1987/02/03City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT
ABSENT:
VACANCY
PRESENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
The Assistant City Clerk called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City
Council to order at 10:00 a.m. and adjourned to 12:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 10:01 a.m.
LEONORA N. SOHL, SECRETARY
Assistant Secretary
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Bay called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County §uperior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim v~.
Orange County Board of Supervisors, relative to potential jail sites
in Anaheim, Case No. 50-96-78.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. and
approve certain resolutions relating to Letters of Understanding
between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Firefighters Association,
Local 2899.
c. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
75
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:05 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (1:45 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Don Dexter, 1st Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation.
FlAG SALUTE: Council Member Fred Hunter led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATUlATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the National Parent
Teacher Association on the occasion of their 90th Anniversary.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held January 20, 1987. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One
Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,682,820, in accordance
with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 87R-21 through 87R-28, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 4801
through 4804 for first reading.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by William Jenkins, Irene Jenkins, Danial Barton and
Jana Barton for personal injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about June 20, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by James Lewis Koval for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 10, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by Szabo Food Services for indemnity and contribution
for lawsuit, sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
76
City Hall~ ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
August 21, 1985. Claim is a result of lawsuit O.C.S.C. Case No. 48-34-12
(Sara L. Moller vs. City of Anaheim).
d. Claim submitted by Keenan T. Ruppel for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 4, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Ruben Rojo for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 15, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by Automobile Club of Southern California (Subrogee of
William B. & Judith Jensen, Insureds - Claim No. ~G3606780CACS-12-5-86) for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 5, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by City of Garden Grove for indemnity, contribution
and declaratory relief for lawsuit, sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about March 17, 1986. Claim is a result of lawsuit O.C.S.C.
No. 50-52-79 (Tammy Shelden vs. City of Garden Grove).
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of January 5, 1987.
3. 179: Granting a one-year extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No.
2651, to construct an Il-story, 128-1/2 foot, high hotel with on-premises sale
and consumption of alcoholic beverages and with accessory uses, and to
construct a 12- and 15-story, 182-foot and 222-1/2 foot high commercial office
complex on property located at 2400 East Katella Avenue, to expire on
February 26, 1988.
4. 106/124: Authorizing the borrowing of $900,000 on a seven-year basis from
the General Benefits Fund to acquire telecommunications equipment for the
Anaheim Convention Center Exhibitors Telecommunication System, said equipment
to be acquired through Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation.
5. 123: Approving an agreement with Willdan Associates for consulting
engineering services for the Euclid Street Storm Drain Project for a fee not
to exceed $212,618.
6. 12~: Approving au a~raameut with Moore & Taber for ge0technical services
for the Euclid Street Storm Drain in the amount of $8,500.
7. 107: Approving an extension of 75 days time to C.W. Poss, Inc.,
Contractor for Anaheim Auto Center, Ball Road at Route 57, Grading and Import
Borrow (Account No. 01-933-6325), and assessing liquidated damages in the
amount of $5,000.00.
8. 123: Approving the Magnolia Avenue Rehabilitation (Lincoln Avenue to
South City Limit) Cooperative Reimbursement Agreement with the City of
Stanton, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, in the amount of $21,067.50 for one
77
City Hall~ Anaheim, Cml~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
32-foot aerial device and service truck body, in accordance with Bid No.
A-4402.
10. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of $10,756 for one forensic laser system plus portable aragon laser kit
and photography kit.
11. 160: Accepting the low bid of Custom Floors, Inc. in the amount of
~13,095 (including tax and installation) for carpet and floor tile in the
living quarters at Fire Station #1, per Bid No. 4412.
12. 123: Approving an agreement with Loara Little League to build and
maintain a concession building at ModJeska Park.
13. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-21: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Gilbert Street
Street Improvement, W/s 800' N/o to 200' Lincoln Avenue, Account Nos.
17-792-6325-E2320 and 51-484-6993-00710; and opening of bids on March 5, 1987,
2:00 p.m.)
14. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Orange Avenue
Street Improvement, Beach Boulevard to Western Avenue, Account Nos.
51-484-6993-00710 and 15-793-6325-E3080; and opening of bids on March 5, 1987,
2:00 p.m.)
15. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AN.~iEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (SANDOVAL PAVING
COMPANY, INC.) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible
bidder, Sandoval Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $146,506.87 for Lincoln
Avenue Street Improvement 493' E/of Kingsley Street to 231' E/of Rio Vista
Street, Account Nos. 15-793-6325-E3090 and 51-484-6993-00710)
16. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87K-24: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (R. J. NOBLE
COMPANY) (Awardin$ a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, R.
J. Noble Company in the amount of $303,233.70 for Orangewood Avenue Street
Improvement 650' East of Rampart Street to State College Boulevard, Account
Nos. 15-793-6325-E3960 and 51-484-6993-00710)
17. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (SULLY-MILLER
CONTRACTING COMPANY) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible
bidder, Sully-Miller Contracting Company of Orange in the amount of
~977,372.01 for Magnolia Avenue Street, Storm Drain, Sewer and Water
Improvement, Account Nos. 15-793-6325-E3070, 12-791-6325-E1540,
51-484-6993-00710, 55-489-6340-00140, 52-606-6329-06564, and 52-606-6329-06876)
18. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN.
78
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
19. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 87K-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (86-3A) (Declaring its intent to vacate certain
public streets, highways and service easements, to wit: Existing sewer and
storm drain easements, north of the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Meats
Avenue, in conjunction with future development of Tract No. 12576.
(Abandonment No. 86-3A) and setting the date for public hearing - suggested
date February 24, 1987)
20. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY. (Authorizing the Police Department to conduct an auction
of unclaimed property on February 14, 1987, and in the event of inclement
weather on the subsequent Saturday, where weather conditions permit)
160: Directing the City Clerk to publish legal notice of said auction and of
the City's intent to transfer certain unclaimed property to the Purchasing
Division for City use.
21. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4801: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 14.32.189 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (Amending Title 14 to add
Section .040 to 14.32.189, prohibiting stopping or parking of vehicles on 42nd
Street, both sides, from Broadway to its northerly terminus)
22. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4802: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 14.32.189 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (Amending Title 14 to add
Section .050 to 14.32.189, prohibiting stopping or parking of vehicles on
Broadway, north side, from Philadelphia Street to 42nd Street)
23. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4803: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING CHAPTER 44 OF TITLE 14 RELATING TO PARKING METERS. (Repealing
Chapter 44 of Title 14 relating to parking meters on certain streets and City
parking lots)
24. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 4804: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING
CHAPTER 6.46 OF TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. (Repealing Chapter
6.46 of Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to control of operation
of vehicles on unimproved parcels of private and public property)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-21 through 87R-28:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMEERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-21 through 87R-28, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar.
79
City Hall~ A, mheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3; 1987; 10:00 A.M.
175/153: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT - PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Submitted
for approval was a three-year employment agreement and 4th year option, with
Gordon W. Hoyt as Public Utilities General Manager, together with a report
dated January 27, 1987 from the City Manager, recommending approval of the
agreement which provides for an annual payment to Mr. Hoyt of ~7,000 in 1987,
$14,000 in 1988, $21,000 in 1989 and ~22,500 in 1990 if the 4th option year is
exercised.
MOTION: Mayor Bay stated he removed the item from the Consent Calendar in
order to move to continue consideration of the Employment Agreement until
June 16, 1987. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he had a problem with the
proposed continuation since he feels it is an agreement the Council should
proceed with at this time. It was a matter that the Council had discussed and
it was needed for the City of Anaheim. The Council should fulfill their
obligations as discussed and approve the recommendation.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed and stated she was concerned with any kind of
continuance awaiting a 5th Council Member and assuming filling the vacancy
must go to a Special Election. Four Council Members are 80% and she believes
action should take place at this time.
Councilman Pickler. He emphasized his concern with the Council proposing to
wait until June 16, 1987 until there is a 5th Member. In last week's Closed
Session, the Council felt they should go forward and place the item on the
agenda.
Councilman Hunter expressed concern about discussing Closed Session matters,
which include personnel matters and litigation in open session. City Attorney
White explained that if any Member of the Council wished to discuss matters
that were discussed in Closed Session, it defeats the confidentiality of the
Closed Session discussion. There is no law against discussing those in open
Session but by doing so it opens up the entire area of discussion that has
occurred in Closed Session. He recommended that the Council maintain the
integrity of their Closed Sessions.
MOTION; Councilman Pickler thereupon moved to recess into Closed Session to
discuss personnel matters relating to the proposed employment agreement.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Bay stated he did not explain his motion to
continue the matter to June 16, 1987. June is the budget month for the City
and his motion has nothing to do with Gordon Hoyt but with some policy
decisions the Council is going to have to decide on regarding management
contracts and management salaries and where they fit within the total budget.
The intent to continue was not solely on the reasoning the Council should have
five members. He feels such matters from a principal and policy standpoint
are going to be very germaine to the total budget and policies that the
Council might see fit to put into place which will come up during the June
budget hearings.
8O
City Ma!l~ A~abe~% California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on a motion to recess into Closed Session. One
Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (1:59 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (2:15 p.m.)
Mayor Bay stated the motion to continue the matter to June 16, 1987 which had
been seconded is still on the floor.
Councilman Pickler stated he was going to vote against it because he feels the
Council should act at this time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter and Bay
Pickler and Kaywood
None
One
The motion failed to carry.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the 3-year Employment Agreement
and 4th year option with Gordon W. Hoyt as Public Utilities General Manager.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Hunter stated he has heard nothing but
glowing reports from staff, from people in the City, from employees on Mr.
Hoyt's accomplishments, that he has a clean record and actually is a "quasi"
super human for what he has done with utilities, the appreciates that as a new
Council Member. However, (Hunter) has a philosophical difference with staff
and with giving raises to employees and that is the issue. It is not
personal. Week after week the Council continually has problems because it
lacks a 5th Member. If there was a 5th Member, Mr. Ehrle or whoever, the
business of the City would go on.
Councilman Pickler stated he feels with a continuation to June 16, 1987 they
are waiting for a 5th Member. He believes they have to continue to do
business now. He then elaborated on the accomplishments of the electric
utility in the past year under the direction of Mr. Hoyt where there were
savings of millions of dollars for the City. In order to keep Mr. Hoyt, the
Council should make a decision they will keep him for the next three years.
They are talking about approximately 5108 million in savings to the citizens
of Anaheim with an investment of perhaps 515 million. It is a matter of the
Council thinking of the citizens of Anaheim.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Councilman Hunter had brought up Mr. Ehrle's
name and recalled that Mr. Ehrle has been an enemy of the utilities in the
City for years. He berated Mr. Hoyt just a few months ago stating he should
be fired and the utilities sold. The only buyer would be Southern California
Edison. The people of Anaheim in 1895 went into the electrical business and
that is why the City is in the same business today. Mr. Hoyt had a vision
81
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
many years ago of getting into the transmission business and generating
electricity which has saved hundreds of millions of dollars for the ratepayers
of Anaheim. If they are waiting for Mr. Ehrle to be on the Council, it does
not bode well for the ratepayers in the City who are now reaping all of the
benefits that came from the vision of Gordon Hoyt.
A vote was then taken on the motion to approve the employment agreement and
failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler and Kaywood
Hunter and Bay
None
One
175/000: AMENDING RULE 15D - STADIUM AREA WATER FACILITIES FEE: Amending
Rule 15D to require that developers pay the Stadium Area water facilities fee
at the time the building permit is issued or, if no permit is issued or
required, prior to providing water service. Submitted was report dated
January 28, 1987 from the Public Utilities General Manager, recommending the
amendment as outlined in the report.
Mayor Bay referred to an appeal which came to the Council from a developer in
the Stadium area on the water fee and issue. The item was on the agenda for
several weeks until it was tabled indefinitely at the meeting of January 27,
1987 since negotiations were in progress. He, therefore, questioned the
subject proposed amendment and, if adopted, would it decide the question of
the appeal previously submitted to the Council.
City Attorney Jack White answered no. The adoption of the change to the rules
would have no effect upon the existing appeal (Oak Hills Ltd.) which was
continued indefinitely. The amendments were brought to the Council at the
request of his office working in conjunction with the Public Utilities
Department. As a result of researching minutes relating to that appeal, it
was discovered there was a past practice relating to the timing of payment for
assessment fees which had never been memorialized in the form of a rule. It
did not incorporate the fact that fees would normally be collected prior to
the i~zuanee of building permits. The proposed amendment would now do so and
also establish with certainty the appeal procedure with regard to appealing
any decision relating to the fee. It would have no effect on the appeal.
Currently, the rule does not specify a time limit in which to appeal. It would
continue what the rule now states that the appeal initially goes to the Public
Utilities General Manager and his decision can be appealed to the City
Council. The Council will remain the ultimate authority on such matters.
The proposed amendments will make three changes to the existing rule to cover
the three areas currently not addressed, without changing anything else in the
current rule. (1) The amendments will provide the water assessment fee is due
normally at the time building permits are issued if permits are issued. If
permits are not issued, the fee is due prior to water service being provided.
(2) The developer has an obligation to file an appeal within 10 days after
being notified of the amount of the fee. If he wishes to appeal that
82
City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3t 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
decision, he has a definite amount of time in which to file an appeal.
Currently, no appeal period is specified and thus it is non-ending. (3) The
filing of an appeal does not relieve the developer from paying the fee pending
the decision of the appeal. If the developer wishes to obtain a building
permit and is notified what the assessment fee is and subsequently files an
appeal, if he wishes prior to having the appeal finally decided to obtain his
building permits, the developer can deposit the amount of the fee with the
City and the City will hold the amount in trust pending the decision of the
appeal. Those are the three additions to the existing rule. He clarified the
amendments do not include any changes regarding adding flexibility in changing
the amount of the fee.
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, representing Dunn Properties and Gardner
Company. Some of his questions were answered. One remaining question, Dunn
Properties has an appeal in the "pipeline" with the City. It has not been
agendized at this point in time. He asked if Dunn Properties will, therefore,
be saved harmless from any determination of their claim or their request by
the proposed rule amendment.
City Attorney White answered it would be his interpretation that as long as
Mr. Farano's client has an appeal of record within the appeal period after the
rule amendment is adopted today, the change would not in any way prejudice his
client or put him in any different position than the developer before the
Council last week. It would preserve unto Dunn Properties its rights in the
future upon the recalculation of the fees going on through the Utilities
Department to the Utilities General Manager or City Council at a later date to
have those matters finally resolved, it would be his stipulation from the
legal aspects if the appeal is on file now or filed within ten days from
today, Dunn Properties would not be adversely affected by the adoption of the
rule.
The City Attorney then clarified additional questions posed by Mr. Farano.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-29 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAPiEIM A~DING RATES, RULES ~uND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER Ag ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS.
73R-255, 73R-287, 73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 75R-479, 76R-378,
78R-418, 78R-419, 78R-459, 79R-643, 80R-304, 81R-124, 81R-402, 82R-355,
83R-331, 84R-246, 86R-118AND 86R-350.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL M~BERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Bay and Kaywood
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-29 duly passed and adopted.
83
46¸
City ~all~ Anah-~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
153: LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING - ANAHEIM FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION (AFA) -
PERMANENT LIGHT DUTY PROGRAM: City Manager Talley briefed staff report dated
February 3, 1987 from the Human Resources Director, Garry McRae, recommending
approval of two resolutions (1) approving the Letter of Understanding between
the City and AFA Local No. 2899 regarding the implementation of a one time
opportunity for current insured employees to elect or decline participation in
the Permanent Light Duty Program and (2) approving the Letter of Understanding
between the City and the AFA Local No. 2899 regarding the mandatory Permanent
Light Duty Program for industrially insured safety employees represented by
AFA Local No. 2899.
City Attorney White noted that the subject item appears under the City
Attorney's portion of the agenda.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-30 and 87R-31 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING DATED JANUARY 26, 1987, BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM FIHEFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2899.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING DATED JANUARY 26, 1987, BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2899.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-30 and 871{-31 duly passed and adopted.
123: ATTORNEY SERVICES - PARKER STANBURY~ McGEE; BABCOCK & COMBS: Councilman
Bay moved to approve the Attorney Services Agreement with Parker, Stanbury,
McGee, Babcock & Combs, and authorizing the City Attorney to execute same, as
recommended in memorandum dated January 21, 1987 from the City Attorney's
O~£ice. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
123: INN AT THE PARK - PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT:
Consideration of the proposed Third Amendment to the Lease agreement with the
Inn at the Park, as requested by Hotel Systems International/Anaheim Hotel
Associates. This matter was discussed and continued from meeting of
December 30, 1986, to this date. Submitted was a report dated January 27,
1987 from the Finance Director, George Ferrone recommending that the Council
approve a two-week time extension of the item, to February 17, 1987 to receive
additional information relating to the Inn At The Park Third Amendment to
Lease.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve a two-week time extension to February 17,
1987 to receive additional information relating to the Inn At The Park Third
84
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987, 10:00 A.M.
Amendment to Lease. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
114/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4799: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4799
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4799: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
1.12.110 TO CHAPTER 1.12 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
THE APPOINTMENT OF HEARING OFFICERS. (Adding new Section 1.12.110 to the
Code, relating to the appointment of hearing officers)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCLLMEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4799 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4800: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4800 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4800: 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, Reclass. 86-87-04, RM-1200, 205 and 211 North Western
Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4800 duly passed and adopted.
114: PROCEDURE FOK SELECTION OF COUNCIL APPOINTEE: Councilman Pickler stated
he continued to be troubled by the vacancy existing on the City Council and
has a suggestion designed to break the Council deadlock. He is, therefore,
proposing that at the next Council meeting, the Council convene a high level
il-Member Commission to review the potential candidates for appointment to the
Council and report back to the Council with three candidates who are qualified
to do the best job for the City of Anaheim. The special Commission should
include the best and brightest minds in the City, people who are conceraed
with both the quality of life in Anaheim and the quality of the City Council.
He proposes that each member of the Council appoint two members to the special
Screening Commission and that three or four other outstanding individuals be
asked to serve. Besides the eight City Council nominees, the three or four at
large appointees could be Don Karcher, President of Carl Karcher Enterprises,
Mary Jones, former Anaheim Woman of the Year and 25-year employee at
Disneyland, Ralph Clark, recently retired Orange County Supervisor or Keith
85
44
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
Murdoch, Anaheim's former City Manager and that they be invited to Join the
Screening Panel
Councilman Pickler recommended that the matter be placed on the next Council
meeting agenda. It is necessary to show the people of Anaheim that the
Council is doing everything possible to avoid a costly and divisive Election.
He has faith that forming this special committee will demonstrate their
commitment to ending the deadlock on the Council and getting on with the
business at hand.
Mayor Bay asked that he present his proposal in the form of a motion.
Councilman Pickler moved that his proposal as articulated, be placed on the
Council agenda of February 10, 1987. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Bay stated he will speak against the motion
primarily because in his opinion it is time to go back to the people. He
personally believes the people should be allowed to vote since there is no
consensus on the Council to make that appointment. Ne has come to the
conclusion that a Special Election is the only way to pick the 5th Member of
the Council. He does not intend to debate or argue the issue any longer.
After additional discussion between Councilman Pickler and Mayor Bay regarding
.the proposed procedure, Councilman Hunter stated he agreed with Mayor Bay.
The issue is not putting a Blue Ribbon Panel together. There have already
been 22,000 voters in the last Election who said they wanted Bill Ehrle. It
is logical and reasonable to appoint him. If it is necessary to go to the
Special Election then they should act accordingly and be done with it.
Councilman Pickler emphasized that Mr. Ehrle was not a winner in the last
Election. There were people in the community who have worked very hard for
the community. Herb Leo said he would be willing to fill the seat for
18 months. He (Pickler) is saying, they are not getting the best person to
fill the seat.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the remaining Council Members are the ones to make
the appointment to the vacancy. If the Charter wanted the runner-up
appointed, it would have said so. Those who formulated the Charter
deliberately did not say so. Had there been a different person as a runner-up
in the last Election, there would be an entirely different scenario. There is
a precedent in Anaheim, and that precedent is not to appoint the runner-up.
The Council should abide by that precedent because it has served the City well.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by
the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler and Kaywood
Hunter and Bay
None
One
86
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
114: REQUEST BY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ITEMS BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA:
Councilman Pickler stated he understands that when a Council person wishes an
item to be placed on the agenda, it takes a majority vote of the Council to do
so. He has not seen that happen in the time he has been serving on the
Council. If he feels there is something that should be on the agenda, he
believes he has the right to agendize that item for Council consideration. He
does not believe there is anything in the Charter or according to law to
prohibit doing so. The matter surfaced when the Council discussed agendizing
nomination of individuals as Council appointees on a continuing basis. As
individuals, Council Members should have the right to place an item on the
agenda by requesting that it be done and not by a majority vote.
City Attorney Jack White stated that prior to January 1, 1987 it probably was
not important whether something was on the agenda or not. An item could be
brought up by an individual Council Member at a meeting and acted upon at that
time. The same day the Council became a four-member Council was the same day
the amendment to the Brown Act went into effect providing that items cannot be
acted upon unless they have been agendized and appear on the published agenda
at least 72 hours prior to the Council meeting. However, he is not aware of
any legal precedent on how items are agendized either in this City by past
practice or in any other Jurisdiction. Dealing from "whole cloth" without any
precedent, it is his opinion that the City Council controls its own agenda
Just as it controls the minutes of its meetings. That would mean, in his
view, a majority of the Council can determine what can go on the agenda and a
majority can determine what item will be left off. The question is - what if
an individual member wishes to have something placed on the agenda and wishes
to go to a member of City staff, either the City Attorney or more regularly
the City Clerk, and ask that an item be put on the agenda. Unfortunately,
there are no rules on the issue and he is not sure what the past practice has
been in this area. It would be helpful for City staff if some direction were
given as to whether or not the Council wishes to have items agendized by
individual Members of the Council or not. Staff, at present, is in a delicate
situation. On a very important issue, there is a split Council and he feels
it would be appropriate, if possible, to give some direction one way or the
other on how the Council wishes to proceed with agendizing items. The Council
itself as a majority controls what goes on the agenda. He has no precedent
for that or cannot point to any rule of law that says that.
Councilman Pickler stated looking at other cities and the County, in the
majority of those cities and the County if a Council person or Supervisor
wants to agendize an item, they speak to the Clerk and have the item placed on
the agenda. He would like to follow a similar procedure and is appealing to
the other Council Members.
City Attorney White stated that any procedure the Council wishes to establish
would be acceptable.
Mayor Bay stated the Council Comments portion of the agenda allows Council
Members to bring up any subject they wished and there is nothing in the Brown
Act that prohibits doing so. The Brown Act Just states that the matter cannot
be taken to a motion and voted on at that meeting. Relative to the Council
vacancy and not continuing to have it agendized every week was to try to cut
down rhetorical discussion of the matter. He feels as long as there are 87
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
Council Comments, any Member of the Council can bring up any subject they wish
and if there is a vote to place it on an agenda it will go on that agenda.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Council Members are all elected to
represent the people to the best of their ability. If it requires a
three-member vote to get something on the agenda, it is crippling the City.
They did not have that up until January 1, 1987 and she asked how it happened,
that is now the case; Mayor Bay did not respond considering it to be a
rhetorical question.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. MOTION
CARRIED. (3:29 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (3:50 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-14(KEADV.)~ VARIANCE NO.
3611 (KEADV.) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Hugo A. Vazquez, et al.
2240 West Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim, Ca. 92801
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from CL to EM-1200, to
construct a 34-unit affordable apartment complex on property located at 2240
West Lincoln Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Required lot
frontage, (b) minimum site area per dwelling unit, (c) maximum building
height, (d) maximum site coverage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-298 approved Reclassification
No. 86-87-14 (Ready.), Resolution No. PC86-299 granted Variance No. 3611
(Readv.), approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 30, 1986.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 22, 1987.
Posting of property January 22, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 22, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 8, 1986.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is concerned with the tandem parking spaces and wanted to
know if there is a way to build the project without any tandem
spaces. Additional questions were posed relative to the sharing
of the driveway with the adjacent project, whether the units
would be rented to families or Just adults, if children are
involved, where would they play, if there was going to be
on-site management, site coverage, etc.
88
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
STAFF INPUT:
Hugo Vazquez, 619 South Live Oak Drive.
He referred to the rendering of the subject project which was
posted on the Chamber wall which is a 34-unit apartment complex
consisting of luxury style 2-bedroom 2-bath apartments. In
order to build a project today with 2.5 parking spaces per unit
requires the use of some tandem spaces. They have minimized the
number of tandem spaces as much as possible and these spaces are
assigned spaces. There will be 17 guest parking spaces which
are not tandem. These are individual spaces which will be
assigned to guests as they enter the project. All parking in
the project is assigned and there is no extra charge for a
parking space. The adjacent project is also his and the
driveway between the two will be shared. The project will
attract both families and single adults. He projects that there
will be close to 65% single adults and the remainder will be
families. He is trying to follow the Oakwood Apartment Complex
example and that is why he has included a recreation room.
However, his units will be far superior to Oakwood's and will
also be brand new. The central courtyard of the project is
approximately 30 to 40 feet wide with lawn in some areas where
it is 60 feet wide where children can play. In the past, he has
not provided playground equipment or a sandbox but if there are
a number of tenants with children and there is a need for such
facilities, as determined by the management of the complex, they
will provide a sandbox or a swing set. The complex will have
on-site management. Relative to site coverage (77%) it is
necessitated because of the building being built at grade. The
courtyard is not counted in terms of open area but it is as far
as recreation area. Unless they drop the building down to its
natural grade, it is counted as site coverage. The project is
heavily landscaped in the front and then there will be potted
plants on the deck throughout the courtyard of the complex. The
affordable units in the project will rent at 3414 a month in the
program that offers 10% of the units as affordable and if at 25%
affordable, the rent will be ~538 a month.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
The project does have a density bonus being requested to permit
25% more. Twenty-seven units would be allowable by Code and
they are proposing 34 units. Staff somehow neglected to insert
the appropriate condition, but Mr. Vazquez has already drafted
an agreement with the Housing Authority for affordable housing.
If the project is approved, there would be a new condition
generally worded: "that prior to the issuance of a building
permit, the developer will in accordance with California
Government Code Section 65915 enter into an agreement with the
City setting aside either three of the units (10% of the
permissible number under Code) to be affordable to families at
or below 50% of the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area) or 25% (7 units to be affordable to families at 80% or
lower than the SMSA median income." In this instance, because
of the height of the grade, the coverage exceeds the 55% staff
89
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
would like to see. The project is set back from the street so
it does not have the same landscaped setback area normally seen
along street frontages. Therefore, 77% is not going to be as
objectionable as it might be on the street. That waiver is what
staff considers to be the most significant. Relative to the
height waiver, surrounding commercial zoning can go to this type
of building height. The location is set back from the street so
visually it is not going to be an issue for the lifestyle of the
people in it. The on-site recreational space is at the minimum
with 200 square feet required per unit and 245 proposed.
Mayor Bay.
Relative to the affordable agreement, he referred to Page 3b of
the staff report to the Planning Commission, under Development
Proposal where it described the proposal. He was concerned that
the project was approved 7/0 at the Planning Commission but that
condition was not included in the resolution; Annika Santalahti
explained staff neglected to include the condition in the
resolution but it was everbody's understanding it was going to
be a condition including Mr. Vazquez who has already negotiated
with Housing. She noted in reading the resolution that it was
missing.
Councilman Pickler.
He had no problem with the proposal and felt that it was going
to be an enhancement for the area.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Keith Pepper, 817 North Lemon.
He visited Mr. Vazquez project with him at Ball and Western and
noted that the courtyard is a rough, abrasive surface above the
parking structure. It is not landscaped and is not a suitable
place for children to be playing. Further, the solution to
avoid the variance would be to eliminate a number of units to
comply with Code. The two issues that need to be addressed are
(1) whether or not the Council believes an apartment complex
belongs along Lincoln Avenue where on the General Plan
commercial development is indicated and (2) variances are to be
granted when there are hardships which would not allow
conformance with the Code. He can see no hardships and he is,
therefore, requesting that the Council deny the Reclassification
and Variance.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler.
He lives in the area and knows that commercial development was
possibly going to be put on the subject property but it failed
9O
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
to materialize. He feels the development will be beneficial to
the City. There was a need for affordable units as well.
Perhaps a critical area is one that Mr. Pepper mentioned, a
suitable play area for children. If that can be provided, he
has no problem with the project.
Councilman Hunter.
He referred to the newly instituted school tax which will cost
31.50 square-foot additional when something is built. That tax
was going to make it very prohibitive to pencil out buildings.
There is a need for affordable housing throughout Orange
County. Fewer people are going to be building such units, but
there will be a greater demand and prices will increase. The
proposed apartments are not unreasonable and he is in favor of
the project.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
In formulating the VISION 2000 Program, quality housing was a
phrase continually repeated and that is one of her concerns.
She then asked Mr. Vazquez if, along with on-site management,
the number of people per apartment would be controlled by a
lease.
Hugo Vazquez.
He answered yes. All leases are signed with that in effect.
is a normal standard Apartment Association Lease that they
follow and credit is also checked through the Apartment
Association.
It
Discussion then followed relative to providing a suitable play
area as requested by Councilman Pickler. Mr. Vazquez broached
the possibility of putting the 35-foot setback area to use since
it is an area having a 164-foot frontage. Councilwoman Kaywood
emphasized that Mr. Vazquez was aware when he purchased the
property that Lincoln Avenue has a 35-foot setback, which area
ca,mot be turned into a playground, courtyard or anything else.
Hugo Vazquez.
He will look into providing a sandbox location as well as
something to entice children to play in the central courtyard.
He noted, however, that none of his competition has included any
type of children's play equipment into their projects. He will
look into the matter personally and also on the other projects
that are still in design stage relative to setting off a
playground facility for the kids.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
91
Hall, A.aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987, 10:00 A.M.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Relative to the affordable units, it would be 7 units at 25%
when the families can afford 80% or less of the median income
level or 3 units at 10% which is at 50% or less of the median
income which is the lower income level. The $414 mentioned is
the low income rate. It is a choice of the developer.
Hugo Vazquez.
His choice is the 10% affordable program which will require 3
affordable units.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is going to vote in favor of the project but she is going to
be watching it very closely and if quality is not "top notch" it
will be the last one where she votes favorably.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-32 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 86-87-14 (Ready.) and Resolution No. 87R-33 for adoption,
granting Variance No. 3611, both subject to City Planning Commission
Conditions adding a new Condition No. 15 regarding the recorded agreement with
the City of Anaheim pertaining to affordable units and that the project
reflect a 10% affordable Housing bonus. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-14.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3611.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-32 and 87R-33 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEAILING - VARIANCE NO. 3622:
APPLICANT:
Vincent and Patrice Califano
331 South Yorkshire Circle
Anaheim, Ca. 92807
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To retain an existing horse barn and corral on
RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at 331 South Yorkshire Circle, with Code
waiver of minimum distance for animal confinement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-303 denied Variance No. 3622.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by the applicant.
92
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 22, 1987.
Posting of property January 22, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 22, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 8, 1986.
City Clerk Sohl announced that the applicant submitted letter dated
February 3, 1987 indicating they wish a continuance of the public hearing for
sufficient time to obtain an attorney. They did not indicate a precise date.
APPELLANT'S
STATEMENT:
Vincent Califano, 331 South Yorkshire Circle.
He spoke with one of the attorneys from his company about
representing them in the matter and the attorney indicated that
he would need 60 to 90 days. He would, therefore, like a 90-day
continuance. The issue is the barn which has been in existence
for approximately 6 years. It was then determined by a show of
hands that four other people were present to speak on the
matter; Councilman Pickler wanted to hear from a spokesman
regarding the proposed continuance.
Mayor Bay emphasized at issue at this time was whether or not
the 90-day continuance should be granted.
Mr. Ken McLaughlin, 351 South Yorkshire Circle.
He is in opposition and is also opposed to the request for a
90-day continuance or any continuance at all.
Gale Reisman, 341 Yorkshire Circle.
She does not understand the need for a continuance. Mr.
Califano is cutting their property in two. She wants to know
when the permit for the barn was issued if at all. It was built
without their permission, the Association's permission or as she
believes without the City's permission. She opposes a
continuance.
Georgia Peterson, 361 Yorkshire Circle, President of Country
Knoll Homeowners Association. She opposes the continuance and
does not know what 30 days or 90 days will change.
Councilman Pickler recommended that the Council proceed with the
public hearing.
City Attorney Jack White.
He would be concerned about proceeding in light of the request
today that legal counsel be given the opportunity to be
present. He feels perhaps 4 or 5 weeks would not be
unreasonable. If the Council proceeded with the hearing today
he would be concerned about due process being served when the
appellant is requesting that legal counsel be present.
93
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Hunter suggested a 30-day continuance but he wanted
to be assured if the Council picked a firm date that Mr.
Califano's attorney would be present, especially if the
interested parties present in the Chamber audience are at that
meeting. He wanted a commitment that he would be present to
preclude more than one more hearing.
Mr. Califano stated that the attorney was on vacation. He would
like a 45-day continuance if possible. He also stated what they
originally asked for was a variance on the barn. He does not
care about the corral which is obviously an encroachment on
someone's property. The permit was pulled approximately 6 years
ago and the building was started in 1981. They are not asking
for any drainage. They do not want anyone else's property but
Just want to keep their barn.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the public hearing on Variance No. 3622 be
continued for four weeks.
Before further action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that some people
in the Chamber audience wanted to speak and she asked to hear from them.
Gale Reisman.
If the hearing is for the barn, she would like the Council to
make some decision on the corral which is on her property. It
was not on Mr. Califano's property. She asked that the Council
deal with the corral today so that they could put their fence
across their property line wherever they wanted to put it.
City Attorney White.
His recommendation is to honor the request for a continuance.
He would like to clarify that the hearing will be a zoning
hearing and not an attempt to aJudicate property rights between
adjoining property owners. If there is a dispute as to
structures being built on property not within Mr. Califano's
ownership, he would recommend the property owners resort to
their own legal Counsel to determine that. The City Council
will not make any determination as to ownership of property but
determine whether the proposed structures meet good planning and
conform with the Zoning Code or merit variances. Even if
variances are granted, it should not be taken to imply it
authorizes someone to build on property where there is no
ownership or legal control.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they could speak on the corral
today; Mr. White recommended against bifurcation of the hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that staff be informed that there is
a problem and not require Mrs. Reisman to build a fence when she
does not have her own property. She did not want any
enforcement action taken on her until the matter is resolved;
Mayor Bay stated that he was not a party to that instruction
94
3 3'i
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
since he did not know the facts one way or the other and was not
going to instruct Code Enforcement to take or not take any
action from this viewpoint when there has been no hearing nor
are the facts presented before the Council.
MOTION: Councilman Bay then moved to continue the public hearing on Variance
No. 3622 for five weeks to Tuesday, March 10, 1987. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that it be the first hearing on that date starting
at 3:00 p.m.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. MOTION
CARRIED. (5:00 p.m.).
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (5:09 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3625 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Eugene Noonan
510 East Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a 12-unit apartment complex on RM-1200
zoned property located at 408 South Rose Street, with the following Code
waivers: (a) Maximum site coverage, (b) minimum structural setback, (c)
minimum dimensions of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-9 denied Variance No. 3625;
approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Makram Nawar, Andrew
Homes, Inc.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 22, 1987.
Posting of property January 22, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 22, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 15, 1987.
APPRT.TANT'S
STATEMENT:
Magdy Hanna, 400 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach.
Land is not available any longer. They are proposing a 12-unit,
2-story apartment project. The use is compatible with the area
and they have met all parking requirements. There is no tandem
parking. The units are being built on top of the parking
structure. It is a difficult parcel to design. The property
fronts on both East Street and Rose Street and there are two
access points. They are providing more than the required amount
95
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987, 10:00 A.M.
STAFF INPUT:
of leisure area. The two remaining waivers are maximum site
coverage and minimum structural setback. They are not
encroaching in the setback by the structure itself but the
patios. That is where they are providing the leisure areas and
patios for the tenants. The way it is calculated under the new
ordinance, most projects that are coming to the City are coming
up with that waiver because of the way it is done. The
economics of the project necessitates the development of the
number of units they are requesting. The units will be renting
for approximately 3700 a unit. There are 10, 2-bedroom units
with 2-baths and 2 1-bedroom units with one bath. They will
have on-site management. He confirmed they will have a lease
stating how many people can live in each apartment. He
reiterated relative to the site coverage (73%) it is because of
the way it is calculated with the new change in the Code. The
units are actually built on top of the parking structure. Ail
walkways and open areas do not count.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
When they modified the definition of a story pertaining to
garages, they calculated garages that are 50% or more in the
ground as being a basement. They have not been considering that
as part of coverage but when not depressed 50%, it becomes a
story and coverage goes up. Staff has been seeing a number of
these projects lately. The site is 146 feet deep and she
believes they cannot get basement type parking on the project
because they cannot get enough slope to do so. The project is
at Code exactly with the density - 1204 square feet per unit
with 1200 being allowed. Her guess is the project contains
about 1/3 more units than the site would handle if there were no
waivers. People are now looking at at-grade parking with an
entirely closed parking structure.
Mayor Bay.
He asked then if that means when talking about RM-1200 Code
requirements and looking at the figures showing a 55% maximum,
therefore, due to the new interpretation or changes in the Code
they now show 73% against a 55%. He asked if that was not
misleading enough for sta£~ to start thinking o~ changing the
RM-1200 to Codes.
Annika Santalahti.
She did not believe so. In this case, the need for the 73% is
that the site is not very large. It is approximately 100 feet
wide and 150 feet deep. She felt in this instance it is the
site size.
Mayor Bay stated then that the straight percentage comparisons
were not as meaningful as they used to be; Miss Santalahti
stated that was correct.
96
31
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
At the Planning Commission hearing Commissioner Herbst stated
the project is too much for the property. She is concerned with
the structural setback waiver request since it is 1/2 the amount
required. It is putting too much on a small parcel. Regarding
the 30 parking spaces, 3 are for compact cars and if there are
older cars, they will not be compact and those cars will then
park on the street. The whole area is impacted now with parking
on the street.
Magdy Hanna.
They are providing 2.5 spaces per unit which is sufficient for
an apartment the size being proposed. The 1-bedroom units will
only have one car and they have 1.5 car spaces for visitors.
Annika Santalahti.
Relative to parking, it was advertised originally as a waiver
but staff found after advertising that the situation was
corrected. Out of 12 units, 6 of the spaces they have to have
are open guest spaces and of those 6, only one can be a small
car space. Waiver c. was deleted and they can now only have one
small car space. Only the open spaces can be small car spaces.
They are required to have two covered spaces per unit. They can
have six open spaces under Code but out of those six, only one
can be for a small car.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The Council received a number of letters and she received a
number of phone calls on the project. The neighbors were
suggesting in the latest letter that the property be utilized by
senior citizens only because they do not have so much trouble on
the street with children and cars. If there are children, she
does not see any play area. If they play in the street it will
create a hazard both for the children and the people in the
area. She had asked Mr. Hanna about the project being for
seniors but he indicated that would be a problem since they
would have to walk up a story.
Mayor Bay noted a discrepancy in the voting as reported in the
Planning Commission resolution and minutes; Miss Santalahti
agreed and stated she would research the matter and have the
documents corrected to reflect the proper vote.
97
32
City Hall~ Anahe!m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-34 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3625, subject to all Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VAILIARCE NO. 3625.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCLLMEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter and Bay
Kay~ood
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-34 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated her no vote is due to her concern that the project
is overbuilding a small parcel and in many areas of the City, small parcels
are all that are left. She could not approve putting so much on that property.
No items of public interest were presented.
ADJOURNHENT= Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn.
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
Councilwoman Kaywood
(5:26 p.m.)
98