 Del Ray Avenue #205, Marina Del Rey, CA 90262. LOCATION: 451 S, Canyon Ridge Drive. Property is approximately 0.50 acre on the south side of Canyon Ridge Drive approximately 400 feet south of the centerline of Canyon Hills Road. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct 3-additions to an existing single family residence. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Variance No. 4044 APPROVED (ZA90-23). B2. VARIANCE NO. 4050, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1: OWNERS: LEWIS and SHEILA FRIEND, 1309 North Minot Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: MILLIE CZECH, 13925 Yale Street, #100, Irvine, CA 92720 LOCATION; 1309 North Minot Street. Property is approximately .14 acre on the west side of Minor Street approximately 570 feet south of the centerline of Cornet Avenue. Waiver of minimum rear yard to retain an existing 230 square-foot patio enclosure attached to a single-family residence. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Variance No. 4050 APPROVED, Modified Condition No. 1, (ZA90-24). 551 49 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 B3, ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO, 90-01, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 1: OWNER: VIGKIE BEARUP-GAMARRA, 855 Redondo Drive East, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION; 855 Redondo Drive East. Property is approximately 0.16 acre on the west side of Redondo Drive East approximately 670 feet north of the centerline of North Street. To permit a large family day care facility for up to 12 children. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Administrative Use Permit No. 90-01 APPROVED (ZA90-25). B4, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO, 0049, CAT$GORIGALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 5: Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to expand an existing restaurant (Ararat's). ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Administrative Adjustment No. 0049 APPROVED (ZA90-26). End of the Zoning Administrator Items. B5, 179; VARIANCE NO. 3912 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Requested by Chafik Mouradi, Terdon, Inc., 225 W. Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, Ca 92805. LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 217-223 North Coffman Street. The petitioner requests a retroactive extension of time on Variance No. 3912 - to construct a 2-story, 8-unit residential condominium complex with waiver of maximum fence height. Submitted was report dated May 24, 1990 from the Planning Department, recommending approval of the request for extension of time, retroactive to May 9, 1990, an to expire on May 8, 1991, subject to development plans being revised prior to issuance of a building permit to comply with the new parking standards by: (a) Reducing the unit sizes from 3-bedroom each; and/or (b) Increasing the total number of parking spaces by 1 additional space for every 3-bedroom unit. Councilman Pickler moved to approve the request for extension of time subject to the aforementioned recommendation by staff, Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. B6. VARIANCE NO, 3746 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Requested by Farouk J. Kubba, Diversified Projects, Incorporated, 23201 Lake Center Drive, Suite 200, E1 Toro, CA 92630. LOCATION: The property is located at 1925 West Lincoln Avenue. The petitioner requests an extension of time on Variance No. 3746 due to delays in obtaining financing. Variance No. 3746 is to permit waiver of maximum fence height, maximum structural height and minimum distance between buildings to construct a 184-unit, 38-foot high, 2 to 4-story apartment complex. This matter was continued from the meeting of April 24, 1990 and May 8, 1990, to this date. (See minutes those dates). Submitted was a detailed second 552 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5, 1990, 5:30 P,M. supplemental staff report dated May 29, 1990 from the Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti, recommending that the time extension be granted retroactive to April 5, 1990. Councilwoman Kaywood. If the extension of time is approved, she asked if the apartments could then be built automatically. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She answered yes. If the time extension is approved, the project can commence unless new codes were developed in the interim. Other than the listed modifications needed to be made, which the architect has previously commented on, that they are prepared to deal with, there is nothing else pending that would impact this project as an apartment project. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the neighbors were still in favor or had staff heard anything from them. Also, there was a possibility of putting commercial on the Lincoln frontage. She would like to see everything presented to the Council at once. Annika Santalahti. She has not heard from anybody. One of the major concerns when the project was approved related to the traffic signal situation. Relative to the commercial frontage, if anything comes of that, it will have to come back as a public hearing. If they choose to proceed, it would involve a code amendment and also an amendment to the variance or an extension or something. The current understanding she has, there would be combining of parking in some manner. Councilwoman Kaywood. Her concern is if the Council allows the extension of time, they could proceed to build and then possibly during the process say that they would like commercial along the front. She would like to see one project presented. Perhaps something could be done nicely with commercial in front and residential in back but not as an after thought. Phillip Terhorst, Mc Larand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc., architects for the project. Their intention at this time is to get the variance extended so they can proceed with the apartment project as it is designed and approved. It would be their hope if the commercial (mixed use) ordinance should pass, whether a year from now or whenever, that they may be able to make use of it. However, they are not delaying the project in hopes of getting retail into it. It is designed as apartments and intended to be built as apartments. There is space now approved as generic management office and recreational area that might be converted to commercial use at that time. If there is a mixed use ordinance, they would have to consider how that might fit into the way the building is designed. There is a recreation building in the center and additional space under the apartments fronting on Lincoln that would be intended to be used as some sort or management offices and maybe additional recreation space for an excess of what is required by City code. They would in no way take the recreation building planned in the middle and try to convert it to retail. 553 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5. 1990. 5:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti then explained for Councilman Daly that the mixed use ordinance has been discussed for about a year. At the beginning of the year staff did some work with the attorneys firm representing the developers but they have not met again. The ordinance is being prepared as a result of this one property. They were told by staff that staff needed a copy of agreeable wording for an ordinance and staff was not going to do the research. They were going to submit a complete copy. If agreeable, it would go through the City AttorneyVs Office but the matter has not been discussed for two months or more with anybody. The subject has arisen often in the downtown area but it is being dealt with under a different method. Councilman Daly. He may ask Council later on to ask staff to do some independent work on a mixed use ordinance. On this project, he is going to argue against allowing the time extension. He was not on the Council when the project was approved approximately two years ago. The project was not unanimously popular at the time it came to the Council and there were some concerns about the need for a traffic signal on Lincoln and concerns from the neighbors about high density. He would like to see the project reviewed again by the Planning Commission and Council. He is not in favor of a time extension. Councilwoman Kaywood. If the project is to be a mixed use, she would like to see it well planned but as a one-time, one-step project rather than piece meal, after the fact. Philltp Terhorst. He understands the concern. In regard to their hopes for retail, they do hope for that. As far as their work with Miss Santalahti and the mixed use ordinance, it is intended to be for the entire City. They are working on several residential projects in Anaheim with a mixed use concept. Councilman Pickler. This is a project the Council approved at the time which they thought was something that would fit in. He was the one who had mentioned that the architects on the project were one of the finest in Orange County and maybe the state and was approving it on that basis. As staff mentioned, they would have to come back to the Council should they have to have retail uses and if it does not fit in, they do not have to accept it. It is one of the nicest projects he has seen come to the City. Councilman Fickler moved to approve the extension of time on Variance No. 3746, as requested by the petitioner. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many people were present in the Chamber audience on this item; no one was present. Mayor Hunter. He is also opposed to the extension of time although he originally voted approval of the project. City Attorney White. If the time extension is not granted and the project is to go forward, it will require that the applicant resubmit an application and have it reprocessed through the Planning Commission. A vote was then taken on the motion to approve the requested extension of time and failed to carry by the following vote: 554 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5:30 P,M. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Kaywood, Hunter ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 179/166; ORDINANCE NO, 5132 ADOPTION; Amending Title 18, Chapter 18.05. pertaining to the addition of fixed balloons to Section 18.05.074.010 (flags and banners). City Attorney White. Answering Councilman Ehrle, he explained that the proposed project relates to another chapter in the code and provides that a special events permit would be required for fixed balloons in addition to flags and banners. Under Section 4.02, City staff has the prerogative to issue not more than two special events permit per year per applicant and each of those cannot exceed 14 days. However, an applicant can choose to bring such a permit request to the Council and the Council has the authority to grant additional time in excess of those two 14-day periods per year. Staff would only be allowed to approve two totalling 28 days per year for each applicant. Councilman Ehrle. It is obvious since that is the current code there are some enterprises not complying. He has received phone calls from businesses that if the proposed ordinance is adopted they are going to have a very difficult time identifying their location. He is concerned that the proposal may be too restrictive. Many businesses have more than two sales a year. He does not feel the Council needs to have a stream of businesses, auto dealers, those having grand openings, special events, etc. coming to ask for fixed balloons. He suggests perhaps that they increase the code to four special events instead of two with a limit of 10 days that would give at least 40 days a year. Councilman Pickler. He disagrees. What has been on the books has worked well with very few complaints. If they want an extension of time they can get it. The reason for the restriction is relative to aesthetics and beauty of the City. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE; The title of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5132) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 5132 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO, 5132: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION 18.05.074.010 OF SECTION 18.05.074, AND ADDING SUBSECTION 18.05.030.025 TO SECTION L18.05.030, TO CHAPTER 18.05 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FLAGS, BANNERS AND FIXED BALLOONS FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. Roll Call Vote: 555 4S City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5, 1990, 5:30 P,M. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter Ehrle None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5132 duly passed and adopted. 179; ORDINANCE NOS, 5133 THROUGH 5135 - ADOPTION; WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES; The titles of the following ordinances were read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance Nos. 5133 through 5135, both inclusive, for adoption) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance Nos. 5133 through 5135, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO, 5133: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 89-90-06, located at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street, from the ML zone to the CL zone.) ORDINANCE NO, 5134: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 87-88-39, located at 3360 E. La Palma Avenue, from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the ML zone.) ORDINANCE NO. 5135; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 88-89-44, located at 217-223 N. Coffman Street, from the RS-7200 zone to the RM-3000 zone.) Roll Call Vote: AYES' NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS' COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kayw0od, Pickler and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5133 through 5135, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST; Mike Johnson, Orange Tree Mobilehome Park (OTMC), President of the Homeowners Association, Space #227, 1400 Douglass Road, Anaheim. Last October he was present with a group of residents from the Park to ask for the Council's help regarding, at the time, a $75 a month rent increase because the residents refused to sign a long-term lease. Councilman Pickler said he was going to look into the matter. He is present again to inform the Council they received 556 46 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P.M. another $75 rent increase effective August 1, 1990. In the last 12-month period, this will make a total of $197 in rental increases or a 42% increase in that period. They are facing a monthly rental rate of $667. Most of the people in the park are elderly. They are not asking for a great deal - just for peace and sanctity in their homes. He questioned why they should have to be faced with intimidation and black mail. Something needs to be done today. The park owner, Mr. Stanaland, is out of control. They are facing eviction and the days of looking into the matter are gone. The Council has it in their power, just as with other cities like Riverside and Laguna Niguel, to do something. They are asking the Council to institute an investigation and that they place a rent freeze on the park until that can be done. Steve Hurst, his mother lives in the park. She moved there in 1972 when rents were $90 a month and now they are up to $700 a month. She is on a fixed income. The Council has to figure out something to do with that park. His own personal belief is that the owners are raising the rents so that when the time comes to sell the property because it is in the area of the proposed Sports Arena, they will get high profits out of it. He urged the Council to do something, possibly an investigation. Merv Smith, Space #69, OTMHP, Member of the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association. He is asking the Council to look at the situation from their side. He is not against progress in any city but their integrity, honesty and self respect has been trampled on. He asked the Council to do whatever they can in their power - freeze rents or whatever is necessary until they can settle the matter with park management. He then answered a line of questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood. Clarice Jackson, Melody Park, Beach Boulevard. She is a member of the Anaheim Political Action Committee (APAC). She spoke to the Council in October of 1987. Mobilehome park residents have come before the Council many times and reiterated the same things but the Council does not listen. It is not just Orange Tree that is involved but other parks as well. There is another park where rents have gone from $495 to $671.91, not including utilities, trash and all the incidentals. She does not know what else they can do to get some recognition as being citizens of Anaheim. Her rent has been raised to $350 for a piece of land 20 feet by 60 feet. Something has to be done. The residents elected the Council and can unelect them in November. They have many votes. She urged them to start an investigation at the parks especially those owned by the Doughers. It has to do with signing long-term leases. If a resident does not want a long-term lease, they can ask for a 12-month lease or less. The law states that they have to be offered one of three options, a long-term lease, 12 months or less, or a month to month rental agreement. There should be a moratorium or freeze on rent increases for 6 months until something can get straightened out. Marian Miller, Orange Tree Mobilehome Park for 10 years. Her rent started a $181 and now it is $662. The owner has not only raised the rents but has taken away a lot of the things they used to have which she explained as well as explaining items that might be code violations. (Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Zoning Administrator to ask staff to check into whatever violations there might be at the park). 557 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5:30 P,M. Mayor Hunter. Mr. Stanaland wrote him a letter. He (Hunter) had said some nasty things about him and he will continue to say things that are the truth. He referred to the situation on water usage where he (Stanaland) was "ripping people off" on water charges. Now he has instituted a water distribution fee of $9.60. He is now charging the right rate for water, but along with the "water distribution fee," the residents are paying $10.49 and, therefore, he is making more money. It is unconscionable and a rental rate of $667 is also unconscionable. He believes the Council should start with this mobtlehome park, agendize the matter for next week and freeze that park. He wants someone from the park at the meeting first to explain the water distribution fee and then to have a public discussion of the unconscionable and outrageous conduct that is occurring. This is an issue that is apolitical an issue of bad people not treating citizens of the City correctly. They should be brought before the Council and held accountable. Councilman Hunter moved to agendize for next week this one mobilehome park for a discussion on what is taking place and that someone from the park be present. Before further action was taken, City Attorney White explained for Councilman Daly that relative to a single member of the Council being able to put any item on the agenda for discussion, they have operated under the premis that a majority of the Council is required to agendtze specific items. Councilman Daly then asked the Mayor exactly what he wanted since he requested that there be an open ended discussion. He (Daly) does not want to agree to something that is a political rally or an open-ended discussion on a very complex or emotional issue. Mayor Hunter. He clarified that there should be some type of freeze until an investigation is done as to what is going on in the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. It is a situation that is unbearable. Councilman Pickler. He agrees that Stanaland is one of the worst; however, he did not get the letter Mayor Hunter referred to. He would like to get a copy and also direct staff to see how far the Council can go. Before placing the item on the agenda, he wants to be sure this is something the Council can work with. It is easy to put it on an agenda and discuss it only to find out that they can do nothing. Mayor Hunter. He will rephrase his motion request. Perhaps they should put back on the agenda the rent stabilization ordinance for all mobilehome parks and let the people decide if that should be done. City Clerk Sohl then explained for Councilman Ehrle that final ballot language for any item to be presented to the voters in November must be at the Orange County Registrar's Office on or before August 9, 1990. Councilman Ehrle. He agrees with Councilman Daly that with an open-ended discussion, they could be listening to three hours or more of input. His suggestion would be to reassemble the Charter Review Committee which was appointed by the Council and for them to have a series of two or three public 558 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P.M. hearings where concerns could be expressed, an investigation made and have them recommend a ballot measure. Russ Miller, Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, Space #145. He reported that Mr. Stanaland sent the park residents a letter gloating on how he "got" the City on the arena deal and the Council voted to give him $400,000. City Attorney White. He would like to request that the gentleman submit a copy of that letter to him. Councilman Hunter then moved to agendize for next week the rent stabilization ordinance for mobilehome parks. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Before action was taken, Councilman Daly questioned which ordinance. City Attorney White. As he understands as part of the discussion today, one of the subjects would be to instruct him to prepare an appropriate ordinance for Council consideration. Councilman Pickler. He is not ready for that. He reiterated he would like copies of the letters discussed and then an opportunity to discuss the matter with the City Attorney and staff before jumping to any conclusions. He would suggest holding off any action for a week and then for the Council to decide if they want to agendize the matter in two weeks. Councilman Hunter. He then revised his motion that in two weeks a rent stabilization ordinance be placed on the agenda, a draft of which will be prepared by the City Attorney, and discussed by the Council at that time. City Attorney White. He would probably start with the ordinance presently being circulated. Although it may not be identical, it would be a starting place if the last motion by the Council should pass. Councilman Daly. He would not support any staff work being done on the subject. If the Mayor wants to put something on the agenda, it is his prerogative. If he wants to put an ordinance on the agenda and tell the Council what it is going to be, he will support that. He will not support City staff spending time on the subject. Staff should not be creating an ordinance. Councilman Hunter. He is requesting that two weeks from today a draft mobilehome park rent stabilization ordinance for Council consideration be placed on the agenda similar to the one that is presently being circulated. After further Council discussion on the Mayor's request and a reiteration of concerns by Councilman Pickler and Daly as previously expressed, Councilman Daly asked for clarification on what is going to be on the agenda next Tuesday; Mayor Hunter answered, nothing. Councilman Daly then asked what was going to be on the agenda two weeks from now; Mayor Hunter answered, a draft mobilehome park rent stabilization ordinance similar to the one currently being circulated under the petition/initiative process. 559 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 Councilman Daly. Without a motion and second in a vote, there will be nothing on the agenda next Tuesday or the following Tuesday regarding the subject. Mayor Hunter. They have been pa~fying and placating mobilehome residents in the City since 1984 but have not done a single thing. They continue to passify and placate. He has made a motion that the matter be on the agenda two weeks from now. A vote was then taken on the motion to agendize the mobilehome park rent stabilization ordinance similar to the current ordinance being circulated for Tuesday, June 19, 1990. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle and Hunter Daly, Kaywood and Pickler None Joe White, 801 West Broadway. The City is widening Broadway which he has already complained about. In the past they had three meetings at City Hall, another meeting in his home and also a neighbor's home with City people present. At those meetings, they came to some agreements - one was on trees. It was a solid agreement. The City assured them they would inspect all the trees and give the residents the numbers of the trees that were diseased and which were going to be removed and replaced. Today the City cut down every tree from Harbor Boulevard to the 5 Freeway on the north side of the street. The City lied to the residents. The cut down almost 30 shade trees and also crepemyrtle. There are only two small crepemyrtle trees left. Mayor Hunter. He noted the City Manager was taking the information down. agreed he would be upset if they cut down the trees in front of his office also on Broadway. He RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (9:32 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (9:40 p.m.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 89-4A; In accordance with application filed by Jeffrey L. Faran0, Faran0 & Kieviet, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340, Anaheim, GA 92803 (Menlo), public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of Temple Street between Orangethorpe Avenue and Kensington Avenue, and Kensington Avenue between Temple Street and a point approximately 370 feet east of Temple Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 90R-151 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 1, 1990 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment subject to ten conditions. Richard Santo, Real Property Agent, stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed abandonment. 560 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5. 1990. 5:30 P.M. Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-188) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 90R-188 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 89-4A subject to the following conditions as recommended by the City Engineer: 1. All gate locations and operations as well as traffic turnarounds to be approved by Traffic Engineering. 2. Notify Underground service alert prior to construction to mark utility locations. 3. Footings for Gate location must be coordinated with Tom Kirker, Electrical Engineering so they won't conflict with underground electrical lines. 4. Property owner must set up flat-rate street light accounts for current street lights. 5. Main gate and any gates to teh alley must be 20-feet clear width and "Knox" boxes provided for the Fire Department. 6. Building permits must be obtained for all proposed fences and gates. 7. If th gate is not manned 24 hours daily, access must be provided for all utility and maintenance personnel by means acceptable to the City. 8. Public Utility Easements will be retained across the entire street width for Southern California Gas Company, City of Anaheim Utilities water, electrical and sewer line and the Metropolitan Water District. 9. Drainage from the North must be accepted into Kensington Avenue. 561 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5, 1990, 5;30 10. The applicant must purchase the 1 foot strip, owned by the City of Anaheim along the Northerly side of Kensington Avenue. The City will quitclaim its interest for $250.00. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 90R-188: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING TEMPLE STREET BETWEEN ORANGETHORPE AVENUE AND KENSINGTON AVENUE, AND KENSINGTON AVENUE BETWEEN TEMPLE STREET AND A POINT APPROXIMATELY 370 FEET EAST OF TEMPLE STREET. (ABANDONMENT NO. 89-4A) 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-188 duly passed and adopted. 134; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 303 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION; INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92803 LOCATION: The property is approximately 6.5 acres generally bounded by Cypress Street to the north, Rose Street to the east, the alley north of Lincoln Avenue to the south, and the alley west of Vine Street to the west, also including those 10 parcels fronting on the east side of Rose Street between Cypress Street to the north and Lincoln Avenue to the south. 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 Density Residential destination. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: GPA No. 303 approved (PC90-103) (5 yes votes, 2 absent); approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: Public hearing required when General Plan Amendment is involved. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin May 24, 1990. Posting of property May 24, 1990. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 25, 1990. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 23, 1990. Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner. Staff recommends approval of the subject General Plan Amendment based on the existing single family nature of the area and the existing RS-7,200 zone. 562 4O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1990, 5;30 P,M, Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Earl Rhoads, 122 North Vine Street. He attended the Planning Commission meeting on the General Plan Amendment. He referred to his letter dated April 27, 1990 (previously submitted and made a part of the record) urging the Council to accept the findings of the Planning Commission and vote to change the area to low density residential in order to maintain the integrity of the area. 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 Councilwoman Kaywood, 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-189) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-189 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 90R-189: 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. 303, EXHIBIT "A." 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-189 duly passed and adopted. 179; CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-48, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3253 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION; OWNERS: Center Park Investments N.V. 333 City Boulevard West, #501 Orange, California 92668 563 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5. 1990. 5:30 P.M. AGENT: De Beikes Investment Company 2300 Michelson Drive, #200 Irvine, California 92715 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1521 North Imperial Highway (4.4 acres located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. The request is for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 (SC) to CL (SC); and to permit a commercial retail center with a semi-enclosed restaurant with "on-sale" alcoholic beverages, with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum structural setback adjacent to Imperial Highway and prohibited roof mounted equipment. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; Reclassification No. 89-90-48 GRANTED (PC90-76) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Waiver of code requirement GRANTED. Conditional Use Permit No. 3253 GRANTED (PC90-77) with an additional condition requiring reciprocal access easements on both driveways to go with the land; Negative Declaration approved. PUBLIC HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Ehrle and Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of April 17, 1990. This matter was continued from the meeting of May 8, 1990, to this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 26, 1990 Posting of property April 27, 1990 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 26, 1990 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 26, 1990. City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated June 1, 1990 had been received from Richard De Beikes, agent, requesting a one week continuance to June 12, 1990. However, since staff needs an opportunity to review the revised plans and submit a report, they are requesting a three-week continuance. Councilman Daly moved to continue public hearing on Reclassification No. 89-90-48 and Conditional Use Permit No. 3253 for three weeks to June 26, 1990. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CAP~RIED. 106: BUDGET MATTER; Councilman Daly. The Council in discussing the Budget Calendar with the City Manager asked whether the Community Services Agency Funding recommendations were going to be part in parcel of the budget adoption process or if those could be separated out a few weeks away from the budget process. He expects that there will be input from the City Manager regarding that subject. RECESS; By general consent the Council recessed to Closed Session. (10:00 p.m.) 564 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5. 1990. 5:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (11:00 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn to Tuesday, June 12, 1990 at 2:00 p.m. for a public hearing on the 1990/91 Resource Allocation Plan (Budget). Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:01 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 565 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 5, 1990, 5;30 P,M. MINUTES; Councilman Daly moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held April 24, 1990, the adjourned regular meeting of May 8, 1990 and the regular meeting of May 8, 1990. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,227,397.95 for the week ending May 25, 1990 and $6,362,123.99 for the week ending June 1, 1990, in accordance with the 1989-90 budget, were approved. LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK