Loading...
1987/09/22City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 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: William Griffith CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City council was posted at 3:00 p.m. on September 18, 1987 at the civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 12:10 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. 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. councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:10 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:40 p.m.) INVOCATION: Reverend Don Halboth, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: council Member William Ehrle led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Mayor Bay stated since the council chamber was filled with citizens concerned with the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance issue which was on today's agenda, that issue would be the first item of consideration. 840 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. 107/142/127: REQUEST - MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE: Request by Phil Israel, President, Anaheim Political Action committee, to consider drafting a Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Mayor Bay. The Council will proceed by allowing Mr. Israel adequate time to present his position on the issue followed by speakers whose names he has provided to the City Clerk. Subsequently, those who wish to speak in favor of that position would be allowed three minutes each to do so. The same time frames will be accorded those in opposition. Mr. Phil Israel, Anaheim Shores Estates, Space ~254, 1919 West Coronet, President of APAC. APAC is composed of concerned mobile home owners in Anaheim, the majority of which are senior citizens. They are citizens tired of being victims of unscrupulous property owners who are plundering their bank accounts with excessive rent increases. APAC is opposed to rent control but they feel that a rent stabilization ordinance would be the right way to correct the wrong. There are approximately 7,500 residents living in Anaheim's mobile home parks who do not have any say in the price they pay for leasing of their land even though they own the homes over that land. They are captives because they cannot move without severe costs as well as having to leave family, friends and jobs. A few park owners have been sensitive to the economic needs of homeowners, but the greater majority increase rents at alarming rates causing dire economic hardship. They have a monopoly and can charge whatever rent they want which is totally unfair especially for senior citizens. They are urging the Council Members to rectify this inequitable situation by directing the City Attorney to draft a rent stabilization ordinance to protect mobile home owners whose property investment in the park far exceeds the park owner's investment. In the last couple of weeks, a majority of City residents were appalled by an independent survey paid for by the Anaheim Home ASsociation (AHA) which showed that 66% fully support the concept of rent stabilization. Mr. Israel then outlined the following issues which they wanted considered in drafting a rent stabilization ordinance: Park owners shall be allowed to raise their rents only once a year. Rent increases are to be tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) issued by the Bureau of Labor StatistiCs of the United States Government. That park owner be allowed to raise rents by a sum equal to one-half of any increase in the CPI up to a maximum of 5%. Any increase in excess of those must and should be approved by a Mobile Home Rent Review Board. A Rent Review Board should be established and charged for approving any rent increases above the CPI. If the park owners can produce financial data to support such increases for excess of 841 59 City Hall, Anaheim, california - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. maintenance, operating expenses, property taxes, capital improvements, etc., the park owners will have the right to be heard before the Board to ask for an increase. The Rent Review Board shall be chosen by the City Council which shall include representatives from the park owners, representatives from the mobile home owners and three members at large, once again, to be chosen by the City council. In order not to burden other citizens of Anaheim with increased taxes, the park owners and mobile home owners will share in a fee to be imposed each year to defray the cost of the administrative hearings. In concluding, Mr. Israel stated that time is of the essence in directing the drafting of the rent stabilization ordinance. The following persons spoke in favor of the rent stabilization concept: Lucille Taylor, Palm Lodge Mobile Home Estates, 2627 East La Palma. Clarice Jackson, Melody Trailor Lodge, 300 South Beach Boulevard (she also submitted photographs of park conditions, which conditions made it difficult for the homeowner to obtain insurance). Helen Harris, Rio Vista Mobile Park Estates, 320 No. Park Vista. John Slowitsky, Orange Grove Mobile Village, 1009 South Harbor Boulevard, Space ~73. Jim Baroni. He yielded his time to Patricia Dean, counsel on retainer for the Golden State Mobile Homeowners League. Patricia Dean, 11021 Magnolia, Garden Grove. Pat Sukawa, Orange Tree Mobile Home Park, 1400 So. Douglas Road. The basic issues addressed by the Mobile Home owners were as follows: Consistent and excessive continuing rent increases over the years of tenancy making it difficult if not impossible, in some instances, for mobile home owners to survive economically; when leases are offered, it is not possible to compare what the advantages or disadvantages will be; homeowners are threatened that if a rent stabilization ordinance is approved, the owners will sell the park; on top of rent increases, the residents have to pay utilities and miscellaneous charges; in some parks, all park amenities have been eliminated; residents live under fear, depression and stress; it is difficult to sell mobile homes because potential buyers are aware of continual rent increases; nothing has increased at the same rate as mobile home space rent; no improvements are made to 842 60¸ City Hall, Anaheim, california - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. park facilities; pass throughs are of unknown quantity that would bring still higher increases; park owners who raise rents every chance they get is analagous to taxation without representation. Patricia Dean's presentation revolved around Rio Vista Mobile Home Park. Despite extensige advertising by park owners, the homeowners have had no input into the terms of the so-called 5-year leases (see Rio Vista Mobile Home Lease Agreement, 13 Pages, attached to which was Rio Vista Mobile Home Estates mediation and arbitration procedures dated September 1, 1987, submitted by Ms. Dean - made a part of the record). The homeowners believe most of the statements to be misrepresentations designed to delude the public and the Council. Most of the residents in Rio Vista have been given a copy of the lease which she submitted. She asked the Council to read it and after doing so, ask themselves if they would sign such a document. Full page newspaper ads by the park owners (one of which was printed in the Anaheim Bulletin on Wednesday, SeptemDer 16, 1987 - Proposed Anaheim Mobile Home Resident/Owner Agreement) would have the public believe that rent increases are going to be consistent and people will know what they are. Ms. Dean then briefed portions of the Rio Vista 5-year lease pointing out what she considered inconsistencies in statements made by park owners such as, rent increases will be limited to only once per year and that pass through would be limited only to direct cost of operation of the park, etc. Mayor Bay asked to hear from those who opposed the drafting of a rent stabilization ordinance. The following people then spoke in opposition to a rent stabilization ordinance: Paul Bostwick, 8105 Woodsboro, representing Anaheim Mobile Home Park Owners. Diane Pancheri, Business Partner, Mobile Home Lodge Estates, 2727 East La Palma. June McGroity, Rio Vista Mobile Home Estates, 320 North Park Vista. Bill Meekam, Western Mobile Home Association, Representing Anaheim Park Owners. Jack Dutton, Sunkist Mobile Home Park Manager, 1400 South Sunkist. Mr. Paul Bostwick, 8105 Woodsboro, representing Anaheim Mobile Home Park Owners. The owners publicly told the Council and the entire City last week including every resident in the City's 843 City Hall~ Anaheim, california - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. mobile home parks that the owners are ready and willing to begin negotiations on the best form of rent stabilization that any renter whether in a mobile home or apartment could hope for - that is, a 5-year lease. They have only heard criticisms and that the mobile home owners are not prepared to negotiate on a park by park basis in good faith. It appears that the groups not willing to negotiate in good faith are those people who are present asking for government intervention instead of taking up the park owners offer to meet. The owners have also read unbelieveable untruths about the rate and frequency of rent increases in Anaheim. He challenges the mobile home owners to bring forth that information and actual documentation. He, once again, will restate their offer - to negotiate 5-year leases in the parks on a park by park basis, full disclosure of all items considered, pass through, creation of a Resident Advisory Counsel in those parks which do not already have them in order to facilitate communication. He urged the council to endorse the efforts the owners have proposed. They are working in other cities throughout California and they can work in Anaheim. The basic issues addressed by those in opposition to a rent stabilization ordinance were as follows: Mobile homes do not appreciate in value but depreciate; the land the home is sitting on is what appreciates and that is why the sales price of the mobile home increases; an Advisory Counsel was formed at Rio Vista and after several meetings with the owners, many situations that have aggravated some of the tenants have been resolved; negotiations have been completed for 5-year leases and the leases distributed to park residents; it is sensible to give this approach a fair trial before proceeding with a lengthy and expensive political process; the program such as the one put forth by the park owners is working in other communities; what is being offered by the mobile home owners is rent control and not rent stabilization; the owners proposed program offers a solution within the park itself and not by government intervention; what is being offered by the owners is a step forward beyond what other communities have; rent stabilization/rent control is taking property without due process which no government entity has the right to do; park owners should not be made to subsidize or support those who live in the park, there are other vehicles to do so. COUNCIL INPUT AND COMMENTS: Councilman Ehrle: The issue before the Council is whether rent stabilization is rent control and his ideas about the issue are much the same as most of the people who are present in the over-capacity crowd today. He feels there is a major difference between the two as pertains to mobile home residents. He does not support and never will support rent control as it deals with single-family homes and apartments. He does believe, however, that the Council has an obligation to residents who live in 844 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. mobile home parks. He does not think they should control pass through, how the residents live in their parks, or their relationships with park owners. What he will be part of and would encourage the Council to consider is rent. The mobile home owner is in a limited partnership with the park owner and that business relationship should be in harmony. He ~uestioned what was going to force owners to do what they say they have done. It was necessary to have something to get everyone to the · bargaining table". As residents, he believes they have a right to have stabilized rents. The residents have a real concern and cause and, in his opinion, it is the Council's responsibility to do what they can as elected officials to assist them. He heard that over 66% of the people favor some type of assistance for mobile home residents which he feels is almost a mandate that once and for all the issue should be put on the ballot box. He, therefore, offered the following: Councilman Ehrle moved to direct the City Attorney to draft and subseHuently place on the June, 1988 ballot the following measure to be put before the voters of Anaheim - "Shall the Anaheim City Council enact an ordinance covering rent stabilization for mobile home parks only. This rent stabilization shall be tied to the CPI." Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Before action was taken, council Members expressed their views. Councilman Hunter: Past Councils have given lip service for too long to mobile home residents. Councilman Ehrle's motion will let the people decide whether there will be rent stabilization limited only to mobile home parks. He is in favor of putting the issue on the ballot. Mayor Bay: Many times people have approached city government and asked them to do something - sometimes to put an issue on the ballot and other times saying it is a minority position and, therefore, if people want it on the ballot let them walk the initiative to see if there is support to place the issue on the ballot. He has strong feelings about property rights. HiS position in opposition to rent control has been well known to everyone in the City and he has never implied that he even leaned toward rent control. He then explained why he would not support the motion. Government interference in economics is a waste of the citizens and government's time and it has never worked. He is opposed to government putting itself in a decision mode to overrule contracts set up under law of people dealing with each other since it is not government's function to interfere with private enterprise nor the legal rights of ownership on property. He has no problem in encouraging the owners to deal with representatives designated by a majority of the tenants in their 845 City Hall~ Anaheim, california - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. parks which he feels is a way to solve the problem. The depreciation on mobile homes in a good park is part of the homeowner's profit of their investment in that park. The owner who owns the land also deserves the opportunity to make his appreciation profit for his investment in that land. He has seen no proof of any poll or survey that says 66% of the people in the City favor rent control. He doubts that and would question the way citizens were asked. He also has no proof relative to the statements concerning high rents. He opposes the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood: She has great empathy for residents of mobile home parks as well as for the landowners. She is very concerned over the politically motivated "buck passing" by putting the issue on the ballot especially since it would be 8 months into the future. What she sees as a solution is to proceed with Advisory Counsels in each of the parks to deal with the park owners. The owners she has talked to have assured her that if someone was having difficulty paying their rent that they make private arrangements with them. If the landowners do not have the right to do anything and those owners then decide there is no reason for them to remain in the mobile home park business and choose to utilize their property for other uses, the residents will be hurt more than anyone else. It has happened in the past. It is necessary for both the park owners and residents to work together which will bring about the best deal for both sides. Councilman Pickler: He, too, does not believe in rent control and he believes rent stabilization is just that. He feels that both sides have shown some desire of wanting to move closer together. The fact that park owners have said they would meet and work with the residents is a reason that they be given an opportunity to do so. If an initiative is necessary, then the residents should move in that direction and get the necessary signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Rent control does not work and it cannot survive. The City will be the loser all the way around. He has seen polls where people have indicated they do not want r~nt control. He cannot support the motion. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion that the issue be placed on the June, 1988 ballot and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None Mayor Bay encouraged communication between the APAC organization representatives and the park owners. It is a private sector problem that can be worked out. 846 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:03 p.m.) During the Recess the City Council convened as the Redevelopment Agency and also the Anaheim Housing Authority. (See minutes of the Agency and Authority this date). AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all council Members being present. (5:56 p.m.) RECESS - DINNER BREAK: Councilman Bay moved to recess for a dinner break. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:57 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all council Members being present. (7:48 p.m.) 161.107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVE-ON: To move a single family home from 225 North Claudina (Backs House) to 194 North Vintage Lane. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 11, 1987. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning commission dated September 15, 1987 from the CoF~unity Development/Planning Department - Building Division (1) that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study prepared by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency for the proposed relocation of a single-family home from 225 North Claudina to 194 North Vintage Lane and in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Redevelopment Project Alpha; and (2) that the City Council, by resolution, approve the request for the relocation permit to move a Single-Family Home to 194 North Vintage Lane in Heritage Square. Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak. Bob McCorkle, 607 North Zeyn. He is not going to reiterate everything that was previously said (see Redevelopment Agency meeting this date). He asked if the matter could be delayed since the attorneys are discussing the issue. He believes that something conclusive could come out of those discussions. city Attorney Jack White. He recommended that the item be trailed until after the next two public hearings were heard. MOTION: Councilman Pick]er moved to trail the subject discussion until later in the meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:52 p.m.) 847 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Later in the meeting (9:25 p.m.), William Delvac, Anaheim Neighborhood ASSociation stated it would be a burden if they spent time reciting the input given to the Agency earlier. He called the Council's attention to the letter submitted (see letter dated September 22, 1987 from the Law Firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton) with respect to the issues under CEQA. In light of the discussions that have just concluded, he would suggested that ANA is satisfied to not give further comment at this time. COUNCIL ACTION: There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. City Attorney White. He requested a brief Closed Session for the purpose of discussing potential litigation pertaining to the subject matter. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:27 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (9:53 p.m.) Jack Rubens, attorney, Law Firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton stated there is substantial, voluminous, lengthy testimony to enter into the public record on the matter which they are willing to forego at this time if they understand that the Council might be about to take action that will make that unnecessary. If that were not the case, he would like the right to reserve their right to a public hearing on the issue under CEQA. At this time, staff would recommend that the Council adopt two resolutions and one motion. He will read the title of the resolutions and then it would be appropriate for the council to waive reading in full of the resolutions followed by a reading of the motion by the Assistant Executive Director of community Development. City Attorney White then read the titles of the proposed resolutions following which, Councilman Bay moved to waive reading of those resolutions in full. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Lisa Stipkovich, Assistant Executive Director of Community Development. She recommended and then read that the following motion be approved by the Council: "That the Council direct staff in consultation with legal counsel to meet with representatives of the Anaheim Neighborhood ASSociation (ANA) to prepare a letter of understanding which will outline procedures 848 54 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. for the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan amendment if desirable by the City or establishment of guidelines for historic preservation and rehabilitation of single-family homes in the Project area. An EIR will be prepared in connection with the proposed plan amendment or guidelines. Until the EIR is certified, no National Register candidates or listed properties shall be demolished or moved except for those set forth in the letter of understanding to be entered into. The letter of understanding is conditioned upon the relocation of the Backs house to Vintage Lane. Agency agrees not to move the structure prior to Friday, September 25, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. but that normal preparatory activities may be undertaken in the interim. City Attorney to be authorized to execute letter of understanding." Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 87R-389 and 87R-390 for adoption, the first certifying that the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the initial study prepared by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency for the proposed relocation of a single-family home from 225 N. Claudina to 194 N. Vintage Lane and in the final subsequent EIR for Redevelopment Project Alpha; and the second approving a special permit for the moving of a single-family residence from 225 N. Claudina to 194 N. Vintage Lane. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-389: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THAT COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME FROM 225 N. CLAUDINA TO 194 N. VINTAGE LANE AND IN THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-390: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE MOVING OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE FROM 225 N. CLAUDINA TO 194 N. VINTAGE LANE. Roi1 Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-389 and 87R-390 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the motion as recommended by staff and as articulated by the Assistant Executive Director of community Development, Lisa Stipkovich. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2929 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Chez Grand'Mere 1239 North Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, Ca. 92801 849 249 City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-142 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2929; approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of August 11, 1987 and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 11, ]987. Posting of property September 11, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 11, 1987. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 20, 1987. Mayor Bay asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. City Clerk Sohl announced that the applicant spoke to her earlier and indicated due to the late hour and because he had been present since much earlier in the day, he might not be able to stay as late as the item would be considered. He requested if that were the case, that he be given a continuance but he did not give a date. After a brief Council discussion, Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2929 to Tuesday, September 29, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-22, REVISION NO. 1, (READV.), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883, REVISION NO. 1, (READV.) AND ADDENDUM TO EIR NO. 274: APPLICANT: Hartmann Corporation 536 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, Ca. 92805 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from ML to CO, to permit a 188 ft. high, 13-story office building on Parcel 1 and a freestanding restaurant on Parcel 2 on approximately 2.86 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum structural setback (Parcel 2). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution Nos. PC87-177 and 178 approved the Reclassification and the Conditional Use Permit; certified EIR No. 274 and addendum as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. HEARING SET ON: Appealed by Farano & Kieviet, attorneys for Benco Development, agent for the applicant. 85O 250 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 11, 1987. Posting of property September 12, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 11, 1987. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning commission dated August 31, 1987. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Joan Virginia Allen, attorney, Farano & Kieviet, representing Benco Development. She first brought to the Council's attention the model of the 13-story building being proposed by the developer and that various representatives were present to answer any questions on any technical matters regarding the project. She then briefed her letter dated September 17, 1987 which outlined the presentation to be made to the Council relative to the project (made a part of the record). Benco spent many thousands of dollars redesigning the project which had originally been presented to the Planning Commission in February and subsequently denied. The "L" shaped property is 6.86 acres and will consist of a 13-story office tower, 188 feet in height containing 238,500 square feet, behind that a 7-level parking structure and adjacent to that a restaurant containing 5,000 square feet. (See letter dated September 17, 1987, Page 2). She then elaborated upon the City Council actions requested. Relative to the restaurant, it will be a fast service restaurant, but not fast food which will cater to office staff personnel. Although the developer has made no commitment to any type of restaurant the possibility of a Sizzler type has been mentioned. (Six pictures were submitted showing a Marie Calenders and a Sizzlers with representative architecture and landscaping - previously made a part of the record). She then briefed the environmental aspects of the project which included the traffic and circulation considerations. Ms. Allen then broached several conditions which they would like to request changes to: Re: Planning commission Resolution No. PC87-178 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2883, Condition No. 15, Paragraph 2 dealing with landscaping. They have been advised by the Orange County Flood Control District that there will be no problem planting on top of the culvert (the flood control easement). The architect advises they can still plant on top of that sufficient to screen adjoining property. Therefore, they are requesting that Paragraph 2 of Condition No. 15 be changed to show that they will do planting in conformance with the Orange County Flood Control District requirements in that the portion regarding relocating of the building be omitted inasmuch as they can comply with the planting. 247 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Condition No. 20 - air quality during construction of the project. They do not interpret that condition as requiring them to hold back development of the project in order to comply. Benco will take all reasonable measures to reduce the project impact on the air quality during construction. Re: Planning Commission Resolution No. PC87-177 - Reclassification No. 86-87-22, Condition No. 5 regarding the introduction of an ordinance rezoning the subject property. They believe there was a misunderstanding in this regard. As the condition now reads, regardless of whether an ordinance is ever introduced or whether development ever takes place, the developer would be obligated to make the improvements not later than two years from the date of the resolution. Until development takes place, rezoning is not necessary so the condition becomes unreasonable. They are requesting that the language be changed where it says, or within a period of two years whichever occurs first, they would like that omitted. Instead, they would like the last sentence to read: "Said securities shall be posted with the City prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning such property to guarantee the installation of the above required improvements prior to occupancy or prior to issuance of building permit." Condition No. 6. They are requesting that additional language be inserted that states that no further fees or additional conditions shall be imposed upon any granting of a further time within which to complete said conditions. Finally, they are requesting an additional condition that in the event any method is devised in the future for infrastructure financing, that a provision be included for reimbursement to Benco for the cost of off-site improvements in excess of the interim fee. Mayor Bay asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there was no response. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Councilman Pickler asked to hear from staff relative to the requested changes and/or additions to conditions as requested by Mrs. Allen on behalf of the applicant. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2883 - PC87-178, Condition No. 15, second paragraph. She does not see a problem with the modification requested which would delete the last sentence of the paragraph and inserting a phrase, "in accordance with standards and the approval of the Orange County Flood Control District" or some suitable wording to that effect. 852 248 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. PC87-177 - Reclassification No. 86-87-22, Condition No. 5. This pertains to construction of engineering improvements along State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue. Mrs. Allen suggested wording to say, rather than posting the bond prior to the introduction of an ordinance, that it be prior to issuance of a building permit which would then guarantee installation prior to occupancy. This is a standard condition and if it were not for this reclassification, new construction would still necessitate this condition in some form. Ms. Allen is asking that the bond be posted prior to the issuance of a building permit rather than prior to introduction of an ordinance. However, if rewording is approved by the Council, it would be appropriate to put this in the CUP rather than in the reclassification. City Attorney White. If the ordinance is adopted and building permits not pulled within the 2-year period, improvements would be put in before the building permit. He does not see any problem with the change. Joan Allen. She clarified for Councilman Pickler they are reauesting that Condition No. 6 be limited so that if any further extension of time was requested, there would be no additional fees or conditions imposed beyond the 2-year period. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She disagrees with that reauest. Everybody is given one year, or a longer period is specifically addressed. Conditions can change. For instance, the interim fee could be modified. When the time extension comes along, the City Council may approve it subject to changes in the conditions. It would have to be discussed and not done automatically. Any developer in the City takes this kind of risk. This would be unusual on a CUP. Perhaps the Council would like to approve it for a 2-year period. Councilman Ehrle asked when ground will be broken on the project. Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, representing Benco. At this time, they are not able to say exactly when ground will be broken. They have noticed in the recent past when projects come up for renewal in their time period, it has been customary for the Planning Commission and even the Council to add additional conditions and impose additional fees not considered at the time the project was originally heard. If their project is not started within 2 years, it is possible that conditions could be substantially changed. Condition No. 5 also states if the project is not constructed within 2 years, they have to build the off-sites irrespective of construction. He does not believe the Council intends for the off-site improvements to be installed if the project is not commenced. Relative to 853 245 City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22t 1987t 1:30 P.M. Condition No. 6, in the event the Council cannot see its way to adopting a condition that would allow these to stand without potential changes in 2-years, they would like to request that renewal be for 3 years instead of 2. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. They need a limitation for two reasons. The potential entitlement requires off-site mitigation measures. If the entitlement were to be carried to a great distance into the future, the improvements would be going with the entitlement and would not be constructed until those entitlements have been taken advantage of. There has to be a cap on the time when these improvements have to be made. That is where he has a concern. Further discussion followed on the issue of the 2-year time limitation between Mayor Bay, Mr. Farano and Paul Singer as well as the requested added condition that additional fees in the interim will not be added to the project. At the conclusion of discussion, Annika Santalahti emphasized that Mr. Farano was asking the Council to condition itself at some future date based on some as yet unknown information, the future being beyond the 2 years the Commission recommended, the Council would say that the project will be left at a potentially lower or higher fee. They do not have that information yet or know what is going to happen in the area. The condition is not on the development for something they should do. The Council would also be committing a future City Council. She did not feel that was appropriate. TWO years is not unreasonable and they may wish to go to 3 years. To say to a developer they are going to have 3 or 4 years and there will be no increase in any amounts other than the interim fee, if it changes, everybody is going to ask for that from now on. All they will be doing is closing a door on a future solution, a fee which would be decided in a public forum. She reiterated, she feels it is an inappropriate modification to the CUP. Paul Singer. He also has a problem. The City is trying to encourage development in the 'Platinum Triangle". He does not think the City should encourage prolonging the process because those entitlements are going to be sought after and with those entitlements also go responsibilities. Until those responsibilities are fulfilled, they are going to continue to have monumental traffic problems. Floyd Farano. They would be willing to go forward with the matter as it has been tendered with one exception. In Condition No. 5, they do not think they should be expected to do off-site improvements at $2.65 a square foot prior to the time they exercise their rights 854 246 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. in that entitlement. If the project goes 3 years instead of 2 before it gets under way and they have to spend somewhere between $600,000 and $800,000 on off-site improvements, there is a good chance it will not go at all. If everything else is left in place and the Council would consider changing that, it would be of assistance. City Attorney Jack White. The problem can be solved by changing the condition that off-site improvements will be bonded for before issuance of building permits and completed before occupancy; Mayor Bay stated there is an agreement on the Council relative to the suggested change by the City Attorney. He asked staff if there are any more Huestions on the other reHuested changes. Annika Santalahti. Relative to Condition No. 20 in the Conditional Use Permit, Page 5, PC87-178. Staff used the term, to the greatest extent feasible which is almost a direct Huote of the EIR and, she does not think it is a condition that the developer need be concerned about. Condition No. 4 pertains to the improvements of Katella and State College Boulevard to the critical intersection standard. That does relate directly to the use permit proposal and not the rezoning. If Council acts favorably, that condition should be moved to the conditional use permit (both 4 and 5). Floyd Farano. He had no opposition to the recommendation by staff. Councilman Pickler. He has a problem if a Sizzler is to go on that corner. He would prefer a higher class type of restaurant or would prefer Marie Calenders over Sizzler. They have no commitment to any particular restaurant but were trying to show the type of facility they are contemplating. Councilman Ehrle. He, too, would have a problem agreeing to have a Sizzler at the main entrance to the Anaheim Stadium area. Floyd Farano. He suggested an agreement whereby the applicant would submit to the Council a design and landscaping plan for that facility to let the Council know what it is going to look like. City Attorney White. A condition can be added to the CUP that prior to the issuance of building permits for the restaurant that the applicants shall have a specific design plan including landscaping for the restaurant for approval by the City Council. 855 243 City Hall~ Anaheim{ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 274 (ADDENDUM) - CERTIFICATION: EIR No. 274 (Addendum), having previously been reviewed by City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council, acting upon such information and belief, certified on motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, that the EIR No. 274 (Addendum) is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State guidelines, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Manager. Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 87R-387 and 87R-388 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 86-87-22, Revision No. 1, (Readvertised) and Conditional Use Permit No. 2883, Revision No. 1, (Readvertised), modifying certain conditions of the Reclassification and amending certain conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 2883 and adding an additional condition as articulated by staff and agreed to by the agent for the applicant. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-387: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-22 REVISION NO. 1 (READV.). RESOLUTION NO. 87R-388: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883 REVISION NO. 1 (READV.). Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-387 and 87R-388 duly passed and adopted. 173: TAXICAB PERMIT APPLICATION--WEST COAST CAB COMPANY: William R. Hart, Attorney for West Coast Cab (WCCC), requesting a permit to operate a taxi service in the City of Anaheim. The application was submitted to the Council on June 16, 1987 (see minutes that date) where the matter was discussed and then continued to July 7, 1987. At the meeting of July 7, 1987 (see minutes that date) the matter was again discussed and a determination made that the application be considered before a Hearing Officer as requested by the Yellow Cab Company of North Orange County. The hearing before the Hearing Officer commenced on August 10, 1987. The subsequent recommendation of the Hearing Officer was that the City Council approve the application filed by WCCC for a 856 244 City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22t 1987, 1:30 P.M. permit to operate a taxi cab service within the City of Anaheim since they were found to meet the criteria for a taxi cab permit as set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code. It was further recommended by the Hearing Officer that WCCC be required to have its taxi cabs painted in a clearly distinctive color, other than orange or yellow, so that the cabs are not confused with the taxi cabs operated by Yellow Cab Company of North Orange County. Submitted was report dated September 16, 1987 (attached to which was the recommendation of the Hearing Officer) from the City Attorney, recommending that the Council review the recommendation of the Hearing Officer and either, (1) approve the permit and incorporate the findings of the Hearing Officer by reference in such approval or, (2) deny the permit and reverse one or more of the findings of the Hearing Officer. Also received from the attorneys for Yellow Cab Company of North Orange County was letter dated September 17, 1987 asking for a one week continuance on the subject application. Mr. Steven Silverstein, attorney representing West Coast Cab Company, 2001 East First Street, Santa Ana, was present. Mayor Bay stated that Mr. Farano, attorney for Yellow Cab Company of North Orange County would first be given a brief time to speak to his request for a continuance. Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, 100 So. Anaheim Blvd. When his office requested and then suggested the Hearing Officer for an adversarial type public hearing to be undertaken in the matter of the subject application, they did so to elicit facts that would not have been elicited with an oral presentation. There were six days of hearings with approximately 25 witnesses and 30 or 40 Exhibits. He is requesting that they be given one week to review the six days of recommendations to make known their exceptions and point out ways they think the Hearing Officer was in error. Those comments and exceptions would be tendered to Mr. Hart for his response and then to come back with a relatively short record and allow the Council to make its decision. Steven Silverstein, attorney, West Coast Cab Company. Mr. Farano came before the Council the first time and after having a staff report recommending that there should be another cab company in Anaheim, he (Farano) asked for a judge to hear the matter. He (Silverstein) argued about it and said it was a delaying tactic. Mr. Farano said no - and wanted to go forward with a full hearing on the matter. Mr. Farano went through the six full days of hearings cross examining witnesses. He did not go before the judge West Coast Cab Company selected from judicial arbitration but before Judge Turkish, the hand-picked judge selected by Mr. Farano. Judge Turkish subsequently recommended that there be two cab companies. Now Mr. Farano wants to review the record for the whole six days. He (Silverstein) was not there but he read the report when it came in and gleaned everything necessary out of it. Mr. Farano was there, he waited three weeks to get the report, he has had it and now wants another week. He asked that the Council vote on the matter today so that the issue could now be settled. The issue in the case was not that Yellow Cab was better than West coast or West coast better than Yellow Cab. 857 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22t 1987t 1:30 P.M. The issue is need and necessity. They have met all the criteria and the request for a continuance is just another delaying tactic. Mr. Silverstein then answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood. West Coast Cab Company intends to serve the City of Anaheim City-wide. They will start with 10 cabs and as soon as possible will go to 20 cabs and then 30. They intend to have cabs at cab stands in the hotel area and also intend to set up a cab stand in Anaheim Hills on Imperial Highway by the 91 Freeway. They are not replacing Yellow Cab Company. If calls are in excess of their capacity, they intend to divert those to Yellow Cab which happens in every area where there is dual service. Drivers will be prepared to take any calls and not just the long trips. Councilman Pickler. Having reviewed the documents, if the Hearing Officer's recommendation was one of denial, he would have gone that way. That is the reason the matter was referred to the Hearing Officer. He is going to follow the recommendations of staff and the Hearing Officer. MOTION: councilman Pickler thereupon moved to approve the Taxi Cab permit application submitted by West Coast Cab Company, pursuant to the recommendations of the Hearing Officer, including that the cabs be painted anything but orange or yellow as also recommended by the Hearing Officer. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Silverstein stated that the cabs, as presently painted, had a black roof, a black bottom with an orange middle, clearly distinguishable from Yellow Cab Company. They were going to present to staff a sample taxi cab within the next week. If there were any problems, they will work it out with staff. Councilman Pickler stated that the Hearing Officer's recommendation stipulated that the colors be anything but yellow or orange; City Attorney White stated that is a decision the Council can make. The Hearing Officer's collection of the evidence is for the Council's final determination. Floyd Farano. It was clear the intent throughout the hearings was that the color be anything but orange or yellow. The hearing clearly brought out that West coast Cab Company does not intend to do anything but to feed on the hotels and Convention Center. That was according to testimony at that hearing. That is why they feel there are misleading impressions that a simple, short, succinct review or exceptions would clarify. Code EnforcemeNt Supervisor John Poole is present and could clarify what he is saying. His recommendation is that if the Council still wants to do this, that there be no question the cabs be any other color, other than orange or yellow. Steven Silverstein. They will change the color. It is a "done deal" and there will be no yellow or orange. City Attorney White. He recommended that the motion be that the City Council approve the permit incorporating the findings of the Hearing Officer by referencing such approval with the stipulation that no portion of the West Coast Cab company cabs shall be painted yellow or orange in color. 858 242 City Hall~ Anaheim{ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Pickler clarified his motion as articulated by the City Attorney. Councilman Ehrle. He is going to go along with the recommendation of the Hearing Officer. Mr. Farano had done a fine job arguing the case; however, he believes the free marketplace will, in time, determine whether or not there is room for two cab companies in Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood. This is not the first time the City has had two cab companies. Previously the Lozano Cab Company was operated in the City and pushed their way in at ail the hotels and many problems followed. She hopes that there will be no problem in this case. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of approval of the West Coast Cab Company application. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 119: DECLARATION: A Declaration of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the City of Tustin on their 60th Year of Incorporation. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 21 and August 25, 1987. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,712,589.84, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Manager. Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions on the Consent Calendar, after reading of the title thereof, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kayw00d, seconded bv 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: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 87R-391 through 87R-394, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4867 for first reading. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by John Martois for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 31, 1987. 859 ..... Cit~ Hall, Anaheimt california - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. b. Claim submitted by James Gerst for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 26, 1987. c. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company (File ~L-207768-05-MES) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 30, 1987. d. Claim submitted by Powdercoat Services, Inc. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 6, 1987. e. Claim submitted by Adan Briones, Adan Briones, Jr., Jaime Javier Briones and Griselda Briones for wrongful death purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 2, 1987. f. Claim submitted by William Martin for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 29, 1987. g. Claim submitted by Gary L. Squillace for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 30, 1987. h. Claim submitted by Roy L. Anderson Equipment Rental Inc. dba Roy L. Anderson Company for full and impartial indemnity for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 15, 1985. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - Recommended to be Denied: i. Claim submitted by Jaime Sanchez for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 29, 1986. Claim filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted: j. Claim submitted by Virginia R. Passehl for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 29, 1987. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 87-08-054, Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Authority to Increase Rates Charged for Electric Service to Recover the Costs of Owning, Operating, and Maintaining Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Unit 3. b. 107: Building Division Statistical Report for the term ending August 31, 1987. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of August 26, 1987. d. 105: Community Services Board, Minutes of August 13, 1987. e. 105: Senior Citizens Commission, Minutes of August 13, 1987. 860 240 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22r 1987, 1:30 P.M. 3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with AAKO Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, Inc., in the amount of $3,000 for geotechnical services for the transmission line approach along the railroad track to Southwest Electrical Substation. 4. 175.123: Authorizing Wire Line Agreement with the Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Company and its lessee, Union Pacific Railroad Company in the amount of $250 and a License for Electric Supply Line across or along Railway Property with The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, in the amount of $400, permitting the City to construct, maintain and operate two 12kV three phase power lines under and along the tracks and premises of said railroads. 5. 179/142: Directing staff to prepare an ordinance amending Chapter 18.48.050, relating to the C-R "Commercial Recreation" zone, to include certain provisions. 6. 158: Authorizing payment to Theodore Todoroff in the amount of $58,754 for modifications to buildings located at 909 and 913 North Anaheim Boulevard. 7. 160: Accepting the bid of McGihon Sheet Metal, Inc., in the amount of $10,180.24 for 50 each, water sampling station cabinets, in accordance with Bid No. A-4475. 8. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $66,954.90 for fifteen each, 25 KVA and twenty each, 50 KVA single phase fused padmount transformers, in accordance with Bid ~A-4478. 9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $119,009.20 for three each, 2500 KVA and two each 2000 KVA three phase padmount transformers, in accordance with Bid No. A-4479. 10. 109: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-391: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FUEL EFFICIENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION. (in the amount of $167,000) 11. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-392: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-364 WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY. (deleting the classification of Code Enforcement Supervisor, effective September 18, 1987) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-393: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-364 WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (adding the classification of Code Enforcement Manager, effective September 18, 1987) 12. 153/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4867: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.04.110 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS. (creating separate departments of Community Development Department and the Planning Department) 861 237 City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 P.M. 153/142: Authorizing an additional position of Administrative Services Coordinator in the Planning Department. 13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-394: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OR INTERESTS THEREIN. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-391 through 87R-394, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 179: AMENDING RESOLUTION 87R-153 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2888 (LDS CHURCH): City Attorney Jack White. At the time a request for rehearing was made by the opponents to the subject project on July 14, 1987 (see minutes that date) the opponents requested that the original resolution did not contain sufficient findings to connect the raw evidence at the hearing to the ultimate decision of the City Council. Being responsive to that request, his office, in conjunction with the attorneys for the church, has prepared a modified resolution to amend and replace the previous resolution that would make additional findings relating to that particular permit. The conditions remain the same with a minor exception which is not relevant now because there was a change that was made as a result of the fact that a condition language became inoperative between the time that the permit was originally granted and the time of preparation of the amended resolution. In essence, all conditions remain the same. The only change being made is to make additional subfindings that will hopefully benefit the opponents in understanding the analytical process that went into the decision. The City Attorney read the title of the resolution. Councilman Bay moved to waive reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-395 for adoption, amending in its entirety Resolution No. 87R-153, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2888, (LDg Churoh), a~ r~eomm~nd~d by th~ Cit~ Att0rne¥. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-395: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY RESOLUTION NO. 87R-153 GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2888. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 862 238 City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-395 duly passed and adopted. 105: RESIGNATION - YOUTH COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the resignations of Sharon Bae and Michael Procopio from the Anaheim Youth Commission as tendered in their letters received September 9 and 11, 1987, respectively, and to authorize the City Clerk to post a notice of vacancy. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that letters be sent to both thanking them for their service. 148: APPOINTEE TO ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION: Councilman Pickler moved to recommend to the League of California Cities that Dr. Daniel Ninburg be reappointed to another term on the Orange County Human Relations Commission. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 148: APPOINTEE TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recommend to the League of California Cities that Herman Siegmund be reappointed to another term on the Senior Citizens Advisory Council. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Councilman Bay nominated Irene Jennings to the Community Services Board to fill the vacancy left by Steve Jimenez, for the term ending June 30, 1991. On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, nominations were closed. Irene Jennings was thereupon unanimously appointed to the Community Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1991. 114: DISCUSSION - POSSIBLE CHANGE OF SCHEDULE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: To consider establishing a different time schedule for City Council meetings, including conducting all or some of these during evening hours. City Clerk Sohl announced that Margie Howard would like to speak to the issue. Margie Howard, 1158 West Beacon Avenue. It is important that citizens have the time to observe, discuss and participate and they do not have an opportunity to do so the way the meetings are presently scheduled. Starting meetings in the evening would be better, not only for adults who have to work but also for young people. She feels there will be a larger turnout of citizens. Mayor Bay. There are many times when the Council has set evening hearings in the past when particularly critical issues were before the Council. He would recommend that night meetings be set up on a trial basis, setting aside one meeting per month to be held at night and do that for at least a couple of months in order to evaluate the situation. Councilman Pickler. He has no problem trying evening meetings once a month. It has been tried in the past with very few people in attendance. 863 235 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Council discussion followed during which suggestions were recommended that meetings start at 3:00 p.m. with public hearings starting at 5:00 p.m. (Councilman Hunter); Councilman Pickler felt that the entire meeting should start in the evening so that the public could be present for all phases. Concern was also expressed that if meetings started in the evening, they would sometimes continue into the early morning hours with the consensus being if that occurred, the Council would then have to re-evaluate the situation. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the City Council hold one Council meeting per month starting at 6:30 p.m. Before action was taken, City Attorney White stated that by ordinance the Council meeting time has been established as starting at 12:00 noon (Closed Sessions) if the Council would like to have one night meeting a month on a temporary basis, he suggests that the motion be that the City clerk adjourn the second meeting of every month, if the third meeting is decided to be the night meeting to 6:30 p.m. the next Tuesday. Similar motions will have to be made for the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. Mayor Bay. It will be necessary for the City Clerk to know well in advance when night meetings will be held in order to properly advertise public hearings. He does not care if the night meeting is held on the third Tuesday of the month. The key is what time to advertise for public hearings. Councilman Pickler suggested that alternatives be put in writing and brought back to the Council next week for discussion and the decision. City Attorney White stated as a result of Council discussions, the alternatives at present are to start the public portion of the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and notice the public hearings for 7:30 p.m. with the time of Closed Session to be determined. The other way is to start the meeting at 3:00 p.m. with Consent Calendar items from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. Closed Session, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. a dinner break and public hearings at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Bay withdrew his motion and directed staff to submit alternatives discussed in writing for Council consideration in one week. 108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Public dance permit submitted by Manuel Gomez (Yahuallca Empresa) £or a ~ance to be hel~ at the Anaheim Convention center, Saturday, September 26, 1987 from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. was recommended by the Chief of Police, provided that 15 uniformed officers or security guards be present at the dance. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Hunter, 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, September 18, 1987, at 3:00 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement relative to posting the item on the printed agenda. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Mayor Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the public Dance Permit for Yahualica Empresa was approved as recommended. MOTION CARRIED. 864 236 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 31, 1987, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-05: Submitted by Thomas P. Walker, et al, (Sixpence Inn Motel and Denny's), for a change in zone from ML to CL, on property located at 2020 East Via Burton Street, 1420 North State College Boulevard and 1440 North State College Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-166, granted Reclassification No. 87-88-05, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2936 (READY.): Submitted by Jose and Bonnie Valdivia, (Specialized Auto Repair), to retain an auto repair facility on CG zoned property located at 1075 North Harbor, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) permitted outdoor uses. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-167, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2936 (Ready.), to expire on August 17, 1988, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2750, REVISION NO. 2 (READV.): Submitted by SSP Properties, John R. Schantz, et al, to permit a 46.3 foot high, 164-unit motel on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located southeast of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and Imperial Highway, with the following Code waivers: (a) Required site screening, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum structural setback, (d) minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-168, approved the revised plans (Revision 2 - ReadY.) to Conditional Use Permit No. 2750, and previously approved a negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2939: Submitted by Christian J. and Lena S. Ploum, (C&B Interiors), to retain the commercial use of a residential structure on proposed CL zoned property located at 305 North Brookhurst Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-173, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2939, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2940: Submitted by Richard N. Mitten, to permit an automobile repair facility on ML(SC) zoned property located at 1375 North Brasher Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-174, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2940, and granted a negative declaration status. 7. VARIANCE NO. 3692: Submitted by Roger L. Williamson, et al, to establish a 3-lot, RS-A-43,000(SC) sing]e-family subdivision on approximately 81 acres located southwest of the terminus of Avenida de Santiago, approximately 800 feet southeast of the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Serrano Avenue, with Code waiver of required lot frontage. 865 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-175, granted variance No. 3692, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2857, REVISION NO. 1 (READY.): Submitted by California Lutheran Homes, to permit a 3-story, 123-unit senior citizens apartment complex on approximately 10.6 acres west of the northwest corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street, with Code waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and request for waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-176, approved the revised plans (Revision 1 - Ready.) to Conditional Use Permit No. 2857, and previously approved a negative declaration status. 9. CODE AMENDMENT: Submitted by Planning Staff, request to amend Chapter 18.41 of the Code, to require buildings and structures exceeding two stories or 30 feet in height within the boundaries of the Anaheim Stadium Business Center to obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and Chapter 18.01 of the Code to add a definition of the Anaheim Stadium Business Center. Staff directed to prepare an ordinance to be considered by the Planning commission. 10. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12665--WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE: Submitted by Hunsaker & Associates, Inc., request for waiver of lot line requirements of the Hillside Grading Ordinance on property located on the north side of Mohler Drive, approximately 60 feet east of the centerline of Country Hill Road and further described as 270 South Mohler Drive. The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 12665 - Waiver of Hillside Grading Ordinance. The City Council will hold a public hearing on September 29, 1987. 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2809--DETERMINATION: Submitted by Trider Corporation, re~uesting a determination of substantial conformance with previously approved plans of Conditional Use Permit No. 2809, to permit a 2 and 3 story, llS-unit senior citizen's apartment complex on 5.31 acres located at {15 Anaheim Hills Road. The City Planning Commission determined plans to be in substantial conformance, Conditional Use Permit No. 2809. 12. STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 2020: Submitted by Staff, submittal of information relating to State Assembly Bill 2020, regarding beverage container recycling. The City Planning Commission took no action on State Assembly Bill 2020. 13. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-09 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2943: Submitted by Smart and Final Iris Realty Corporation, for a change in zone from CL to CR, to permit a 12-story, 105-ft. high, 200-room hotel complex on approximately 1.68 acre on the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. 866 234 City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22~ 1987t 1:30 The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-169 and 170, granted Reclassification No. 87-88-09 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2943, and granted a negative declaration status. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be held at a later date. 14. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-11 AND VARIANCE NO. 3694: Submitted by Philip F. and Emily Porretta, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 3-story, 16-unit apartment building on property located at 700 South Magnolia Avenue, with Code waiver of maximum building height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-171 and 172, granted Reclassification No. 87-88-11 and Variance No. 3694, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 15. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-22, REVISION NO. 1, (READY.) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883, REVISION NO. 1, (READY.): Submitted by Hartmann Corporation, for a change in zone from ML to CO, to permit a 188 ft. high, 13-story office building on Parcel 1 and a freestanding restaurant on Parcel 2~ on approximately 2.86 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of -: Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum structural setback (Parcel 2). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-177 and 178, granted Reclassification No. 86-87-22 Revision No. 1 (Ready.) and Conditional..~.~ Use Permit No. 2883 Revision No. 1 (ReadY.), and granted a EIR NO. 274 (Addendum). The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and, the public hearing will be held at today's Council meeting (see Public Hearing section of this meeting). 16. VARIANCE NO. 3696: Submitted by Automobile Club of Southern California, to construct a monument sign on CL(SC) zoned property located at 5500 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, with the ~ollowlng Code waivers: (a) Type of sign, (b) maximum sign area and display surfaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-179, granted Variance No. 3696, and ratified the Planning Commission's categorical exemption determination (Class 11) End of Consent Calendar. 134: SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 230: Thomas P. Walker, to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, proposing redesignation from General Industrial to General Commercial, on property located on the east side of State College Boulevard from the 91 Freeway to approximately 620 feet north of the intersection of State College Boulevard and Via Burton Street. 867 Ci__~t~_Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22, 1987, 1:30 p.M. Councilman Bay moved to set the date and time for public hearing on GPA No. 230 ~o Tuesday, October 13, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 106: DISCUSSION - 1987/88 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: Recommendation for balancing the FY 1987/88 Resource Allocation Plan. No discussion took place at this time regarding the budget. 114/105: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MEETINGS: Councilman Pickler reported that the impression he has received from some people in attendance at Project Area Committee (PAC) and Redevelopment Co~m~ission meetings (specifically the joint meeting of these two groups held on September 2, 1987 that the public was not given an opportunity to speak to an item at the time it was discussed but only under items of public interest later in the meeting after a vote had been taken on that item. He wants to make certain all Boards and Commissions follow the procedure used at Council meetings that the public is allowed to give their input on specific items at the time the item is being discussed. Mayor Bay. He has heard the allegation but does not necessarily believe it. Councilwoman Kaywood. She understands that members of the public requested to speak and they were told they could not do so until after the vote. That is not the way it is supposed to be. City Attorney White. If there is a consensus of the Council he suggests a motion directing the City Clerk to communicate with the Redevelopment Commission and all Boards and Commissions that members of the public be al~.uwed to speak on subjects prior to action being taken on those subjects where the public has indicated they wished to speak and a procedure be established that they may request an opportunity to be heard on any agenda itea prior to action being take. Mayo~ Bay. He does not disagree that a procedure should not be followed allowing the public to speak, but he is not ready at this time to vote on specific directions to any Commissions when he does not have any details. The Co.~ncil should look into the matter but not give any direction at this time. Councilman Pickler explained that specifically the concerns arose at the joint public meeting of PAC and the Redevelopment Commission where people became very upset. If the proper procedure is not being followed then it should be. If it is being followed then there is no problem. Councilman Bay suggested that they follow up on the allegations before considering taking any action. Later in the meeting under Items of Public Interest, Mr. Henry Houghton, 1371 South Walnut, invited the Council to review the video he made of the PAC/Redevelopment Commission meeting to see what went on for themselves. 868 232 City Hall{ Anaheim{ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 22{ 1987, 1:30 After a brief discussion, Mr. Houghton stated he would provide 'the City Clerk with a copy of the video; it was determined that the Council would view a copy of the video tape to determine subsequent action, if any. 101: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE STRIKE: Mayor Bay stated since it was now apparent there was going to be a football strike, best estimates are that the City is going to lose $340,000 net revenue on every Rams game scheduled that does not occur. That loss would be added to the current existing imbalance in the City budget that they would also have to deal with. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn to Tuesday, September 29, 1987 at 10:00 a.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:55 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 869