Loading...
1987/08/11109 City Mall, Agahelm} Callformia - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: ACTING CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING: Norman J. Priest ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Anntka Santalahti A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:45 p.m. on August 7, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 12:16 p.m. 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 Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59; Dolle vs. City of Anaheim O.C.S.C.C. No. 41-33-89. b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957. d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:17 p.m.) Mayor ~ckmowledging the overflow number of citizens in the Council Chamb~ ~plained that the public portion of the Council meeting starts at 1:30 p.m. He assumed that those present were interested in the item dealing with the proposed termination of the Katella Eedevelopment Project. The Council would later be taking action to terminate all proceedings regarding that project and that would normally not be opened for discussion but anyone who wished to speak could do so under Items of Public Interest with a 3-minute time limitation. If it was the intent to spend an hour discussing an issue that is about to end, it would preclude the Council's Closed Session. At the urgi~~ of the over capacity crowd, Mayor Bay called the Council meeting into put ~ion and introduced the following item: 734 City H~3l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL HINUTES - August ll, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Terminating all proceedings associated with the proposed Katella Redevelopment Project: Submitted was report dated August 4, 1987 from the Community Development Department, recommending that the Council adopt a resolution terminating all proceedin~s associated with the proposed approval and adoption of the Katella Redevelopment Project. Both the Planning Commission and the Community Redevelopment Commission had previously adopted resolutions recommending termination of all proceedings. Councilman Pickler. He read a statement, a synopsis of which is as follows: It is clear that the ambitious Katella Redevelopment Project that would have taken 35 years and millions of dollars was a good idea that went out of control. The area around the world's finest amusement park is a "disgr~ " with the proliferations of signs, "tacky" operations, etc. and using t~ powers of Redevelopment to upgrade and enhance the area was appealing t ~. Using the powers of Redevelopment to enhance the area was also appealing z.., him but that simple idea became a "monster." It started to take on characteristics that frightened even initial supporters like himself. The most frightening aspect is the way it began to intrude on the lives of surrounding neighbors and neighborhoods that are amongst the finest in Orange County. He believes that all Council Members share some of the blame for not stepping forward earlier in the process and recognizing what was happening with the project. If it were not for the action of watchful and vigilant citizens, this project might have become a reality before anyone grasped the magnitude of it. Today, after the Council finally puts an end to the project, it should take a long look relative to how the situation got to the point that it has - a process that can allow "scary" legal letters to be mailed from City staff to citizens without full Council knowledge. The Council needs to know what went wrong and to learn from those mistakes. He is ready to vote to end the project and to serve on a Council fact finding committee to bring back recommendations on ways to guarantee something like this never happens again. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions adopted at this meeting after reading of title thereof. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 87R-330 for adoption, terminating all proceedings associated with the proposed Katella Redevelopment Project. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-330: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERFtINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE KATR~3.AREDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay explained that the Council never took s-~,' action to approve the project but were in the process of public hearings ~. ~ the process to establish a Redevelopment Project area. The only reason he can see that they have to take action at all terminating the proceeding is that there are a number of staff proceedings incurred in dealing with the various sources of revenues and the County. He offers no resistance to te~inating all the proceedings. The Council has been greatly swayed by public opinion on the matter. He does not share the opinion of the people who are so vociferously against a Redevelopment Project. If there were ever any more 735 City ~.ll~ A~beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. redevelopment projects in the City, regardless of where, the public information must be handled to where there is a great deal more understanding by the citizens. Financially this was one of the very few ways to accomplish the improvements that are needed in a very large area of the City. There is no doubt there were some ill-conceived portions of the plan including residential areas that did not need to be included. He still believes in the State Redevelopment Act of 1974 and in its theories. It is a tool that can be used by c~rles to finance improvements the City cannot otherwise afford at all withou~ ~ing taxes. Councilwoman Kaywood. It was never the intent of the Council to "shove a project down the public's throat". It saddens her to see how misinformation has spread so rapidly and the emotion involved. When emotions do get involved, it is impossible to get the proper information out. She is also going to support terminating any further proceedings. The initial hearing was advertised and the meeting held in May and not one person was present. They tried to form a Project Area Committee and had to extend the advertising period because nobody was responding. There was no way of knowing there was going to be this kind of response in the area. The State requires notification in "legalese" that nobody can understand and the result is to scare everybody, which it did. The good parts of the project are not going to be able to be accomplished at this time because the money will not be there. The tax increment, which does not raise taxes, is a viable method for making improvements. Councilman Ehrle. The past few weeks he has had an opportunity of attending two or three of the hearings held at Anaheim and Loara High Schools in order to listen to the people. The Council does care and does listen. They have to work together. It will be necessary to find a vehicle to improve sewers, street lights, and to work with the City School and Anaheim Umion High School Districts who were to gain something like $200,000,000 each. A few weeks ago he proposed an Economic Development Board. Once the City's sales tax base is increased, there will be more funds available to improve such things as streets. He does not believe a property tax increase is necessary. He, too, will vote to put an end to the turmoil in the City caused by the proposed project. The citizens and Council should work hand in hand. A vote ~ then taken on the foregoing resolution: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-330 duly passed and adopted. There were requests from the audience to speak to the issue at this time; Mayor Bay stated that there would be no input taken at this time but those who wished could speak to the issue under the public input portion of the meeting. Many in the Chamber audience expressed displeasure that they could not speak at this time. 736 City Hall, An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11; 1987; 1:30 P.M. The Council recessed into Closed Session. (12:59 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members bein~ present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (2:00 p.m.) INVOCATION: Captain Joseph Huttenlocker, Salvation Army, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and authorized by the City Council: Western Packaging Week, September 1 - 5, 1987. MINUTES: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 16, 1987 and the adjourned regular meeting held July 7, 1987 (a.m. session). Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,299,961.30 for the week ending July 31, 1987 and $3,154,279.66 for the week ending August 7, 1987, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay, 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 Bay offered Resolution Nos. 87R-331 through 87R-341, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Michael P. McCoy for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 5, 1987. b. Claim submitted by Paula Lea Rohland for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 1, 1987. c. Claim submitted by Dorothy Cole for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 14, 1987. d. Claim submitted by Cindy D. Nash for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 3, 1987. e. Claim submitted by Siloe Pacindo for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 4, 1987. f. Claim submitted by Fmm, Washington for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 6, 1987. 737 City Hall~ A-Aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. g. Claim submitted by Donald M. Meadnis for indemnity for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 11, 1985. h. Claim submitted by Edward Franks for comparative partial indemnity and declaratory relief for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 3, 1984. i. Claim submitted by Thomas Lee Mauldin by Ruth Mauldin for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 28, 1987. J. Claim submitted by Tina Miller for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 13, 1987. k. Claim submitted by David Collins for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 24, 1982. 1. Claim submitted by William E. Hathcoat Jr. for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 20, 1987. m. Claim submitted by Donna M. Clayton for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April §, 1987. n. Claim submitted by Ina Tabibian for David S. Lake Publishers for prope~y damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 3 through May 7, 1987. o. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (~JF746-0254) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 11, 1987. p. Claim submitted by David Patterson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 18, 1987. q. Claim submitted by Brian and Patty Sheplor for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 18, 1987. r. Claim submitted by Ronald Erickson for bodily injury sustained purport~ due to actions of the City on or about February 28, 1987. s. Claim submitted by Michael Senn Thompson for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 27, 1987. t. Claim submitted by Samuel Nissan for property damage sustained f_~rportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 6, 1987. u. Claim submitted by Phyllis Uhlig for property damage sustained put! ~%y due to actions of the City on or about May 11, 1987. aim submitted by Kenneth & Klmberly Alexis for property damage sustainc~ purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 6, 1987. w. Claim submitted by Jione & Toakase Tai for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 6, 1987. 738 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. x. Claim submitted by Kobert Matthew Fleeger for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 15, 1987. y. Claim submitted by Shirley Ardolino & Clifford Nebblin for personal injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 2, 1987. z. Claim submitted by James ¥. Alfriend for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 6, 1987. aa. Claim submitted by Eva Shirley for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 6, 1987. bb. Claim submitted by William N. Mazzola for property damage sustai:~d purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 15, 1987. cc. Claim submitted by Michaela & David Ortiz for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 3, 1987. dd. Claim submitted by Delbert Davidson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 6, 1987. ce. Claim submitted by Richard Brooks for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 8, 1987. ff. Claim submitted by Gary V. Lombardi for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 31, 1987. gg. Claim submitted by Wayne Patrick Vanderlinden for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 13, 1987. hh. Claim submitted by Carmon Gonzales for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 10, 1987. ii. Claim submitted by Travis James Seeber for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 2, 1987. jj. Claim submitted by Julie Kendrick for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 6, 19~7. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - Recommended to be kk. Claim submitted by Carol Camacho for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 10, 1987. Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted: 11. Claim submitted by John J. Lahey for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 6, 1987. , mm. Claim submitted by Buena Park Inn for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 20, 1987. 739 City F-11~ 6-obeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11; 1987; 1:30 P.M. nh. Claim submitted by Korco Seafood (Tom Korsvall) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 1, 1987. Receivin& and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission, Minutes of March 19 and May 28, 1987. b. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of July 9, 1987. c. 105: Public Library Board, Minutes of June 24, 1987. d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of July 8, 1987. 3. 108: Ratifying the City Manager's approval of a Public Dance permit submitted by Jesus M. Frias to hold a dance at Anaheim Convention Center, on August 8, 1987, 6:00 p.m to 1:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. 4. 123: Authorizing State Agreement No. 07-5055, Supplement No. 35, to rehabilitate and resurface La Palma Avenue from State College Boulevard to Acacia Street, project cost of ~288,400 with $41,614 as the City share. 5. 181/106: Transferring the Anaheim Museum Project in the FY 86/87 Resource Allocation Plan from the City Council Department/Control Center into the Public Works Engineering Capital Projects Control Center, for FY 86/87 year-end adjustment purposes. 6. 150: Approving the naming of the parksite located adjacent to Imperial Elementary School, at Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch Road, the Imperial Park. 7. 150/106: Accepting equipment from Walden School, Inc., valued at ~2,154, in lieu of payment for use of recreation facilities, and reducing revenue account #01-274-3723 by said amount. 8. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to Agreement with Community Service Programs, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $38,600, to provide diversion/trea~ment services, for the term July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988. 9. 139: Opposing AB 1204 (Chacon) to allow voters to register to vote on election day at the polling place and authorizing the Mayor to communicate said position to our elected officials in Sacramento. 10. 153: Receiving and filing the report on settlement of wage claims resulting from employee grievances from July 1986 through June 1987. 11. 123: Authorizing a Second Amendment to Agreement with Eric W. Gruver, Ph.D., to conduct psychological evaluations for police officer, police reserve and Jailer applicants, extending the term from August 1, 1987 through July 31, 1988. 740 Hall, Anah-im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987; 1:30 P.M. 12. 170.123: Approving a reimbursement agreement with SoPac Properties, Inc. for design and construction of Parkview Pump Station, Phgse II, to serve Tract Nos. 10976 and 10977 in the Anaheim Hills area. 13. 170.123: Approving the assignment of a special water facilities reimbursement agreement with Camino Grande Villas to Municicorp of California, relating to Tract No. 10968 in the Anaheim Hills area. 14. 170.123: Approving the assignment of a special water facilities reimbursement agreement with Gramercy Park to Municicorp of California, relating to Tract No. 10973 in the Anaheim Hills area. 15. 175.123: Authorizing a Reimbursement Agreement with SoPac Properties Inc., for costs associated with the design and construction of Twin Peaks Reservoir in the Anaheim Hills area. 16. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $82,894.64 for one Sewer Jet Truck, in accordance with Bid No. 4463. 17. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corp., in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for ten used passenger vehicles. 18. 150: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Irvine Construction Group, in the amount of $8,929.27 for additional expenses incurred for upgrading the utilities for the La Palm- Park Picnic Shelter, Account No. 16-827-7105. 19. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-331: 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. (Traffic Signal Interconnect, Account Nos. 46-795-6325-E5450 and 49-795-6325-E5460; and opening of bids on September 3, 1987, 2:00 p.m.) 20. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-332: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ciTY OF ANAHE~ F~ND~NG AND DETm%M~NING THAT ?U~L~C CONVENIENCE AND NECXSSITY ILEQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (George Washington Community Center Improvements, Account Nos. 25-848-7107 and 16-848-7107; and opening of bids on September 3, 1987, 2:00 p.m.) 21. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-333: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O~' CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC ~ (ROMNEYA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT). (e/o Louise to w/o Liberty Lane, am it No. 17-792-6325-E2400, Nobest, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 22. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-334: A EESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (1986-1987 ALLEY IMPROVEMENT). (Account Nos. 01-793-6325-E3130 and 54-484-6993-00710, Nobest, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 741 City Hall} Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auzust 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. 23. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-335: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AHENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-007 WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COHPENSATION FOR CONFIDENTIAL JOB CLASSES. (adjusting the rates for Legal Secretary, and Paralegal, effective August 7, 1987) 24. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-336: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED TO THE GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (amending the classification title of Recreation Services Assistant to Recreation Services Specialist, effective August 21, 1987) 25. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-337: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-82 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (creating classifications of Senior Day Center Director, - Activity Coordinator, -Program Assistant and Community Services Coordinator, effective August 7, 1987) 26. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-338: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CEILTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (87-5A) (Declaring intent to abandon an alley on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, south of Lincoln Avenue, Aban. 87-5A, and setting a date for the public hearing therefor - suggested date: September 15, 1987, 3:00 p.m.) 27. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-339: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (87-12A) (Declaring intent to abandon electrical public utility easement on property located on the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street, Aban. 87-12A, and setting a date for the public hearing therefor - suggested date: September 15, 1987, 3:00 p.m.) 28. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-340: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES HERETOFOR~ IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. 29. I iSOLUTION NO. 87R-341: A ~LESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ~: ~AHEIMACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OK INTERESTS THEREIN. !23: Approving an amendment to an agreement with E. Del Smith and Company, inc., to provide representation for the City in Washington, extending the term from July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-331 through 87R-341: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None 742 City Hall, A-aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auzust 11, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-331 through 87R-341, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARItlED. 129: DONATION FROM THE EAST ANAHEIM ROTARY CLUB: Submitted was report dated July 15, 1987 from Fire Chief Jeff Bowman, recommendin~ acceptance of the $300 from the Anaheim Rotary Club to the Fire Department, office of emergency service. Councilwoman Kaywood removed the item from the Consent Calendar to thank the Rotary Club on behalf of the Council for their generous donation. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept a check from the Anaheim East Rotary Club in the amount of $300 for the Fire Department, Office of Emergency Services, towards the purchase of a 30 channel radio scanner. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: PHYSICIAN MEDICAL SERVICES AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: Acting City Manager Bob Simpson stated the following items are removed from the agenda by staff for submission at a later date: (1) Authorizing an agreement with Southland Ambulance to provide two emergency medical technicians and ambulance service for events at Anaheim Stadium and (2) authorizing an agreement with Medical and Safety Management, Inc., to provide physician and backup emergency medical technician/Mini-Ambulance services at Anaheim Stadium (see staff report dated July 27, 1987 from W. Turner, General Manager, Anaheim Stadium). 123/106: AGREEMENT WITH GARDEN GROVE - RECONSTRUCTION OF NINTH STREET, SOUTH OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that this was a routine matter and the expenditures funded in the open program for small projects identified during the year in the past. The item was removed and deleted in an effort to balance the budget. Her concern is that will be counterproductive and it will end up costing more to put these routine items on the agenda and have the paperwork prepared for small things that are really automatic. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement with the City of Garden Grove for the reconstruction of Ninth Street south of Orangewood ~,~uue and appropriating $7,000 from the City Council Contingency Fund to cow payment of the City's share, as recommended in memorandum dated July ~. 87 from Gary Johnson, City Engineer. Councilman Pickler seconded the mot MOTION CARRIED. 156: ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE POLICE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER: Acting City Manager Bob Simpson stated that the following item is removed from the agenda by staff for resubmission at a later date: Accepting the completion of construction of the Police Communication Center, Account No. 01-987-6325, A. R. Willinger Company, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor (see memorandum dated July 21, 1987 from the City Engineer with proposed resolution attached). 743 99 City Hall~ ~-,he!m_~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. 161: APPOINTMENT TO ANAHEIM STADIUM INC. BOARD OF DIKECTOKS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to ratify the appointment of Lloyd Klein to the Anaheim Stadium Inc. Board of Directors, as requested in letter dated July 28, 1987 from Leonard Smith, President - Anaheim Stadium Inc. Councilman Hunter seconded the motiom MOTION CARRIED. 127: ISS issuance 2000 ca dated ~ SCHEDULED FOR THE NOVEMBER~ 1987 BALLOT: Proposition for the water bond revenues and to consider the financing of the Police project and the public safety package. Submitted was report 6, 1987 from the City Clerk. WATER BOND ISSUE: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-342, authorizing certain Members of the City Council to file a written argument regarding the ballot issue to consider the proposition for the issuance of Watez Revenue Bonds in the amount of $14,000,000, and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. F, ESOLUTION NO. 87R-342: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTENARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE (AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS). Before a vote was taken, discussion followed between Council Members regarding who would write the argument for the issue. Mayor Bay suggested that the Public Utilities General Manager, Gordon Hoyt, do so; Councilman Hunter suggested that Mr. Hoyt and his staff would be appropriate. City Attorney Jack White. He clarified the intent is that Members of the Council will sign the ballot argument and the Council Members would be included in the resolution but directing Gordon Hoyt to draft the argument for Council review and signature. It is necessary today for the Council to adopt the resolution indicating the Council will prepare the ballot argument and next week the Council would review the draft prepared by Mr. Hoyt and it would either be approved or modified at that time. Councilman Pickler clarified that his resolution also included the intent as articulated by the City Attorney and that the City Attorney is also authorized to prepay, the impartial analysis. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter Pickler, Kaywood and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The ~eclared Resolution No. 87R-342 duly passed and adopted. 127~ ..CE 2000 AND PUBLIC SAFETY PACKAGE ISSUE: Authorizing certain ~s'0f the City Council to file a written argument regarding the ballot issue to consider the financing of the Police 2000 Capital Project and Public 744 City Hall, An,h,im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. Safety Package, by increasing property taxes, and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that this item be removed from the ballot at this time. It was approved to be placed on the ballot in such haste that there was little or no opportunity to get the wording straight. She feels there is a problem with placing the issue on the ballot at this time as well as a great deal of confusion which will make it difficult for it to pass. They should look to another method. Councilman Hunter disagreed. It was necessary to allow the issue to go to the voters. City Attorney Jack White. The proper procedure to remove the issue from the ballot would be to offer a resolution rescinding the previous resolution (87R-328 of July 28, 1987) which placed the issue on the ballot. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the Anaheim City Council determined that the need to act on the following item arose after the posting of the agenda for this meeting, on Friday, August 7, 1987, at 2:45 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement relative to posting the item on the printed agenda. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 87R-343 for adoption, rescinding Resolution No. 87R-328 of July 28, 1987, and thereby removing the Police 2000 Project and Public Safety Package issue from the November, 1987 ballot. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-343: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING THE SUBMISSION OF AN INITIATIVE MEASURE RELATED TO A SPECIAL TAX ON REAL PROPERTY FOR POLICE FACILITIES AND SERVICES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-328. Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he, too, felt there was not enough time to do a proper Job to assure a positive outcome. He also felt strongly that the Police projects are needed as they look at a 5-year program. By rushing through with the measure without the total Council behind it, would cause a problem at the outset. If it does not go on the November 1987 ballot, p~rhaps it can go on the June 19§§ ballot which will give an opportunity to lay a foundation that will ensure the measure passes, especially since it will require a 2/3 vote of the people. He believes t~:~t they are also somewhat premature and that other alternatives should be explored. Councilman Ehrle. He is speaking against the proposed resolution. He w~ned the Council had more time as well. However, the Council has already voted to put the issue on the ballot and groups such as the Anaheim Police Association have already started the machinery in motion to support the passage of the proposed tax for the police projects. The Police 2000 project should go forward and they should not wait another six to eight months before putting it on the ballot. He would like to have seen the ~25 tax per parcel based on larger and smaller parcels but they should go with what they voted on and let the people decide. 745 97. City Hall, An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11, 1987, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood. That was her concern. There was no time to make refinements to evaluate whether or not it was fair for a home and a business to pay the same $25. He had already received calls relative to that inequity. She very much wants the project and that is the reason why She is asking that it be removed from the ballot at this time. She does not want it to fail. If it did, and the Council decided to proceed in any case, it would be a mixed message to the citizens. She had suggested before that they look at the business license tax as a revenue source for Police 2000 which she believes would be a good way to do it. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed and left the Council Chamber, first asking those present also to leave the Chamber. (It was later reported that a bomb threat had been received and the Fire Department asked that the building be cleared). (2:25 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:55 p.m.) Council Members then spoke for or against removing the issue from the ballot. MAYOR BAY: He abstained on the original vote explaining that he would not oppose going to the people on a ballot to ask for support. Saying he would not oppose it did not mean he would campaign for it because he does not feel he can do that. He would prefer to stay out of the decision. He will not oppose it. In his opinion, the way it was stated to go on the ballot it would not have a chance of success. He does not think people will vote to tax themselves especially in an equal amount per parcel. If people do not vote for it the Council will know that they are not going to tax themselves on that issue. That could influence whether the Council cuts the program back, reduces it or how they would go ahead to find the funding source to do it. If that was explained clearly to the people there is a possibility the vote would be positive. COUNCILWOMAN KAYWOOD: Her big concern is that even if 65% of the people vote for it, it would still fail. If it failed and the Council then managed to find a ~ ~ing source to go forth, there will be many angry people who voted no as~ ~y the Council was doing it. She is also concerned about placing some~ ~ the ballot without the unanimous support of the Council and is conceru~ .~th the Mayor's abstention. COUNCILMAN PICKLER: His main reason for wanting the issue removed is, as the Mayor stated, it is not worded properly to elicit a positive vote since there was so little time to prepare it. If they had to shelve the Police 2000 project and come back with an initiative to put it on the June ballot, they could do that. As was obvious from the many citizens who were present on the Katella Project, the Council should learn a lesson that they have to let people know where they are coming from and give them an opportunity to comment. Waiting six months to put the issue on the ballot is the right way to go. COUNCILMAN HUNTER: He sees problems politically putting the issue on the June ballot which is a presidential primary. He feels they will have a better 746 City Hall, A--heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11; 1987~ 1:30 P.M. chance in the November Election to go to the voters. The Police 2000 is up to the voters. The problem is now that there are two or three Council Members who will not go out and "beat the bushes" and thus, it is already doomed to failure. Councilman Pickler stated if it goes on the ballot, he will work for it because it is needed. COUNCILMAN EHRLE: Both sides have good arguments and he is close to being convinced that the issue should not go on the ballot at this time. Considering what has occurred in the past several weeks, he feels there is a strong feeling of citizen participation at this time. It would be good to put the issue on the June ballot and to get citizens involved actively in support of the issue. He will support the proposed resolution to remove the issue from the ballot and favors putting it on the June ballot. A vote was then taken on the foregoin~ resolution by Councilwoman Kaywood rescinding Resolution No. 87R-328 of July 28, 1987. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler and Kaywood NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-343 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would still like to have the Council consider the business license tax that was discussed at Council a few weeks ago. As the Chamber talks about dues to the organization for services rendered, the business community should look at it as dues to the City of Anaheim for the safety services rendered and that that be a funding mechanism to go forward with the Police 2000. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Virgine Walker, 410 Torrey Pines Circle, Anaheim. She is a 15-year resident and the first to move into the Westrldge development in the Hills. She wishes to express her deep concern relative to the development taking place on Nohl Ranch Road and what they thought was the scenic corridor for all the people of Anaheim as well as Orange County. It is an area that was provided to g! scenery that is beautiful and magnificent which can never be replaced ~ gone. The developer is installing a 6-foot high block wall fence on a long stretch of Nohl Ranch Road~ taking away that breath-taking view. i~,. is asking if there is anything that can be done to save that view on behalf of the citizenry. She believes it to be in the scenic corridor and citizens living in that corridor are not allowed to have an antenna, a satellite dish, gas statton~ fast food restaurant~ etc. She believes a precedent has been set for any other development going in on Nohl Ranch Road and everywhere else in Anaheim Hills which developments, up to now, have had to use wrought iron fencing, or wrought iron with pilasters, etc. The view is not for a chosen few but it is for everyone in Orange County and any visitors driving to the area who want to take a look at that view. 747 9,5 City 9~11~ A-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Hunter stated he too, is upset about the situation. He has a wrought iron fence Just like everybody else is required to have in the Hill and Canyon area. His phone has been ringing off the hook with citizens questioning how the situation could have happened. Councilman Pickler reported he went to look at the wall and he and Councilman Hunter hay~ already talked to staff about the situation. He understands that area is ~' in the scenic corridor and the wall is goin~ to be used as a sound barrio- ~e view is spectacular. He will continue looking into the matter as wei~ ~e rest of the Council and if there is something that can be done they will do it. Ann Bien, 6673 Pasco Del Notre. Before ?:00 a.m., neighbors reported they saw heavy construction equipment on 441 Fairmont Boulevard, the site of the LDS Church development (Anaheim Stake Center). Someone in a bulldozer was systematically uprooting eucalyptus trees in the center stand on the property. By 8:00 a.m. most of the trees were destroyed. Her neighbors were told the property owners had the necessary permits to destroy the trees. The man said their permit was dated April 21, 1987. She attended the public hearing that day and the motion to remove the trees was made after 5:00 p.m. on that date which would mean the permit could not have been granted until the next business day or April 22, 1987. Further, the tree removal permit and the Conditional Use Permit were appealed and it is her understanding no permit should have been finalized until after the appeal period was over. Those 80-year old trees were part of the scenic corridor and protection is provided by the Code. She wanted to know how the irreparable damage to the environment could have occurred in the manner in which it occurred, which indicated a blatant disregard of the law. The law protects the environment, and the citizens who rely upon th~ law for the protection of their property rights. Steven Leachman, 3423 Aerial Place, Anaheim. Relative to parking, he keeps getting parking tickets for parking behind his garage. It is in an alleyway but he parks there for safety purposes. There is no parking available in his neighborhood after 6:00 p.m. And certainly none when his wife arrives home at 11:30 . He would like to have surveillance in the area, not only in the alle> also to enforce the curfew of younger people out riding bicycles at all ~f the night, sleeping in their laundry rooms and loitering in their alle There is also drug dealing going on across the street. He cannot move ~ the area at this time and he cannot continua paying for the parking tickets because of his family economics. He asked what the Council could recommend that he do. Mayor Bay recommended that Mr. Leachman call his message into the City's hotline number in order to get a specific response to his concerns. Judith Holmes, 6635 East Canyon Hills Road. Like Mrs. Walker, she is concerned about the attitude taken towards the scenic corridor. She witnessed the removal of the trees on the church site. In reference to earlier comments made by the Council, wanting to make Anaheim a good place to live and respond to its citizens, she would like the Council to be aware that she got "hassled" by Code Enforcemen~ when she got one tree trimmed on her property. The taxpayers and votez~ in the scenic corridor and all of Anaheim intend to be taken seriously in t~ matter of their attitudes towards their neighborhoods. 748 City Hall~ A--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11, 1987, 1:30 P.M. Dom Tomiello, 116 West Simmons Avenue, Anaheim. He read a letter to the editor which he had submitted and which was printed, the point of which suggested that the City legalize houses of prostitution in industrial areas which would then eliminate the general prostitution problem in the City because, pimps, hookers, etc. could not compete with the established houses of prostitution. Jeff Karsch, 2661 West Palais Road, Anaheim. Relative to the reallocation of police revenue, he would like to find out what studies have been done on present police expenditures. He notes there is excessive capacity in the helicopter program where the City is leasing out their services for Brea Canyon Patrol - whether revenue can be found within existing police programs rather than new taxes and what cost benefits have been done. Councilman Pickler stated that a police manpower study is being conductec .,~ this time. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:35 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:45 p.m.) 161.158: CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HRARING - PROPOSED SALE OF REAL PROPERTY: A Joint public hearing with the Redevelopment Agency to consider the propos=d sale of real property to William E. Fackiner and Helen E. Fackiner, for property located at the southwest corner of Cypress Street and Clementine Street, Development Parcel 2 (310 West Cypress Street). The public hearing was continued from the meeting of July 28, 1987, to this date, to give the Agency an opportunity to publish a Legal Notice for the Negative Declaration on the subject since the agreement could not be acted upon by the Agency until that was done. Submitted was report dated August 3, 1987 from the Community Development & Planning Department, recommending that the Council adopt a resolution certifying the initial study with respect to the proposed owner of participation agreement. Norm Priest, Director of Community Development & Planning, introduced the item and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration as well as the respective agreements. Mayor/Chairman Bay asked if anyone wished to speak; there was no respc~ a closed the public hearing. Agency Member Pickler offered Resolution No. ARA87-15 for adoption, adopting a Negative Declaration which finds and determines that the proposed sale and development of certain property located in Redevelopment Project Alpha will have no significant effect on the environment and that an environmental impact report need not be prepared. Refer to Resolution Book. 749 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. ARA87-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING AN INITIAL STUDY WHICH FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL I}iPACT REPORT NEED NOT BE PREPARED. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA87-15duly passed and adopted. Agency Member Pickler offered ARA87-16 for adoption, approving the proposed sale of certain real property in Redevelopment Project Alpha; approving the proposed Owner Participation Agreement pertaining thereto; and authorizing execution of said owner participation agreement. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA87-16: A KESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA; APPROVING THE PROPOSED OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SAID OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickier, Kaywood and Bay None None The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA87-16 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-344 for adoption, adopting a Negative Declaration with respect to the proposed Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and William E. Fackiner and Helen E. Fackiner, developer; finding that the consideration for the sale of the property thereunder is not less than fair value in accordance with covenants and conditions govermimg such sale; and approving the sale of such property and said 0w~er Participation Agreement. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-344: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WILLIAM E. FACKINER AND HELEN E. FACKINER, DEVELOPER; FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY THEREUNDER IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE; AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY AND SAID OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~BERS: COUNCIL MEMBMRS: COUNCIL MEMB~S: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickier, Kaywood and Bay None None 750 9 City Hall~ A_n-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-344 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting. motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:50 p.m.) Agency Member Bay moved to adjourn Agency Member Kaywood seconded the 129: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1986/1987 WEEn ABATEMENT ROLL: To receive a report from the Fire Chief on the cost of abatement of weeds for each individual lot where work was performed under the 1986/1987 Weed Abatement Program and to hear any objections from property owners liable to be assessed for the abatement. This matter was continued from the meeting of August 4, 1987, to this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 24, 1987. Submitted was report dated July 8, 1987 from Fire Chief Jeff Bowman, recommending that the Council accept his written report attached regarding the cost of weed abatement incurred during the 1986/87 weed abatement contract with Edwin Webber, Inc. to be submitted to the County Assessor's Office. The total amount of ~28,607.56 is to be included on the Orange County Tax Roll. Mayor Bay opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak; no one wished to speak and no objections were presented to the proposed assessments for weed abatement. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that it be recorded that no written or oral objections were received objecting to the assessment to be levied under the 1986/87 Weed Abatement program. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-345 for adoption, confirming the report from the Fire Chief on the cost of abatement of weeds for each individual lot where work was performed under the 1986/1987 Weed Abatement Program and to hear any objections from property owners liable to be assessed for the abatement. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87E-345: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AI~AHEIM CONFIRMING THE WEITTEN ILEPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF REGARDING THE COST OF WEED ABATEMENT, AND DIRECTING THE FILING THEREOF WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSF~'T: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-345 duly passed and adopted. 121: CONTINUED CONDE~ATION MEAILING: To consider the acquisition of property owned by Core Laboratories, Inc., generally located on the south side of Pacifico Avenue, west of State College Boulevard (1200 East Pacifico Avenue). This matter was continued from the meeting of August 4, 1987, to this date. 751 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August liT 1987, 1:30 P.M. PLANlilNG STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 28, 1987 from the City Engineer, Gary Johnson, recommending that the Council find and determine the public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of that certain parcel of real property for a Fire Station Site located at 1200 East Pacifico Avenue, Anaheim and authorizing the law firm of Oliver, Stover and ~mskin, Special Counsel for the City of Anaheim and the City Attorney' proceed with said condemnation action. Mayor ?ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. Dam Crane, Litton Industries, Supervisor of Corporate Real Estate. He first clarified that the name of the company was Core Industries and not Cole as had been printed on the agenda and other documents, a division of Western Atlas International Inc. They have no problem in selling the property, however, the problem is the price. The first offer was $580,000 and the second was ~600,000. They currently have an offer of $750,000 under negotiation. There being no further persons who wished to speak to the subject condemnation, Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-346 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-346: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (CORE LABORATORIES, INC., CONDEMNEE). Roll Call Vote: AYES .' NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-346 duly passed and adopted. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3665, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL N0. 87-03: APPLICANT: Frank E. and Jacqueline Dotson 312 San Colla La Jolla, Ca. 92071 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a 2-story, 34-foot high single-family residence on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 563 Peralta Hills Drive, with Code waiver of maximum structural height and a request for removal of one California Pepper tree. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-130 granted Variance No. 3665; approved EIR Negative Declaration status. 752 City Hall, A-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINtrfES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Hunter and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of August 4, 1987 to this date. FOBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 25, 1987. Posting of property July 24, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 24, 1987. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Carol and John Word, 2715 North Ross Street, Santa Aha, were present to answer questions. Councilman Hunter. He received calls from several people in the area. He has also visited the property and was not aware until then of the difference in the elevations on the property which he feels is a very significant factor. Even though a height variance is being requested, because of the elevation levels, he is going along with the Planning Commission's recommendation to go ahead with the single-family residence based upon the elevation differences. If it involved flat land, he would have a different view. He has also spoken with the owner of the property. He now has no concerns and would agree with the Planning Commission recommendation. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim. (Also see Mr. Krueger's detailed 5-Page letter dated July 22, 1987 - previously made a part of the record). His property is directly south of the subject property. The applicants did not discuss their plans with the neighbors prior to the Planning Commission Hearing and as a result, a petition was signed by all residents on the street in opposition. The applicants have subsequently met with the residents and now 5 of the original 12 who were opposed withdrew their opposition. He then recalled that in 1971 the Council voted to establish the scenic corridor overlay zone (he was a member of the task force) and the site development standards in the Hill and Canyon area including the 25-foot height limit in order to retain the scenic character of the area. The applicants have requested a waiver of the maximum height of almost 40% and the dwelling is equivalent to a 3-story Holiday Inn. The requested variance does not meet the requirement that there are special circumstances related to the property which do not apply to other property under the same zoning classification. The main reason for the added height is the roof pitch, adding 7 feet to the height of the house. It will obstruct the view from his adjoining property to the south. The comparison should be 34 feet vs. normal height from that same level. Approving the variance for architectural 753 City Ha~], An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. reasons will establish a precedent in the Peralta Hills Estates, the scenic corridor and throughout Santa Ana Canyon. The Plannin~ Commission has stepped out of the realm of applyin~ City Codes into the realm of making City Code. There are no existing homes in Peralta Hills that exceed the height limit. New construction must be required to follow the same rules and regulations the rest of the residents had to follow so that no precedent is set for the future. He asked that the Council not allow the Planning Commission to change the rules at this time and to rescind approval of Variance No. 3665 because such approval is not based on circumstances regarding the land as required by Code. If the Council chooses to let the variance stand, he would request that they stipulate the following conditions to partially mitigate the visual impact of the hl~h-rise structure. There has been no grading plan approved for the lot and although the applicants have said they would grade to a 402-foot elevation, it is not a matter of record so a specific grading plan should be required. It is also possible by proper grading to get a greater setback than 25 feet. All of the neighboring structures have setbacks of 50 feet and 60 feet with the one exception of a new home which has about 30 feet. Ina Schluter, 531 Peralta Hills Drive. She read a letter expressing strong opposition to the height waiver because of the precedent it will establish. As part of the scenic corridor, Peralta Hills Estates was supposed to be protected from construction of high-rise structures. They are concerned with the precedent such approval might start, especially because there is an empty lot next to theirs. (She submitted the letter to the Council - made a part of the record). Leona Curtis. She lives two houses below the proposed structure. She already has a definite drainage problem coming from the lots above her. Her driveway is a continual everyday river and nobody is doing anything about it. She has called the City and been told to contact the Engineering Department to check their records. Another house of the size proposed to be built will cause more of a drainage problem on her property. Drainage is her major concern and she wants to know if there are plans for proper drainage. Frank Liggett, 571 Peralta Hills Drive. His is the fourth house down the private road from the proposed residence. There are adjoining potential lots behind his property and also to the west and north which could be developed. He urged the Council to stay with the 2S-foot structural height maximum. APPLICANT' S STATEMENT: John Word. While they recognize other variances have been granted in the 754 90¸ City Hall, Anaheim~ Californ~_a - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. scenic corridor, they do not support the Council giving them a variance Just because other people have received them. They have been property owners in Peralta Hills for ten years. They own another acre there and have had the same plans approved by the City to build on but were not aware of height variances. Their architect asked if they had checked the height variance and he (Word) did not see why they should since the plans had already been approved. The comment from staff was that it was approved in error. They made the mistake of not talking to the neighbors but have now done so on two occasions and got them to withdraw their opposition. From a practical standpoint, they are in compliance with the spirit of the Code. It is not a 4% variance - it is measured from the finished grade so they are asking for a 30-foot variance. They are willing to stipulate they will grade at the 402-foot level, which in a sense is 7 feet lower than if they grade it at 418 feet. They had their architect come back out to the property to see how far they could move the front setback. They were able to move it back only 3 feet because of a barranca that is on the back side of the property. Another point, their house is not square 27 feet back. The very corner of their house is 28 feet from the front of the lot. The bulk of the house runs at an angle. Just a corner is facing the lot. They are not blocking anybody's view. He then read a letter from Mark and Sue Thompson sent to Mayor Bay and the City Council which was in support of the requested variance and also attached to which were signatures of those who had withdrawn their opposition from Variance No. 3665 (Robert D. Smith, Mark and Sue Thompson, Lou and Lynn Bell). Carol Word. She responded to some of the questions posed by Mr. Krueger. She emphasized they would not be blocking the view. Their view would be limited if they moved the house back further. The two houses below them have their house set back approximately 50 feet from the street but they have no backyards. It is a combination of the structural pieces for the house and the pitch of the roof that causes the increase in height. Since meeting with the neighbors, they have agreed to lower the elevation of their home an additional 2 feet. When they submitted the original site plan to the Planning Commission~ there were no grading elevations on it. The actual back part of the elevation is at 406 feet. Their understanding, based on the scenic corridor overlay, because the back part of the house is at an elevation of 406 feet and the roof pitch is at 436 feet, that is the way the height is measured and that is why they are requesting 30 feet instead of 34 feet. John Word. The house is still a 34-foot high house but they cut tbm pad lower. 755 87¸ Ctt~ ~" ~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Answering Council questions, she stated relative to other variances in the area, there are no Peralta Hills addresses listed. The proposal they are making for the 30-foot section is on the left-hand side of the cross section of the property which starts at a finished grade of 402 feet. If the Council were to look at the application favorably, she would like to insert that into the condition referring to exhibits that the highest part of the house, 30 feet, be at the 402 foot finished elevation of the pad and that the remainder of the house is up to the 460-foot finished grade. Also the Specimen Tree Removal advertised was for one tree and in moving the house back 3 feet, there will be an additional two trees affected, thus necessitating the processing of a new tree removal permit to the Planning Commission rather than the one before the Council today. They would condition approval of the variance on that being accomplished successfully. Miss Santalahti further explained that until 1970, the height limitation was 30 feet so that a number of houses in Peralta Hills are going to be at 30 feet. The change was made with the scenic corridor which dropped the height to 25 feet for a reason she has not been able to determine because 30 feet was typical before that. Therefore, there are a number of older houses at 30 feet. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Councilman Pickler. If approved, they will start a precedent in the area. No other homes have come in to ask for a variance above 25 feet. It is necessary to maintain the zoning code in that area and it is in that scenic corridor. If Mr. Word had convinced all the neighbors that they could live with 30 feet, then he would be agreeable to it as well. It was necessary to have the consensus of everyone before proceeding. G0uncllw0man Kaywood asked Mr. Krueger if there was somethln~ that would be blocking his view and if he had additional lots on which he had not yet built. Roland Krueger. Regardless of the numbers indicated from 34 feet to 30 feet, the elevation of the house at the top of the roof is at an elevation of 436 feet. He will have to grade on the lot above it at a level of 423 feet. He also rebutted the statement made that the structure will not be blocking his view. Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from the owner. 756 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Frank Dotson. He bought his property in 1959. The homes were built before the 25-foot limitation so there was no need or reason for a variance of the nature being requested. He kept this last lot to the end and at one time he went so far as to have plans approved, In spite of what Mr. Krueger said, he was planning to build on the top part and not the lower to get a better view. In his opinion, the 25-foot or however it is measured should be measured from where the logical building pad, which would be at 418 feet and not 402 feet. Had he built at that time or any time since then, or if he was building there tomorrow, if the variance is not approved, he will probably build a spec house on it and will not have to ask for 25 feet because he will be w~ll within the guidelines and it will block Mr. Krueger's view. Councilman Ehrle again recognized Mrs. Word. Carol Word. The elevation of the roof does not extend from one side to the other so the 434-foot height is in the central part of the house and not the whole length of the property. The view is not straight down but out at an angle. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Hunter, 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. Councilman Hunter offered a resolution, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission, granting Variance No. 3665. Before any action was taken, discussion was held between the Council and staff relative to incorporating the new stipulations made by the applicants in letter dated August 6, 1987 signed by Carol Word, as well as other issues which were discussed. Councilman Pickler. He is going to vote against the resolution of approval. He feels the owners have realized they could have built at 418 feet, gone up to 25 feet and have the 443 feet they were talking about. That would have been their right to do that but they decided to do it another way. He feels somehow they have to get through to the people living in the area to show what they are trying to do would be beneficial. If the people oppose it and it does call for a variance, he is also opposed. Councilwoman Kaywood. She has the same concern. It is very important to comply with the scenic corridor overlay zone and that if a blanket approval 757 85'! City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August liT 1987; 1:30 P.M. is given for any height waiver, it is going to destroy one of the loveliest areas in the City. Councilman Hunter. He took issue with the inconsistency on the Council. Just this morning, 145 eucalyptus trees were torn down and they were in the scenic corridor and now they are going to deny this request when it was approved by the Planning Commission on a 6-0 vote. Councilman Ehrle. He feels he is being consistent because he believes in the rights of the property owners. The homeowner, in this case, has designed a good plan and has gone through all the proper procedures and received approval of the Planning Commission. He also met with the neighbors, many of whom were pleased with the proposal. He believes in the rights of the people to build on their property. Perhaps it was time to look at changing some of the codes as suggested by Councilman Pickler. A vote was taken on the resolution of approval and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle and Hunter COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Kaywood and Bay COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-347, denying Variance No. 3665, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-347: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3665. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Hunter felt that the action did not make sense. The applicants can now build a house at the top of the elevation that is going to be higher than the house they are presently proposing to build which will now block Mr. Krueger's view. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Kaywood and Bay Ehrle and Hunter None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-347 duly passed and adopted. 758 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL: City Attorney White. Still pending is the request for a tree removal permit for one tree that does not appear as a separate agenda item. Council should take action on that matter today. Councilwoman Kaywood. She recommended, in reading the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing, that moue of the neighbors objected to the removal of that tree. City Attorney White. It is possible the structure could be designed in a way that meets Code and still require the removal of one tree. If the Council moved on the matter today, it would be disposed of and if it is not needed, there is no harm done. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the removal of one specimen tree, No. 87-03, in accordance with the findings of the City Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL - LDS CHURCH: Councilwoman Kaywood directed staff, from the Planning Department, to go out and check on the trees that have been removed to be sure there were permits to remove those trees. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. In connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2888, a tree removal permit was approved and signed off, noting that the City Council acted favorably on removal of the 145 trees. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2899 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Ernest Marruso, (Jack-In-The-Box) P.O. Box 9758 Glendale, Ca. 91206 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To retain a drive-through restaurant on CG zoned property located at 2210 South Harbor Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. PLANq%ING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-124 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2899, to expire June 22, 1992; approved El/{ Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Leo J. Momsen, Fooa Maker Inc., agent for the applicant. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 30, 1987. Posting of property July 31, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 31, 1987. 759 City Ha]l~ A~ahe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 22, 1987. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Leo Momsen, attorney for Food Maker Inc., operator of Jack-In-The-Box Restaurant, tenant of the premises. They obtained a CUP in 1980 which required that they secure 18 permanent parking spaces on the property to the south. The developer gave them an easement and they constructed the restaurant. Shortly thereafter, everyone involved in the development was involved in a lawsuit which is now resolved. In the process, FoodMaker agreed to apply to the City for a waiver of the additional 18-space requirement over the adjoining Toys-R-Us parcel. At the time the original CUP was issued, they did not feel the necessity, as a practical matter, for the 18 spaces. That is still their view. Councilman Pickler interrupted and asked if the number of spaces was 18 or 28; Mayor Bay also noted in the documents that it was a question of between 27 and 55 spaces, thus making it 28. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Having just looked at the Exhibit, she counted 27 spaces on the property and 55 are needed. There were no conditions requiring covenants or agreements with the adjacent property for other parking spaces to be used by them. The Traffic Engineer, indicated, based on the parking study they submitted, despite the numbers, he did not have a problem and accepted that study as appropriate. Mayor Bay. He did not understand why they were talking about parking in this case. He referred to Mr. Momsen's letter dated July 13, 1987 which outlined the reason for the request for the hearing. Leo Momsen. The Planning Commission waived the requirement for the additional parking; however~ as a condition to that, instead of an indefinite conditional use permit, they would now have to accept a 5-year CUP and several other things, only one of which is still a problem. He clarified they are not arguing relative to the trash storage area or roof-mounted equipment. The focus is on the substitution of the 5 years and also the 10-foot radius curb return. As he understands, there is no present problem with the existing onsite parking, within the Food Maker property. As a practical matter, they do not need that additional parking. The 10-foot radius curb returns, however, would present a problem. The construction cost and the necessity that the business might have to be shut down for one to two weeks in order to accomplish that work would be a problem. He is not aware of any problem which necessitates the construction of those 10-foot radius curb returns at this time. 760 Cit~ Hall~ A~beim, Califor~_~ - COUNCIL ~INUTES - August liT 1987~ 1:30 P.M. He is requesting that the additional parking over the adjoining property no longer be required, that the 10-foot radius curb returns not be required and that the CUP continue without a 5-year limitation on it. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission's concern revolved around the 27 spaces vs. 55, which is a significant waiver and she believes that is the reason for the 5-year CUP. If the Council approves, the CUP is approved for 5 years, at the end of which time the applicant would have to come back and go through another public hearing. If there were no problems, there will be no difficulty getting an extension on the CUP. Relative to the curb radius, since this is Harbor Boulevard, the Traffic Engineer was extremely concerned relative to arterial highways that people leaving the property can do so as safely as possible. He encouraged the retention of that condition. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Bill 3ennings, attorney, Toys-R-Us, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles. They are located directly south of Jack-In-The-Box. Theirs is a different parking need than a fast food restaurant. As the patrons of the fast food restaurant pull out, their patrons pull in. There is not that much impact by having a fast food restaurant next door but it is possible for that use to change. If it were to change to something with long-term parking needs such as a sit down restaurant and Food Maker assigns that lease, there will be a serious problem since Toys-R-Us also have long-term parking needs. Relative to the 10-foot radius at the curb, he questioned the connection between a 10-foot curb radius and parking. He requested that the City not require the 10-foot curb radius because it is not that difficult to get in and out of the site. With respect to the 5-year termination date on the CUP, the use on the Jack-In-The-Box site is not new. If there is a parking problem, one would have expected it to have shown up already. There is no reason to grant the CUP for only five years. There is already a 5-year track record. If they are going to keep it at 5 years, he requested that the earlier not be terminated. The settlement of the lawsuit was that Toys-R-Us will allow Jack-In-The-Box to use 18 spaces on site. If they merely suspend the existing CUP at the en years, the old one will come back into existence. In words, he is requesting that the Council not terminate thc existing CUP but suspend it until June 22, 1992 so it will spring back into effect and they will continue to do their business. City Attorney Jack White. This application should be looked at independently. He would not recommend that the Council allow an existing CUP to be held in abeyance to spring back into effect in 5 years when this one 761 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. terminates. The difficulty in doing that from the City standpoint is that the City would never know exactly what they have at any given point in time. The spaces are either needed or they are not. He believes the reason for the 5-year period is that at the end of the 5 years, it is to be determined what is reasonable and necessary as far as parking. Likewise in response to the issue of the 5 years being unreasonable to construct a fast food restaurant, it has been there for some 5 to 7 years at this point in time. He does not believe that Condition No. 7, as proposed, is unreasonable. The Council should act to specify the number of spaces to be required and either make it a number in perpetuity as long as the use continues or provide that the permit would terminate at a given point in time and then review the number of spaces that would be necessary. That is his view and advice to the Council. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-348 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2899, subject to all City Planning Commission conditions, thus sustaining the Planning Commission's action in total. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-348: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2899. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunteri Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87K-348 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC H~ARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2910 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Asmail Rastegari, et al. 1108 North Acacia Street Anaheim, Ca. REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a child day-care facility for a maximum of 24 children on EM-1200 zoned property located at 1108 No. Acacia Street. 762 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-125 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2910, approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: Appealed by Mahtn Rastegari, applicant. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIKF2iENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 30, 1987. Posting of property July 31, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 31, 1987. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 22, 1987. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Mahin Rastegari, 1108 Acacia Street. There are 12 children in the daycare center now and they are applying for a maximum of 24 children for a preschool. Someone from the state came and measured everything and said they could have 30 children. She had to fence in the swimming pool, which she did, and make a larger playground in the backyard. They are going to have a half-way circle driveway on the front for parents to come and to go. She did have a problem with the Traffic Engineer saying there will be too many cars. There is a school right next to the daycare and there are almost 1,000 parents dropping their children off every day. She does not see what effect her request could have on the situation. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Mrs. Zadek. She is in favor of the request. She is satisfied with the care given her child who goes to the center. She likes the people who are running the operation. The school should be expanded. She is speaking for the parents' view point. ToriArasteh. She is present on behalf of other parents who could not come to say they are in favor of the requested expansion. It is very convenient ~or her to leave her children there. The driveway is no problem. She lives on La Palma, almost across the street. City Clerk, Leonora Sohl announced that a telephone message was received from a Don Schroff, 1103 Acacia, who expressed the following concerns relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 2910. He is opposed because of the small front yard with no backyard, there is too much traffic, 24 people will be stopping by every morning and afternoon, there are no parking spaces, and when he applied for his business license the City told him he could not have people stopping by his house because of traffic. Councilman Pickler. He believes staff had a problem relative to parking and the 763 City Hall, A,.~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. dedication was also an item of concern. At this time, the center does have the circular driveway allowing for drop-off. If Acacia Street is ever widened, there will be problems. He suggested perhaps a time limit of 3 years. If the street is widened, the circular driveway will no longer be there, allowin~ the children to be dropped off in safety. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. In this instance, the current one-half width on Acacia is only 30 feet. The ultimate half width is 45 feet which means 15 feet off their front 25-foot yard. The recommended condition was an irrevocable offer of dedication as well as payment of the fee for future widening. When the widening actually occurs, they will lose the loop driveway. The Traffic Engineer was very concerned relative to the future street width being constructed. Mayor Bay asked if they could issue a CUP with a condition stating when the street is widened the CUP is void. Annika Santalahti. She suggested if the Council were to choose to add a time limitation, they would want to clarify the reason for the time which would have to do with construction of the street to the ultimate width. City Attorney Jack White. He believes legally the Council could do that. Other questions would probably be raised about the ability to perform by the applicant if it contained an indefinite term or if the applicant never knew from one day to the next whether or not the permit was going to expire. He recommended that the wording should provide that within 30 days after the City gives notice to the permit holder that the City has accepted the dedication, that the use would terminate to allow a short but reasonable time in which to terminate the proceedings. Mayor Bay. Somehow, the CUP has to be tied to a safe place to drop the children off without impacting the traffic. City Attorney White. He recommends a 60-day termination provision that would allow enough time so that the applicant could process another permit if she decided to do so that would show an alternative drop-off method or to amend the existing permit to allow for an alternative drop-off method that the City Council or Planning Commission could then approve and allow the continued operation. Annika Santalahti. If the condition is clear, the worse thing that would happen is if the dedication comes along sooner than expected. She then clarified for Councilman Ehrle that the house has been used as a 764 City Hall~ A_-aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. daycare center. The State of California Regulations requires the City to permit up to 12 children in a daycare center to be conducted in a residential zone without the City requiring any special permits. She has done that but is now looking to expand to 24, thus requiring a CUP from the City. After additional discussion and questioning of the applicant, Miss Santalahti suggested a new Condition No. 10 as follows: "Tbmt the CUP shall become null and void 60 days after the City of Anaheim accepts the irrevocable offer of dedication made under Condition No. 1 herein." Councilwoman Kaywood asked the applicant if she understood that if she received a notice that the dedication had been accepted, she would have 60 days in which to do something; Mrs. Rastegari acknowledged that she understood. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-349 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2910, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission but subject to the additional condition as stipulated to by the applicant. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-349: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2910. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL HEMBE~S: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The hayor declared Resolution No. 87R-349 duly passed and adopted. RECESS - DINNER BREAK: Councilman Bay moved to recess to a dinner break Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:54 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:10 p.m.) CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held July 20, 1987, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 765 City Hal l~ A..h.~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11; 1987~ 1:30 P.M. 1. CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 2926: Submitted by MJD Properties, et al, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 112 So. Western Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-140, granted Conditional Use Permit 2926, and granted a negative declaration status. Councf' for ~ state tables. Kaywood expressed concern that the proposal could be an excuse fter some discussion, Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, the set up on the floor plan is for sit down dining and there is .~t is a bar for having five seats at a counter. Everything else is 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2928: Submitted by La Quita J. Zynda, (E.Z. Pickin's R.V. Storage), to retain a 54-space recreational vehicle storage yard on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 3603 Savanna Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-141, granted Conditional Use Permit 2928 to expire July 20, 1992, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 2930: Submitted by Melvin R. and Joyce M. Bennet, to permit a 1 and 2-story, 12-unit senior citizens' apartment project on RS-A-43,000 ~oned property located at 509 North Dale Avenue, with Code waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-143, denied Conditional Use Permit 2930, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PE1tMIT NO. 2931: Submitted by Richard C. Hnnsaker, (Grand Touring), to retain an automobile restoration facility on ML zoned property located at 2785 Regal Park Drive, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-144, granted Conditi~ al Use Permit 2931, and granted a negative declaration status. 5, ¢~ IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2933: Submitted by Howard Engelman, et al, ~-~pha O~'~a), to retain a temporary trailer for supermarket stora&e use on CL zoned property located at 1020 North Euclid Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-145, granted Conditional Use Permit 2933 to expire July 20, 1988, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. VAILIANCE NO. 3673: Submitted by John R. Townsend, to construct a 24-hour convenience market on CL zoned property located at 3174 West Ball Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum structural setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-146, granted Conditional Use Permit 2973, and granted a negative declaration status. 766 City ~ll, A-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. 7. VARIANCE NO. 3674: Submitted by Don R. and Valerie D. Priest, to construct a 9-unit apartment complex on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1216 East La Palma Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) required type of parkin~ spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum front yard setback, (d) minimum side yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-147, granted Variance No. 3674, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. VARIANCE NO. 3675: Submitted by Allym B. and Rosemary B. Sheu, to permit a restaurant in an existim~ commercial center on CL zoned property located at 1001 to 1011 North Euclid Street, with Code waiver of minimum number o~ parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-148, granted Variance No. 3675, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2809--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Phillips Brandt, Reddick, requesting an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2809, to permit a 2 and 3-story, llS-unit senior citizen's apartment complex on property located at 415 Anaheim Hills Road, with Code waiver of required number of affordable units. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2809, to expire July 21, 1988. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2929: Submitted by Chez Grand'Mere, to permit the expansion of a private pre-school and day care center for a maximum of 84 students on CG zoned property located at 1239 North Harbor Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) required loading and unloading area. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-142, granted Conditional Use Permit 2929, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickler, and therefore a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. End of Planning Commission Informational Items. 179: REVIEW OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISIONS - JULY 30~ 1987: 1. VARIANCE NO. 3672 (READV.): Submitted by Donald D. and Frouwina Bartelli, to retain an existing wooden roof extension and a fiberglass fence extension on property located at 1147 West Vermont Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Permitted encroachment into required side yard (in part), (b) Maximum fence height. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-09, approved, in part, Variance 3672 (Ready.) and ratified the categorical exemption determination, (Classes 3 and 5). The decision date was July 30, 1987. 767 City Hall, A-aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3677: Submitted by Virginia M. Doland, to construct a family room addition to a single family residence located at 813 North Lenz Drive, with the followin~ Code waivers: (a) minimum dimension of vehicle accessway, (b) minimum sideyard setback. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-12, approved Variance 36?7, and granted a negative declaration status. The decision date was July 30, 1987. 108/173: ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS - WEST COAST CAB COMPANY TAXI PERMIT APPLICATION: Floyd Farano, requesting the Council to authorize the issuance of subpoenas in the name of the City, as set forth in Charter Section 509, in connection with the West Coast Cab Company taxi permit application. Submitted was letter dated August 5, 1987 from Jeffrey L. Farano, Farano & Kieviet, requesting that the City Council issue the subject subpoenas. Councilman Pickler asked if this was a normal procedure. City Attorney Jack White. The Charter provides that the City Council has the power to issue subpoenas just as the government code. Mr. Farano is requesting a subpoena duces tecum for records from an insurance company in San Francisco to be presented at the administrative hearing at the West Coast Cab Company application. He sees nothing legally deficient in the request. Further, under the due process requirements, if he (Farano) believes there is pertinent evidence that can be subpoenaed through the administrative powers of the Council, they would be remiss to deny the opportunity to obtain that in2ormation. The City Attorney continued relative to his (White's) request for authorization to issue such additional subpoenas as may be requested in connection with the said application, he explained if West Coast Cab Company requested that as well, that the Council would authorize those which could be issued by him under the Council's power upon the request of either of the parties. He has received no such requests. The Charter does provide for this vehicle to be available to parties basically for hearings before the Council. This ~ to be heard before a Hearing Officer but it is under the Jurisdiction of the !.~y Council. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to (1) authorize th~ issuance of subpoenas in the name of the City, as set forth in Charter Section 509, in connection with the West Coast Cab Company taxi permit application and (2) further authorizing the City Attorney to issue such additional subpoenas as may be requested in connection with said application. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CA~. 106/153: RESOURCE ~T.T.OCATION PLAN WORKSHOP: To consider amendmentsto the 1987-88, 1988-89 Resource Allocation Plan. This matter was discussed and continued from the meetings of June 30, July 7, 14, 21 and 28, 1987, to this date (see minutes those dates). MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue discussion to August 18, 1987 on the Resource Allocation Plan, specifically the items upon which the Council has not yet acted relative to the management pay plan, the merit pool fund, 768 City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. the additional positions in the Public Works Engineerin~ Department and the additional positions in the Police Department, as discussed at the meeting of July 28, 1987 (see minutes that date). Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED. 179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4856 THROUGH 4859: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance Nos. 4856 through 4859, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4856: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRLATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 65-66-24(36), ML(SC), southeast corner of Miraloma Avenue and Fee Aha Street) ORDINANCE NO. 4857: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 0F THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BRr.ATING TO (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 86-87-27, RM-1200, 3416 W. Orange Ave.) OKDINANCE NO. 4858: 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. 83-84-23, RM-1200, 3538 W. Savanna St.) ORDINANCE NO. 4859: 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. 85-86-9, EM-1200, 801 E. Orangewood Ave.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4856 through 4859, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 101: AGREEMENT WITH MICKEY THOMPSON - SUPERCP. OSS AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: Councilman Ehrle stated that Mr. Goodwin, producer of Supercross, was in the Chamber audience. He met him for the first time during a break today and he (Ehrle) shared his concerns with Mr. Goodwin relative to the agreement the City entered into with Mickey Thompson. It appears that since there already is an agreement there are no procedures for a rehearing or a reconsideration of the agreement. A lot of promises were made by Mr. Thompson when he appeared before the Council. In the meantime, there have been many comments made relative to the issue. He wished that the Council could find a way to hear the truth since this involves one of the major sporting events held at Anaheim Stadium. He asked to hear from the City Attorney. City Attorney Jack White. The statements are correct. The City has an agreement with the Mickey Thompson Group approved by the City Council some weeks ago. The agreement was modified and it has been executed by Mr. Thompson. He is not positive if it has been executed by the City. 769 City Hall~ An,heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11; 1987; 1:30 P.M. Councilman Ehrle assumed if in some way they had a rehearin~ or reconsideration of the agreement there could be a question of breach of contract on behalf of the City; City Attorney White stated his recomendation is if they are going to discuss potential litigation that they do so in Closed Session or the Council waive the attorney-client privilege. Later in the meeting, under Items of Public Interest, Mr. Mike Goodwin, producer of Supercross, spoke regarding the subject issue. He invented the sport and brought it to Anaheim Stadium ten years ago. The Thompson Group has never staged a supercross. The City is unknowingly destroying an entire sport and a business he has built for 16 years based on fraudulent information provided to the Council. He can back up anything he is saying with documentation. The opposition cannot. The City will be embroiled in massive litigation if someone cannot take the time to find out on what basis the new promoter was selected. There were massive misrepresentations in both the written Thompson Group proposal made to the Council three weeks ago that the Council h~r no way of knowing unless someone asks for written documentation. For ins u, Thompson has never talked to Coca Cola and he claimed there was also no ua=l's Jr. promotion which was alleged. He has personally called every promotion Thompson listed and has not found one yet that is in place. They have not been able to reach Budwiser. If someone would scrutinize Thompson's financial matters, they would find that his forecast is 2 1/2 times~ through mathematical error and misrepresentattons~ what the City will receive. It is $900,000 higher. There was not a bid. He (Goodwin) offered a $100,000 guarantee for his single event or $200,000 for all three. Mr. Thompson did not bid; he is paying normal rent. Thompson alleged he would get an AMA sanction. He (Goodwin) had a written document with him today from the AMA that Thompson cannot get such a sanction. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Brad Mugar. He is present to bring to the Council's attention a long block wall that is being built on Nohl Ranch Road. Councilman Pickler interrupted and explained that the Council is looking into the matter. It was also brought to their attention earlier in today's meeting. Mr. Mngar continued that he has lived in the area for 15 years. They do not have a view but enjoy driving up Nohl Ranch Road and looking to the west. The wall is destroying that view. He was hoping the Council could pass an emergency ordinance to stop the developer from continuing building the wall as it was being built very fast. 114: TRIP TO LONDON - AUGUST 2~ 1987 - LOS ANGELES RAMS/DENVER BRONCOS FOOTBALL GAME: Mayor Bay reported on his trip to London to attend the American Bowl Football Game on Sunday, August 9, 1987 at Wembley Stadium between the Los Angeles Rams and the Denver Broncos. During the week, he attended functions hosted by Georgia Frontiere, the Rams owner whichwere also attended by numerous other political representatives from California, Colorado and England. During the trip, he visited Brent Borough which includes Wembley Stadium and met with the Mayor and various members of the Council of the Borough of Brent. Councilman Hunter accompanied him on the visit. They were also invited to a reception at the American Embassy on August 8, 1987. The 770 64 City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 11~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. visit was climaxed by the football game on Sunday, which was won by the Rams in the last 27 seconds of the game. He feels because of the high interest, it is possible that American football will eventually become popular throughout Europe. Also, the trip brought about contacts with the Angels party and owners and the Rams and Rams people. Councilman Pickler stated he wanted the public to know that both the Mayor and Councilman Hunter paid for their own expenses. Councilman Hunter commented that the trip was a very successful one and as an exam~.le a picture was taken on Saturday night which included the owners of Anaheim Stadium's two major tenants, Georgia Frontiere and Gene and Autry, which probably has never happened before. It was good to see owners talkin~ about common issues. Before concluding, Mayor Bay read a letter from Mayor Len Williams of L~don, Borough of Brent welcomingMayor Bay and his colleagues to their Borough and thanked Mayor Bay for the greetings which he brought from the people of Anaheim. Mayor Williams asked that Mayor Bay, on returnin~ to the United States, also convey his best wishes to the citizens of Anaheim. ~ECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session to discuss the balance of the items previously announced by the City Attorney. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CAR/tIED. (7:55 p.m.) AFTF/{KECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (9:49 p.m.) ADJOUP. NMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:50 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 771