1987/10/27153
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler, Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLEP~K: Leonora N. Sokl
PLANNING DIKECTOR: Joel Fick
SENSOR PLANNER: Mary McCloskey
SENIOR PLANNER: Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole
PURCHASING AGENT: Diane Hughart
CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:15 p.m. on October 23, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
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 0.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59; Kane vs. City of
Anaheim, O.C.S.C.C. No. 49-47-62.
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. (12:00 noon)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(1:44 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Rev. Mike Landreth, Canyon Hills Presbyterian Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member William Ehrle led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
971
154
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following Proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Epilepsy Month in Anaheim, November, 1987.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned
~egular meeting held July 21, 1987 and the regular meeting of July 28, 1987.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 33,178,500.11, 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. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: Om motion by Councilman Bay,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Bay offered
Resolution Nos. 87R-433 through 87R-438, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4872 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 KimAllen McPeck for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 16, 1987.
b. Claim submitted by Larry Portilla for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 18, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by Wanda Hansen for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 1, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Paragon Plastic Products for indemnity and
declaratory relief for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about August 8, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Aaron Barish for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 18, 1987.
972
151
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
f. Claim submitted by Bruce Giras for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 5, 1987.
g. Claim submitted by John Haller for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 6, 1987.
h. Claim submitted by Susan Steinberg for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 18, 1987.
i. Claim submitted by Kitridge Hooper for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 25, 1987.
J. Claim submitted by Mrs. Joseph Filson for property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 6, 1987.
k. Claim submitted by Kin Due Hoang for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 14, 1987.
1. Claim submitted by Isabel Green for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 10, 1987.
m. Claim submitted by Alfred H. Booher for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 27, 1987.
n. Claim submitted by Supercross, Inc. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 1, 1987.
o. Claim submitted by Sandy L. Neeley for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 6, 1987.
p. Claim submitted by Gerald Simpson for property damage and bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 30,
1987.
Claim filed against the City - recommended to be Accepted:
q. Claim submitted by Daniel James Dawkins for property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 2, 1987.
2. 175/123: Authorizing a Retained Funds Agreement with Pascal and Ludwig
Engineers, substituting as security a certificate of deposit in the amount of
~87,595.28 in lieu of retention of funds from progress payments in connection
with the Olive Hills Reservoir Cover Project.
3. 125: Receiving and filing the Data Processing Department Five Year
Strategic Plan, dated August 23, 1987.
4. 170/123: Approving the assignment of a special water facilities
reimbursement agreement with Gramercy Park to Allen and Doris Jean Kallel,
relating to Tract 10973 in the Anaheim Hills area.
5. 175: Authorizing a revised Exhibit A to the Standard as Available Power
Contracts, providing for price revisions for energy purchased from qualifying
973
152
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
facilities, effective November 1, 1987 to April 30, 1988 and clarifying the
responsibility of the Public Utilities General Manager to approve such
revisions.
6. 174: Authorizing the Mayor to make application for Transitional Housing
Demonstration Program funds in the amount of 540,000 and to sign necessary
forms and certifications for submission to the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development; awarding these funds to Anaheim Interfaith
Shelter to provide transitional services to homeless families; and authorizing
staff to submit any other necessary documents.
7. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to the Anaheim Public
Improvement Corporation in the amount of $43,460 for one used, re-conditioned
Caterpillar forklift truck, Model V225B.
8. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to the Anaheim Public
Improvement Corporation in the amount of 523,320 for two traffic controllers
with time base coordination and flow interconnect.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to Truck
Hydraulic Equipment Company for an additional amount of 512,108.17 bringing
the revised total order to the overhaul for two aerial manlifts and two digger
derricks to 562,108.17.
10. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to the Anaheim Public
Improvement Corporation in the amount of 523,191.14 for one large piece of
play equipment for Juarez Park.
Councilman Ehrle asked for clarification on why the purchase would be proposed
without competitive bidding; Diane Hughart, Purchasing Agent, explained the
reason for the request.
11. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-433: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCEAND NECESSITY
~EQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. (Modjeska
Park Security Lighting, Account No. 16-831-7107; and opening of bids on
December 3, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
12. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-434: 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 IMPROVEMENT. (Sign
Installation Program Phase III, Installation and Replacement of Signs
Throughout the City, Account No. 01-263-6340-SG303; and opening of bids on
November 19, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
13. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-435: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-364 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY. (To establish assignment pay to the positions
974
149
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
of Fire Battalion Chief/Training Division Chief and Fire Battalion
Chief/Administrative Division Chief, effective October 16, 1987)
14. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-436: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 11, LAYOFF AND RE-EMPLOYMENT. (To
provide that consideration be given to City seniority rather than department
seniority in the event of a layoff due to lack of work or lack of funds)
15. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-437: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO.
28 WITH THE AGENCY. (For widening and construction of public improvements to
Broadway, Harbor, Chestnut and Clementine, increasing the price to a new total
of $2,600,000 due to change orders, in the amount of $300,000, for right of
way and public improvements)
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-438: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING DEEDS OF EASEMENT.
17. 106: Transferring the appropriations authority totalling $1,612,613 from
various departments to supplement the appropriations authority of certain
other departments; and appropriating an additional $570,531 in property tax
receipt and $592,000 in proceeds from the sale of certificates of
participation for allocation for expenditure to the Fire Department.
18. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4872: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 4819, NUNC PRO TUNC, TO INCLUDE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR PR ZONED
PARCELS. (Reclassification No. 66-67-61 - 108)
Roll Cai Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-433 through 87R-438, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
101/123: ACQUISITION OF A COLOR VIDEO AND SCOREBOARD SYSTEM FOR ANAHEIM
STADIUM: City Manager Bob Simpson referred to report dated October 22, 1987
from Cynthia King, Assistant to the City Manager, recommending that five
actions be taken relative to the subject scoreboard. Mr. Simpson outlined the
recommended actions.
Mayor Bay first asked if there had been any requests from anyone to speak to
the item or if anyone wished to comment on the subject; no requests had been
received and no one wished to speak.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the five following recommended
actions:
975
150
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1.987~ 1:30 P.M.
Confirming and approving the technical selection of Sony's color
video/scoreboard system for Anaheim Stadium as recommended by the Color Video
Task Force.
Acknowledging the Letter of Intent from the California Angels, regarding
advertising and scoreboards, and directing staff to negotiate a final
amendment to the Angel's 1981 Amended and Restated Lease Agreement within 45
days.
Acknowledging the Letter of Intent from the Los Angeles Rams, regarding
advertising and scoreboards, and directing staff to negotiate a final
amendment to the Ram's Exhibition Agreement and Rams Operations Agreement
within 45 days.
Acknowledging a Letter of Intent from Sony, dated August 28, 1987, regarding
the sale and installation of a color video/scoreboard system for Anaheim
Stadium and directing staff to negotiate a final agreement within 45 days.
Authorizing staff to negotiate an amendment to the agreement with Spencer
Sports Media, Inc., regarding sale of advertising space at Anaheim Stadium.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Before concluding, Mayor Bay acknowledged that a great deal of work went into
the negotiations involving the new scoreboard with the goal of acquiring a
brand new video board which hopefully will be ready by the start of the next
season's Angel's baseball games. He wanted to personally thank the Technical
Committee for all the hard work that was done, specifically Cynthia King,
Assistant to the City Manager and the work she put into the project over many
months that led to the new board. He also thanked Rom Rothschild, Program,
Development and Audit Manager, who was involved almost on a daily basis and to
City Manager Bob Simpson who sat in on weekly and sometimes daily negotiating
meetings among the Rams, Angels and the City also involving Sony and Spencer
Advertising. It is a great accomplishment and he knows how much hard work and
effort went into it.
City Manager Simpson then introduced the entire Color Video Task Force as
follows who were present in the Chamber audience (with the exception of Dick
Beam):
Cynthia King
John Hays
Kevin Uhlich
Dick Beam
Greg Smith
Mike McKay
Gary Johnson
Rom Rothschild
George Ferrone
Alan Murphy
Assistant to City Manager/Project Leader
Sr. V.P. of Marketing, California Angels
Operations Manager, California Angels
Director of Operations, Los Angeles Rams
Stadium Operations Manager
Stadium Scoreboard Operator
City Engineer
Program Development & Audit Manager
Finance Director
Assistant Finance Director (now Finance Director
in Arcadia)
976
187
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
In addition, Mr. Simpson explained that the City retained the services of
Lauren Carpenter from Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, Consulting Engineers for
the stadium expansion and there were also two representatives form Sony, Judd
Futterman, Director, Sony's Jumbotron Group and Ted Dickson, Western Sales
Manager from the Sony Jumbotron Group as well as a representative from
Whiteway, Jim Moran, Vice President of Sales. One final person he would like
to present and offer his sincere thanks, congratulations and appreciation is
Mr. Jim Negurney, President of Spencer Sports Media.
He also thanked Mr. John Shaw of the Rams and Mike Schreter of the Angels and
noted that he called and talked to Gene Autry last Friday at 1:00 p.m. when it
looked like they had finally closed the deal on the negotiations. Mr. Autry
was very happy.
Council Members also offered their comments of appreciation and thanks to all
involved.
175: SELECTION OF PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT - UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. WAIVER OF
COUNCIL POLICY NO. 401: Councilman Pickler moved to waive Council Policy No.
401 and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to request Statements
of Qualifications from selected engineering consultants to provide
professional engineering services for the Water Engineering Division on
varicus small water improvement projects as recommended in memorandum dated
October 19, 1987 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: RESIGNATION - GOLF COURSE COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
accept the resignation of Larry Slagle from the Golf Course Commission as
tended in his letter dated October 1, 1987 and authorizing the City Clerk to
post a notice of the unscheduled vacancy and that a letter of thanks be sent
to Mr. Slagle for his service on the Commission. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-02 AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2907: Request by James P. Barone, Morinello, Barone, Holden
and Nardulli, representing Mr. and Mrs. Jeral Stanley, requesting a rehearing
for Reclassification No. 87-88-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2907, a
proposed change in zone from RS-7200 to CO to permit office use of residential
structure on property located at 236 South Ash Street, with Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces. This matter was continued from the meeting
of October 20, 1987 to this date.
Mr. Jim Barone. At the last public hearing there was substantial concern as
to issues relative to parking with the proposed plan of the Stanleys. Since
that time, they have had an opportunity to redo the parking plan and now have
a new plan which will be proposed at a rehearing if the Council grants one.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to grant the request for a rehearing on
Reclassification No. 87-88-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2907. Councilman
Hunter seconded the motion.
977
188
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated he will speak against the request
primarily because he does not think parking was the key to the decision.
Adding two parking spaces does not solve the problem because the issue was
commercial in a residential area in a solid block of single family
residential. The issue is spot approval of a commercial operation in a
residential zone. He does not feel the change in parking is reason enough for
rehearing the whole issue; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her feeling as
well.
Councilman Hunter. He has gone out to look at the property and it is one of
those cases where it is necessary to see the property. The house actually
faces Broadway. The parking is in conjunction with the Stanley's ERA business
on State College Boulevard and Broadway. He is in favor of the rehearing.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion granting the request for a
rehearing and setting the date and time as Tuesday, November 17, 1987, at
3:00 p.m.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler
Kaywood and Bay
None
MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Filling the two vacancies on the
Anaheim Youth Commission to expire December 31, 1988.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint Sun K. Klm and Joan Chang to the Youth
Commission, presently the first and second alternates (replacing Sharon Bae
and Michael Procopio). Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to replace the first three alternates - Marilyn
Bond first alternate, Rebecca Boyd second alternate and Peter Campellone third
alternate. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108/142: TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REIMBURSEMENTS - ORDINANCE NO. 4873: Brian
Crow, Chairman, Community Services Board, requesting adoption of an Ordinance
to provide for reimbursement of Transient Occupancy Tax revenues to qualified
organizations.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4873 for first reading, adding a new
Section 2.12.120 to the Code, pertaining to reimbursement of Transient
Occupancy Tax Revenues.
ORDINANCE NO. 4873: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
2.12.120 TO CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES TO QUALIFYING
ORGANIZATIONS.
978
185
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
173/148: SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT: A
Resolution supporting the findings of the Transportation Super Committee
Report as requested at the meeting of October 13, 1987 by Councilman Pickler
(see minutes that date where presentation was made on the findings and the
report). Also submitted was report dated October 21, 1987 from Assistant City
Manager Ron Bates, recommending the Resolution of Support.
Councilman Pickler. Relative to the Resolution of Support, nothing is set in
concrete. This is to indicate that they should proceed. It is a positive
thing.
Mayor Bay. The Resolution is general in nature. It states - develop a
funding program. Since it does not specify the funding program, he can
support it the way it is written. This is supporting the Super Committee
Report, not necessarily supporting any specific alternatives.
Councilman Pickler. This is the way the Super Committee wanted it.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following Resolution was
read by the City Clerk.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-439 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-439: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT OF THE
TRANSPORTATION "SUPER" COMMITTEE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES.
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-439 duly passed and adopted.
144: SUPPORT OF TAXPAYERS FOR A CENTRALIZED JAIL: A resolution in support of
taxpayers for a centralizad jail declaring opposition to the Coal/Gypsum
Canyon Jail site. This matter was discussed and continued form the meeting of
October 20, 1987 to this date (see minutes that date).
Councilman Hunter acknowledged the people who were in the Chamber audience
regarding the issue and invited them to speak relative to what needed to be
done. It is basically a signature gathering process of some 65,000 signatures
plus.
Mr. Robert Kiley, 5028 Vista Modena, Yorba Linda. He has been hired as a
consultant for the Taxpayers for a Centralized Jail in Orange County. The
979
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
need is for 65,000 plus signatures for the initiative. They are going to try
to gather closer to 80,000 signatures which has to be dome by February 11,
1988, which is the deadline for qualifying signatures in order to get the
issue on the June, 1988 ballot. It will centralize a Jail at the County seat
rather than having jails in all parts of the neighborhoods in Orange County.
They are hoping to get a Resolution of Support from every city in Orange
County. If anybody would like to help, he urged them to call (call
714-970-2241, Rick Violet, Ken Miller).
Councilman Hunter. The issue is not unique to Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda.
It involves all of Anaheim. The City does not want to become known as the
home of the Rams, the Angels, Disneyland and the County's largest jail. They
are going to try to get different groups throughout the City to help in
gathering the signatures so that the initiative will be on the June, 1988
ballot in order to put the jail where it really belongs and get politics out
of it - near the criminal court system. It will be cost effective to put it
there and also to be considered are the ultimate transportation costs that
will be saved. If the Douglass-Katella proposed Jail site does not get to
trial before June, the initiative could also help in that area.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following Resolution was
read by the City Clerk.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CAR/tIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 87R-440 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-440: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SUPPORTING "THE TAXPAYERS FOR A CENTRALIZED JAIL" IN ITS OPPOSITION TO
THE GYPSUM/COAL CANYON JAIL.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood recommended a wording change in
the Resolution after the now, therefore clause, "...in its efforts to minimize
the costs of County jail construction," add, "and ongoing operation and
transportation costs".
That was agreeable to Councilman Hunter.
Councilman Pickler. At the October 14 meeting of citizens with regard to the
subject issue held at Canyon High School, he picked up a couple of petitions
and is going to try to get two or three filled with signatures to assist in
getting the issue on the June, 1988 ballot. The City of Yorba Linda has also
contributed dollars and cents toward promoting the initiative. He asked the
City Attorney to check into the possibility of Anaheim doing the same and
report back to the Council.
Councilman Hunter. He would also like to have placed on the agenda for
discussion next week that the City put banners up in key locations with a
message to get the word out relative to the petition initiative.
98O
183
City Hall~ A~eheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney White. Cities cannot spend public funds to support ballot
measures. That is true not only to contributing dollars but also to spending
funds in informational ways. He feels that the City would have legal
difficulty in even spending dollars to print up banners.
Councilman Hunter. He asked what if the banners were donated and they get
space over the roads or if private funds were used to make the banners and pay
the 6ity for installation; Mr. White. As long as it does not relate to the
expenditure of any public funds. They could work on getting a report.
Councilman Hunter then explained for Councilman Pickler that with regard to
Yorba Linda, they expended money for legal fees for the general EIR on
Gypsum/Coal Canyon.
Councilman Ehrle. He has talked to a lot of people who want to get involved.
He encouraged every one to do so. He was going to walk the precincts and get
1,000 signatures himself. He considers it totally outrageous how the Board of
Supervisors handled the whole thing.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter , Pickler, Kaywood, Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-440 duly passed and adopted.
179: CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE
COMMERCIAL-RECREATION AREA: To consider possible zoning regulations in the 67{
area. This matter was discussed at the meeting of October 13, 1987 when
Councilman Pickler broached the issue expressing concern about the strip
commercial center at the corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and
again at the meeting of October 20, 1987 wherein Councilman Ehrle suggested a
possible zoning regulation in that area so that Council would have some
control over what is planned in that important area.
Councilman Ehrle. He has received about 12 phone calls asking what was going
on relative to the strip development at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue
and how they could prevent that from happening in the future. His intention
is to have staff come up with a new zoning overlay for the CE area so that
developments can be evaluated on their merits and whether certain proposals
are appropriate for that particular area.
Councilman Pickler. He brought the matter up originally because of his
concern over the situation - of small shopping centers going into that
critical area. The City has talked about and established critical
intersections. Perhaps they ought to establish critical areas as far as the
CR zone. He feels they owe it to those who put a lot of dollars into the
community and who live in the community as to what type of development goes
into that very critical area.
981
184
City Hall~ Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. The area around the CRarea has been developed
over a long period of years. What they have seen happening, some of the
parcels were not zoned CR as the City intended and some of the pieces had
remnant Commercial Limited zoning or even agricultural zoning. Staff has
taken steps in the right direction with Council's assistance. They moved
forward and finalized the zoning to CE. He would like to look at the
situation, put a report together and bring it back to the Council in four
weeks.
Councilman Pickler expressed concern that within a period of three or four
weeks additional developments might be started in that area.
Joel Fick. His impression is that no developments will go forward because of
the steps the Planning Commission and Council have taken to finalize the
zoning. There are parcels in the interim that had pending building permits
dating back some time that were in the midst of the process but he does not
believe that could happen between now and 30 days from now.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned that knowing the City is going to
clamp down, there will be 50 proposals coming through without any variances.
Joel Fick. The CR Zoning as finalized now offers protection, and uses that
are permitted as a matter of right are limited in scope.
Mayor Bay. He does not agree that they need more government control of spot
commercial or anything else because a development is on a certain corner. It
is difficult to make a Judgment on a development while in the framing stage
without seeing the design or plans. Until he sees a lot more data and
information, he is not ready to act based on something somebody saw on a
corner in a framing stage.
Councilman Ehrle. They are not placing their control or restrictions per se
but they have a responsibility to the 34,000,000 who visit Anaheim every year
and the people who already own property up and down Katella and Harbor to
assure them that they do get quality projects in that area.
MOTION; Councilman Ehrle directed staff to submit a report for Council
consideration in four weeks. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
179: REVIEW OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION - OCTOBER 8; 1987:
1. VARIANCE NO. 3709: Submitted by Peralta Ltd., to construct a two-story,
35-foot high, single family residence located on the northeasterly corner of
Copa de Oro Drive and Nohl Ranch Road (Lot 32 in Tract No. 12576).
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Admnistrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-28,
granted in part, Variance No.3709. The decision date was October 8, 1987.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-28,
approved Variance No. 3709 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination (Class 5). The decision date was October 8, 1987.
City Clerk Sohl announced that Sonja Grewal requested to speak to the issue.
982
181
__ City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
SonJa Grewal, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, 6312 East Santa Ana Canyon
Road, Suite 157, Anaheim. The essence of her presentation and concern is that
neither Variance No. 3709, the subject Variance, or Variance No. 3695 which is
the subject of a public hearing today, both in the same tract, appear to
Justify the hardship requirement for a variance. The grading that the
developer has done has rendered his land absolutely flat and there is no
hillside problem that would require him to have some sort of variance. It
appears the justification is for architectural reasons, a cosmetic effect but
yet there are attractive, spacious, marketable homes built within the 25 foot
height restriction in the immediate vicinity commanding the same price. It is
their intent to ask the Council to enforce restrictions in the scenic corridor
which require homes to restrict height in order to retain the scenic qualities
of the area. Homes which have the 25 foot height roof lines minimize view,
privacy and glare impact. Variance No. 3695 appears to have been granted by
the Zoning Administrator based on its towers being exceptions to the Code.
However, the total roof line is in several levels and they all exceed the 25
foot height limit. Both variances set precedents which future lot owners
will use to continue etching new view obstructions and privacy impacts for
homeowners surrounding this tract. Variances for these first homes may create
hardships for future lot owners. The Council must adhere to the Ordinances.
The 25 foot height limitation is in place and any variance should relate to
some sort of hillside problem and not Just because someone wants it. They are
urging the Council to carefully weigh their decision on height variances for
existing and future owners and demonstrate their commitment to the Canyon Area
General Plan.
Councilman Pickler. He could understand the situation if homes are going to
obstruct other homes or views but cannot when the house is going to enhance
the area and does not affect anybody around it.
Sonja Grewal. People to the south of the tract do feel that it affects their
view. Twenty five feet versus forty five feet would make a difference. They
are very concerned, perhaps because the land was deemed undevelopable and they
assumed it would never be developed because the City's plan says there should
not be extensive hillside grading. The people to the east would be affected
because they are looking right into the area. He (Pickler) is right in saying
that it does not affect the current homeowners but if they grant it for that
person, the homeowners right in front of that home will also ask for a
variance and it will affect them. Variance No. 3709 does affect people on
Brook Lane and they are quite concerned. There is one gentleman who was going
to come who lives on Brook Lane. He is pleased to see that Variance No. 3709
was not granted in total but in part.
Mayor Bay asked if she was requesting that the item be set for a public
hearing; Ms. Grewal stated she is not requesting anything on this particular
one Just that there was a concern and if the Council felt that there should be
a public hearing it should be brought to the Council.
Councilman Ehrle. He set Variance No. 3709 for a public hearing before the
Council.
983
LSd.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
SonJa Grewal. She stated they wanted the remarks directed to the public
hearing on Variance No. 3695 which is being held today.
City Attorney Jack White. The comments Ms. Grewal is asking be incorporated
as part of the public hearing to be held today cannot be legally done. For
purposes of due process of law, comments cannot be incorporated that are made
prior to the public hearing as part of the record.
Since a review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by
Councilman Ehrle on the subject Variance, a public hearing will be scheduled
at a later date.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4874: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4874 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4874: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18,
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-64(9), RS-5000(SC), TRACT NO. 10982. (FROM
RS-A-43,000)
114: TRIP TO MITO, JAPAN: Mayor Pro Tem Pickler reported on his trip to
Anaheim's Sister City, Mito, Japan, where a celebration took place
commemorating the two Cities' tenth anniversary in a Sister City
relationship. The 29-member contingent from Anaheim visited elementary
schools, vocational schools and the many new facilities established since
Mayor Sagawa became the City's Mayor. Mito has 36 Council Members. He was
told their main problem is sewage and not transportation. The United States
dollar, at this time, is not worth very much in Japan. Mayor Sagawa sends his
regards to the Council and citizens of Anaheim.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: The following people spoke and expressed their
concerns or offered comments:
Walter Bormann, 2704 West Ball Road. (1) He did not agree with the Anaheim
Bulletin article yesterday which he considered unfair. He has been attending
Council meetings for two years and has never seen anyone who was willing to
stand before the Council be intimidated or embarrassed or anything else as
long as that person wanted to speak before the Council.
(2) He would like to know if there is a report regarding the ~150,000 the
Council approved to go to the Rediscover Anaheim group (Chamber of Commerce).
Councilman Pickler stated it was not 5150,000 but 550,000.
(3) Relative to Commercial Strip Centers in the CR area, it is his opinion
that a strip center is necessary and needed because there is no place in that
area where tourists can buy any necessities.
Bill Erickson, 304 East North Street. He is concerned that the starting time
shown for the various meetings (Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority,
Council) and public hearings are meaningless as printed on the agenda because
the meetings amd public hearings do not start on time.
984
179
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler. He (Erickson) is the only person who has complained about
times. It is not possible to put a time limit on discussions involving areas
of serious concern in the City.
Robert Zemel, Chairman, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. He complimented and
commended the Council for their decision on the Resolution of Support to
oppose the Gypsum Canyon Jail Site. The entire Coalition is very appreciative.
Mayor Bay. There never has been any doubt about the attitude on the Council
relative to their opposition to a Jail in Anaheim or in its sphere of
influence.
Roland Kruger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive. Santa Aha Canyon Road has become a
dumping site between Lakeview Avenue and Royal Oak and along other stretches
as well. Countless pieces of paper, bottles, cans, wire and all sorts of
trash are dumped even though there is an anti-litter law in the City.
However, there is not much done about implementing it. He suggests that the
Council consider sending a work crew out and periodically clean up the area.
Even though it will cost money, the scenic corridor is a unique and beautiful
resource and the City should try to keep it that way.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:10 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:23 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2160
(READVERTISED) - EXTENSION OF TIM~:
APPLICANT: Ralph Alexander (Sunwest Metals)
1874 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Requesting a three-year extension of time to retain
a recycling center on ML zoned property located at 1874 South Anaheim
Boulevard and continued from the meetings of September 1 and September 29,
1987 to this date.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-133 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2160 to expire June 22, 1990, and previously approved an
EIR-Negatlve Declaration.
HEAF~NG SET ON:
Appealed by Farano and Kieviet, attorneys representing Sunwest Metals.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 20, 1987.
Posting of property August 21, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 20, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 22, 1987.
985
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Clerk Sohl announced that a letter had been received from
Joan Allen of Farano and Kieviet; Mayor Bay noted that the
letter stated "...the above referenced matter be removed from
the agenda inasmuch as the matter has been resolved".
City Attorney Jack White.
Because the public hearing has been noticed, it is not
appropriate to remove it from the agenda. He suggested that the
Council go forward and hold the hearing. If no one is present
to speak, then the hearing can be closed and action taken.
Councilman Pickler.
He originally had a concern with the request for a three-year
extension. The issues of dedication and improvements then arose
and he was not sure why the decision was appealed.
Mr. White reiterated they should proceed with the hearing.
Members of the public or City Council may have issues they would
like to raise and they refrained from appealing it because it
was appealed by the applicant. It is appropriate those issues
the Council or public may have be addressed even though the
appellant is satisfied at this time and does not wish to appeal.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone was present to speak either in favor or in
opposition; there was no response.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler.
He would like the hearing continued another week so that a
report can be submitted by Code Enforcement regarding the
property. It is an area of concern to him.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager.
They have had a number of problems on that property in the past
few years. During the last six months, however, the property
has been improved greatly and there have been no complaints
during that time.
Coucilman Pickler.
He feels a three-year extension is too long but that one or one
and a half years would be sufficient.
Joan Allen.
On behalf of their client they would prefer to have the three
years. The client has remedied the problems that existed and
intends to maintain the property as it is supposed to be
maintained. The problem is the cost to have the client
repeatedly come in for an extension. In this case, the issue
has been before the Council three different times because it is
a matter of cash versus the Bond Ordinance.
986
177
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Discussion followed regarding the three-year extension. Council consensus was
in agreement with the extension; Councilman Pickler did not agree.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Ehrle, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Ehrle offered Resolution No. 87R-441 for adoption, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2160 (Readvertised) subject to all City Planning
Commission Conditions including the three year extension of time. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-441: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2160 (READV.).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-441 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 87-6A: In accordance with application
filed by Hill Williams Development Corporation, public hearing was held on the
proposed abandonment of a portion of an existing storm drain easement located
at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road,
pursuant to Resolution No. 87R-404, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and
notices thereof posted in accordance with law and authorizing the sale of said
portion of property to Hill Williams Development Corporation for $4,000.
Report of the City Engineer dated September 9, 1987 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment and the acceptance of the off%r received in the
amount of $4,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGOtLICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirements to file an EIR.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Mr. Richard Genzel, representing Hill Williams was present and stated
he was present today to let the Council know he was in agreement with
the abandonment and the sale.
987
178
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Bay closed the
public hearing.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-442 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 87-6A, and authorizing the sale of said portion to the
underlying fee owner. Refer to the Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-442: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF A STORM DRAIN EASEMENT LOCATED EAST OF WEIR
CANYON ROAD AND NORTH OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD. (87-6A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBEKS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood, Bay
None
None
Mayor Bay declared Resolution No. 87R-442 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VAKIANCE NO. 3695:
APPLICANT:
Peralta Ltd.
3150 East Birch
Brea, California
92621
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION_.' To construct a two-story, 40-foot high,
single-family residence on property located at 4851 Copa De Oro Drive.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: Resolution No. ZA87-20 granted variance No.
3695; determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemption, Class 5 as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
ttEARIN~ SET
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 15, 1987
Mailed to property owners within 300 feet - October 16, 1987
Posting of property October 16, 1987
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Pickler. The main concerns are the height variance
and whether such a variance will affect any of the homeowners in
the area.
988
i75
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Bill Knight, 922 Town and Country Road, Orange. He is the lot
owner and future builder of the house. The house is not a 40
foot structure. At one point it does go to 40 feet. The house
is 8500 square feet and over 7000 square feet is single story.
The bulk of the house is under 28 feet. It is 28 feet or less
and in many cases 26 feet or less. There are certain
architectural projections which require the height to be
greater than 26 feet. They want to build an authentic French
Chateau. Their plan is an enhancement to the neighborhood and
not a detriment. If they lower the towers, it will be a
detriment and rather ugly. Their lot, no. 10, is about 25 feet
lower than Nohl Ranch road. The property that oversees the area
is a condominium development to the south of Nohl Ranch Road.
Their property does not obstruct the view in any way.
John McGinnis, Architect. The house needs to have towers on
it. The majority of the house is 28 or 29 feet. Only one tower
is 40 feet and it comes to a point. If they drop down ten feet,
at 30 feet the width of the tower is only eight feet. The
height variance being proposed which involves the tower would
not hurt any neighbors behind Nohl Ranch Road.
Vic Peloquin, 280 Crisalta, Anaheim. In regard to the residents
that would be most impacted by the height variance, the
condominium project immediately to the south, a survey was done
by a licensed Civil Engineer relative to the pad elevations. He
then relayed the data that was gathered in the survey with
regard to the differential and pad elevation heights concluding
that the pad elevation of the condominiums are 582 feet and Mr.
Knight's lot (No. 10) is 480 feet. Therefore, there is not
going to be any obstruction with regard to the small pinnacle of
the 40 foot variance being requested.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN OPPOSITION:
Don Piliero, 411 Brook Lane. He is speaking for the homeowners
adjoining the development on the east side. They are against
any height variances requested and are submitting petitions
containing 21 signatures of the 29 homeowners who are opposed
(made a part of the record). They originally filed a petition
against Variance No. 3676 which was before the Planning
Commission which was a request for height variance of 40 feet
involving all 41 lots in the development. The request was
subsequently withdrawn by the developer. This opposition is
still present to any and all changes that would allow the
current 25 foot maximum height limitation for multi-story
dwellings to be exceeded. There is no Justification to any of
these requests because the lots are all flat in nature and have
no known construction obstacles. It would set a bad precedent
that would hurt some surrounding owners by diminishing the
quality of life through blocked views and reduced privacy. They
believe the variance requests are solely for commercial and
989
176
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
financial gain and should be denied. He also added that the
variance request is 40 feet but the rest of the house is 28, 30
or 33 feet which also exceeds Code. He cannot come to every
meeting so the home owners there have sent down that they want
no variance at this time that will affect their properties.
They could wear the residents out by coming in with these
requests one at a time. They cannot keep taking time off to
come and fight the variances.
SonJa Grewal, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. She first posed
a legal question relative to requests for variances and if in
the final analysis it is the Council's determination whether
someone's view is affected or not i.e., whether there is a law
involved or if someone can get a variance when they want one if
the Council approves.
City Attorney White answered Ms. Grewal; Mayor Bay clarified
that a variance has many Judgment factors and that a public
hearing before the Council is not a court of law.
Ms. Grewal asked then if the hardship could be anything; City
Attorney White answered the test is whether there are unusual
circumstances that apply to the land in this case, not generally
applicable to other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
The property itself has to be somehow unusual or different than
other properties. If it meets that test, it is necessary to
determine that unless the variance is granted, the property
would be denied a privilege other properties in the same
vicinity and zone are enjoying currently. Those are the two
criteria. There is a good deal of judgment and discretion that
is allowed. There needs to be substantial evidence in the
record to substantiate the decision the Council makes not
necessarily germane to those criteria.
Councilman Ehrle. With the number of lots in this project, the
type of homes that will be built in this development will
continually be coming before the Council for all kinds of
variances. He made a recommendation that they perhaps look at
the entire project, the height limitations and the entire area
as a unique situation. He is not certain he is ready to vote on
this or others that come in because it does affect adjoining
homes and the environment.
Councilman Pickler. He would not object to a continuance. If
this was going to block Mr. Piliero's view in any way, he would
have some concerns. The item today is a single family home that
will enhance the area as long as it is not adversely affecting
surrounding properties.
SonJa Grewal.
the property.
and reworked.
She is not saying that nothing should be built on
Unfortunately the land has already been destroyed
Their concerns as a Coalition are that the Canyon
990
173
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
General Plan has been compromised in the past and that the
Council needs to adhere to the Ordinances passed to implement
it. It does not seem realistic because the lots are flat.
Frank Liggett, 571 Peralta Hills Drive. He and some others in
the area object to the general request for variances on a
precedent basis. There are vacant lots all around them in the
Peralta Hills area and once the 35 or 40 foot precedent becomes
established, they may have 40 foot homes built next to them.
Also to be considered is invasion of privacy since 40 feet is
high as well as blocking of views. A variance was approved by
the Planning Commission involving a similar situation in their
area of Peralta Hills. Subsequently the Council denied the
request. Standards have been set and the potential buyer and
builder should know beforehand what he is up against. The
precedent is for the present home owner and future buyer.
After discussion relative to the possible precedent setting
effects of such variances, Councilman Ehrle moved that staff be
directed to look at the project in the 41 lots involved in order
to evaluate the situation in depth since it was likely that
every house would be coming in with variance requests which will
require a great deal of time and effort on an individual basis
and that a staff report be submitted within 60 days.
Before action was taken, Councilman Ehrle clarified that he does
not want any building to start until the report is submitted and
a course of action determined. Although there are guidelines
for the area, they are not being adhered to.
Councilman Hunter. He feels there can be some compromise and
favored a continuance; Councilman Pickler stated he is not
against a continuance but 50 days is too long.
Mayor Bay. The people in the hills are concerned about the
rules. If they are 'rubber" rules for every developer, there
will be violations for everything that comes in. If the Council
does not take a firm position, whether the height limitation is
goin8 to be Z~ feet or 40 feet~ how can they expect anythin~ but
to look at every single home that comes in when talking about
H~-22,000 size lots and homes of this magnitude and price. The
way to stop it is to say that 25 feet is the limit and they will
not get more. Then the architect will design accordingly. It
is necessary to put "teeth" in the height limitation set.
Councilman Ehrle. That is his point, to have staff say yes it
is 25 feet or not because of the unique situation. He feels
instead of 60 days that two or three weeks will be sufficient.
Councilman Hunter. What he feels the Council might want to say-
they want to direct policy as to what is going on out in the
hills and that is why a continuance is warranted. Otherwise, he
991
174
City Hall, Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
can see the issue coming back week after week not only in this
project but other projects. It is necessary that this area be
fine-tuned and that staff come back to the Council and say this
is going to be it. Then the Zoning Administrator will not have
to make the decision. If it falls within the guidelines
established, that will be the answer.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. What he envisions staff looking
at would be the pad elevations, they would need to do that in
cooperation with the studies referenced by Mr. Peloquin. They
can look at the pad elevations and the pad elevations of
surrounding properties if that is what the Council has in mind
so that in certain areas those height limits are not exceeded to
obstruct views from adjacent properties.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Vic Peloquin. At the time the application was filed, he was
still owner of the site and subsequently Mr. Knight has closed
title to his property and is now paying interest and his
architect is standing by. He (Peloquin) lowered lot number ten
by 26 feet. It was originally 506 feet in elevation and now it
is 580 feet. By doing so, it has created a hardship for Mr.
Knight in order to get the views. Just one small portion of the
residence is two story and there is no view into neighbors' or
residents' back yards. It is not environmentally impacting
anybody. Not one person lives in close proximity or can see the
house. It is not a hardship on the neighbors but to the
individual. A variance was granted at 571 Peralta Hills Drive,
at 563, 773 Peralta Hills Road, etc.
Councilman Hunter interjected and pointed out that is exactly
the point. Other variances have been granted and Mr. Peloquin
is now pointing to those variances as a reason why this should
be granted; Mr. Peloquin pointed out, however, that those
residents had other residents around them. In this case no one
is being impacted.
Hr. Knight. He is not building an oil derrick and is tired of
hearing people not even anywhere near the lot or affected by the
situation talking about precedents being set. He is present
only on one lot for one house. They should accept it or reject
it and look at it on its own merits.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
Councilman Ehrle. He withdrew his motion to continue the matter
for 60 days because the length of time is unreasonable.
Councilman Pickler. He set the matter for a public hearing
because he was concerned relative to the height variance. He
feels a two week continuance would give an opportunity to direct
992
171
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
staff to evaluate the matter further. He still believes
building that does not affect anyone else in the area is not a
problem. He does not feel they will be setting a precedent.
Councilman Pickler thereupon moved for a two week continuance of
the public hearing on Variance No. 3695. Councilman Ehrle
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated he is speaking against
the continuance. The variance went through the process of a
hearing before the Zoning Administrator in whom he has a great
deal of confidence, when looking at specific impacts on
surrounding residential. It would not have been approved if
there was found to be an impact. He also feels it is not going
to create an impact and in his opinion it will not change the
rules on the 25 foot limit in the hills. He is ready now to
make a decision on this individual development.
Councilman Hunter. He is going to vote for the continuance. It
is not Just on the basis of setting a precedent but also due to
the fact that a little bit of study now may save many hours
later while resolving the situation for the whole project.
Councilwoman Kaywood. No one is going to be impacted in this
case. She is not saying the Council is going to change the 25
foot height limit. The issue has been studied and re-studied.
She agrees with the Mayor that the Zoning Administrator is
highly qualified and looks at all aspects of a situation. She
determined there was no impact and thus approved the request.
This will not hurt anyone. The reason it was set individually
is to look at it individually. The Council should vote today.
A vote was then taken on the motion of continuance and carried by the
following vote:
AYES
NOES
ABS~{T
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter and Pickler
Kaywood and Bay
None
179/185: PUBLIC HEARING - ItECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-14, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2946, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 87-01:
APPLICANT: Hanover Real Estate Associates
9300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, California 90212
ZONING/LOCATION/REqUEST: For a change in zone from HL to CO, to permit
1,269,375 square foot commercial/office complex, including 56,000 square feet
of accessory retail uses, to be included within five buildings ranging in
height from 100 to 223 feet and three multi-level parking structures over a
ten-year, five-phase period, and Development Agreement No. 87-01 between the
City and Hanover Real Estate Associates relating to development of the
property, and Code waiver of minimum structural setback, on approximately 17.1
993
172
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
acres west of State College Boulevard, with approximate frontages of 1022 feet
on the south side of Katella Avenue and 302 feet on the north side of Pacifico
(1284 East Katella Avenue and 1301-1395 East Pacifico Avenue).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-191 approved Reclassification
No. 87-88-14, Resolution No. PC87-192 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2946;
recommended approval of Development Agreement No. 87-01; certified
Environmental Impact Report No. 271 and addendum as being in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and State and City guidelines along
with a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - October 15, 1987
Posting of property - October 16, 1987
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 16, 1987
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See extensive staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 14, 1987.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Senior Planner Mary McCloskey
will summarize the project and the findings.
Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner. She briefed the project and the
proposed action before the Council today as well as the
provisions of the extensive Development Agreement. (See subject
staff report which outlines the project in extensive detail.)
Relative to the Development Agreement which was forwarded to the
Council dated October 27, 1987, it has been amended to
incorporate all the Planning Comm~ssion recommended changes.
Subsequent to the Commission meeting, several other changes have
been recommended by staff as discussed in the October 20, 1987
memorandum, which in most cases are technical in nature and/or
provide consistency between the conditions and the Agreement
language. The Agreement reflects months of discussion between
City staff and Hanover representatives. It is staff's
understanding the Agreement is acceptable to Hanover. Also
submitted to the Council was an updated fiscal analysis. The
EIR Cost Revenue Analysis incorrectly reflected an approximate
1.§ million dollar positive annual revenue to the City due to a
computation error. With the updated analysis which will be
incorporated by reference into the EIR to replace the one
reviously provided, it is now estimated a net revenue of
317,000 annually at project buildout.
Mrs. McCloskey then spoke to the area-wide infrastructure
funding shortfall. (See staff report dated October 20, 1987 to
the City Manager/City Council - subject: Hanover/Katella Office
Park, from the Planning Director and City Engineer, which is a
supplement to previous reports submitted providing additional
staff recommended amendments to the Development
Agreement/Conditions of Approval, discussion of matrix
associated with the area-wide infrastructure funding shortfall
994
169
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
and an updated fiscal impact analysis.) As previously discussed
with the Council, implementation of the adopted level of
intensity, or Alternative Four in the Anaheim Stadium Business
Center, will result in a 536,000,000 shortfall for funding
area-wide improvements unless additional funding sources are
identified. This shortfall is part of a funding program
previously established following the completion of the Stadium
Area Studies. As identified in the EIR for the project, this
complex will cumulatively add to the need for those area-wide
improvements. The Planning Department has forwarded the General
Plan projections in a summary of existing and approved projects
to the Engineering Department. They have analyzed Hanover's
relationship to this shortfall and have developed a matrix
indicating Hanover's fair share contribution. Any requirements
which may be imposed on Hanover in this regard will need to be
reflected in both the Conditions of Approval and Development
Agreement prior to first reading of the Ordinance adopting the
Development Agreement. Engineering staff will discuss the
matrix and Hanover's relationship to the shortfall.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. He referred to the matrix
submitted along with the staff report breaking down the various
phases of the proposed development (see Exhibit A - Fair Share
Contribution Chart). He then explained how staff arrived at the
figures contained in the chart. In concluding, he stated the
Council may wish to have Hanover agree to pay the additional
fees as shown on the matrix in addition to the 54.12 per square
foot they will already be paying. He then clarified questions
posed by the Mayor relative to the fees and the shortfall (see
p. 2 of the October 20, 1987 staff report).
Joel Fick. The conditions that the Planning Commission added in
their resolution, unless an alternate funding mechanism is
implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit, then the
matrix would kick in at that point in time; Mayor Bay stated it
would give the City and Hanover time elements up to actual
building permits to look for a better solution.
Dennis Abramson, General Partner, Hanover Real Estate
Associates, 584 East Katella, developers of the project and
owners of both parcels. The property is extremely attractive at
present but they see a need to change the property to a higher
and better use. They also believe it will be a link between two
of the most important leisure activities in the United States,
Disneyland and Anaheim Stadium. The project consists of five
buildings phased over a ten year period with a total area of
1.25 million square feet. It will be phased in as the market
sees fit. It is their intention to retain the existing use on
the site - demolish what is needed and continue the tax base and
cash flow. He then described the project in further detail from
the renderings posted on the chamber wall. (Also see brochure
995
170
City Ha!l~ AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
of renderings and site plans - Hanover Anaheim Properties Master
Plan - followed by exhibits one and two of three, four a., b.,
c., d. and e. - made a part of the record.)
The staff report sets out clearly the intentions of Hanover - it
is accurate and they concur with it. They have reached full
agreement with staff on the Development Agreement and are
pleased to say after many years of working the project through
staff, they have satisfied themselves and the Planning
Commission that this project is one worthy of proceeding with.
The value of the project is $160 to $180,000,000 at present
dollar value which they believe will increase as time goes by.
It is an important contribution to the City as well as for its
tax base which, as indicated, will contribute in excess of
$300,000 a year in positive cash flow to Anaheim.
Staff has also re-studied the whole matter and the matrix
attached to the staff report indicates that Hanover will be
required to pay a further 53.15 which will bring the fee to
approximately $7.28 a square foot. They concur and agree with
the fee as a pro rem measure of seeing that the project moves
forward. He was pleased that the Mayor made the comment
regarding the fees and the need for further study to find other
ways of financing. It is not necessarily the role of the
developer to build the City's infrastructure. They would have
to reconsider at the moment of truth when they file their plans
whether their project could afford a 57.28 fee which is far
higher than any other fee in surrounding cities. He urged the
Council to look into the matter and try to create incentives for
developers in the area to encourage them to come to Anaheim.
They look forward to that happening soon so that they can plan
to fund the project.
Before concluding, Mr. Abramson thanked staff - Mary McCloskey ,
Senior Planner, Joe Fletcher of the City Attorney's Office, Joel
Fick, PLanning Director, Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer and
numerous other City officials. It was a pleasure to deal with
the City of Anaheim.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition; there was no response.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 271 AND ADDENDUM: Environmental Impact
Report No. 271 and addendum, having 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, does hereby certify on
motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Hunter, that Environmental
Impact Report No. 271 and addendum is in compliance with the California
996
167
City Hall~ Anaheim, Califormia - C0UNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Environmental Quality Act and City and State guidelines and that the benefits
of the project have been weighed against the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts and, pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA guidelines, the
occurrence of the significant environmental effects identified in EIR No. 271
may be permitted without further mitigation along with a Statement of
Overriding Considerations as recommended by the City Planning Commission.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The title of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Jack White. If it is Council's intention to incorporate
language into both the CUP Resolution and more particularly the Development
Agreement relating to the matrix and the additional fee to be paid, he would
recommend that be indicated as an addition to the Conditional Use Permit
Resolution and if that is their wish, he would then request that the Ordinance
be brought back to the Council next week for first reading after the
Development Agreement has been amended to include that language as well as
other minor technical language changes.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-443 for adoption approving
Reclassification No. 87-88-14 and Resolution No. 87R-444 for adoption granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2946 subject to City Planning Commission conditions
and an additional condition relating to the matrix fee. Refer to the
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-443: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-14.
~LESOLUTION NO. 87R-444: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. NO. 2946.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle,
C0UNCILMEMBE/S: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood, Bay
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-443 and 87R-444 duly passed and adopted.'
It was confirmed that the first reading of the Ordinance would be continued
one week to be amended as articulated by the City Attorney.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (5:18 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:32 p.m.)
997
168
City Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-12, VA1LIANCE NO. 3697 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Yosiko Yamane
2675 West Ball Road
Anaheim, California 92804
William Robertson
2775 West Ball Road
Anaheim, California
92804
ZONING/LOCATION/REqUEST: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, on
properties located at 2767, 2775 and 2785 West Ball Road (Ball Road east of
Dale), to construct a three-story, 77-unit "affordable" apartment complex,
with the following Code waivers: a. minimum building site area per dwelling
unit; b. maximum structural height; c. maximum site coverage; d. minimum
sideyard setback; e. minimum structural setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-187 approved Reclassification
No. 87-88-12 and Resolution No. PC87-188 granted Variance No. 3697; approved
EIRNegative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and public hearing set this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - October 16, 1987
Posting of property - October 15, 1987
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 16, 1987
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 14, 1987.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned with the request for
five waivers even though some are not major; the size of some of
the apartments being so large that two or more families could
live in them and the affordable units having a 20 year term
instead of 30 years. She feels that density bonuses are simply
a ploy to get higher density and when the time limit has
elapsed, there is high density with no affordable housing. She
'also wanted to know how many bathrooms were in the units.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Hugo Vazquez. Each unit is provided with two full bathrooms
with two or three bedrooms. They do not allow two families to
share a unit but two individuals or a maximum of three in a two
bedroom unit - two adults and a child. They try to establish a
reputation of quality development by going to additional
construction costs to build a larger unit that is not available
in the market place. This project is going to be their
"flagship" project. They plan to own and manage it as well. It
998
165
City ~11~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27t 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
is the intention to retain ownership of at least the 77 unit
project on Ball Road. The only request they have made is to
have the ability to sell the Dale Avenue piece separately from
the Ball Road piece but they will continue to manage the project
as one entire complex.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She reiterated her main concern is the
number of people who will be living in the apartments.
Hugo Vazquez. He is not opposed to a limitation on the number
of people who can reside in a unit. If the Council wants to
limit it to three he has no problem with that. He has 24
projects in the City and his reputation as a developer is
important to him as well as his reputation with the Council.
Jack White. A condition could be added if the project is
approved relative to the variance that would provide that the
property owner would record an unsubordinated covenant against
the property that would provide that not more than three persons
shall reside in any individual unit and that covenant would be
approved by the Anaheim City Attorney to be recorded prior to
issuance of occupancy permits.
Mayor Bay. He recalled that such limits have been set in the
past by a covenant set up on the title. He does not care how it
is done. The concern arises when the property changes hands and
there is no covenant set up with a limitation of occupancy by
the owner.
Councilwoman Kaywood. On the three bedroom units and two
bedrooms and den it is unrealistic to have a limit of three
people. She suggested four.
Further discussion relative to certain aspects of the project
followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Vazquez. Greg
Hastings, Senior Planner, also explained relative to parking
there was some confusion at the Planning Commission since a
portion of the project was previously a portion of another
project. On~ of th~ Planning Commission's ideas was to reduce
the number of units or increase the parking. There is no
parking waiver on the project. The Planning Commission
instituted a condition that the parking meet the needs according
to the Code or the number of units would have to be reduced to
where there would be no parking waiver.
Public discussion in favor, none. Public discussion in
opposition, none.
Council discussion followed relative to the limitation of
occupancy and the most reasonable number to be allowed in a
unit. It was determined that four per apartment as a limitation
was a reasonable limit and Mr. Vazquez stated that would be
999
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
acceptable even for the three bedroom unit since their
experience has shown that only in less than ten percent of the
new projects are there children involved.
Mayor Bay. An agreement can then be worded limiting occupancy
to four per unit; Councilwoman Kaywood also wanted to tie the
posted rendering to the project if approved.
Hugo Vazquez. He explained that the rendering depicted a port
de cochere entrance which is not now allowed because it will
encroach in the front setback. However, he is going to be
submitting an application through the Planning Department for
the port de cochere and that would be the only difference in
regard to the rendering. Otherwise he has no problem with the
rendering being tied into the project.
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.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS:
read by the City Clerk.
The title of the following resolution were
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-445 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 87-88-12 and Resolution No. 87R-446 for adoption granting
Variance No. 3697 subject to City Planning Commission conditions and an added
condition relating to limitation of occupany. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-445: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-12.
RE~0LUTION NO. 87R-446~ A REg0LUTION 0F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3697.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood, Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-445 and 87R-446 duly passed and adopted.
179/179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-16~ VARIANCE NO. 3701
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Helen M. Cameron
917 East North Street
Anaheim, California 92805
1000
163
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
ZONING~LOCATION/REQUEST: For a change in zone from RS-7200 to I~-1200, to
construct a two-story, eleven-unit apartment building, on property located at
917 East North Street, with the following Code waivers: a. maximum
structural height, b. maximum site coverage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-202 denied the
Reclassification and the Variance; approved EIl{negative declaration.
HEAKING SET ON:
Appealed by Newport Construction, agent for the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICE KEQUIKEMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anahetm Bulletin - October 15, 1987
Posting of property - October 16, 1987
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 16, 1987
PLANqiING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 28, 1987.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Magdy Hanna, Newport Construction, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard,
Newport Beach. It is a very nice project in an area that is in
a recycling stage. He then submitted a copy of a rendering of
the project. It is an 11 unit apartment project on North Street
which is surrounded by multi family and single family homes.
The home owners in the area have been living there for some
time. The units will consist of two bedrooms and two
bathrooms. All parking requirements have been met.
Hal Marshall, Architect, Newport Construction. The project has
28 parking spaces - six open and 22 covered or 2.5 spaces per
unit. There is no on-street parking. The General Plan for the
area is medium density to low density which is RM-1200 or
KM-2400. It is adjacent to RM-1200 on the north side. The home
on the west side is not in opposition to the project and is
intending to request rezoning at some future date. The home on
the east is currently a business and it is not used as a
residence to their knowledge. The pro3ect meets all standards
except for the height due to RS-7200 next door and across the
street. The direction of the neighborhood appears to be going
to apartment projects. There is a need for economic and
physical renovation of the neighborhood.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Tim Foster, 710 North Bush. The area needs renovation but they
need help from the City. He is trying to improve his property.
He does not know how the City is going to control the number of
people living in apartments when they cannot control the number
1001
164
City Hall, A~mheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
of people living in houses. One house has 13 people living in
it. He has tried calling the Police and Immigration. The
residents believe there is a "drop house" across the street from
his house. They were told nothing can be done.
Trent Wilson, 1001 East North Street. He lives on the property
adjacent to the proposed apartments. They protested the
apartments at the Planning Commission hearing and presented a
petition with 50 names in opposition. The Planning Commission
unanimously turned the project down. He is present at this
meeting to again lodge his protest against the proposal for
apartments in the middle of the block on the north side of North
Street. He has a list of 146 people who are against the
apartments representing approximately 80 percent of the block.
The proposed apartments will more than double the cars and
people on that side of the street. The single family residences
are important to the neighborhood. He urged the Council to vote
no on the proposal.
Catherine Lingle, 715 North Bush Street. She is an original
owner in the area (33 years). A few years ago the City allowed
apartments to be built on Mavis Street, not zoned for
apartments, and Mavis quickly became a slum-like area which
generated many problems. The apartments to the west were
followed by another group to the south on Sycamore. It has not
been safe to walk those streets for years. A number of single
family homes in the area are being used as co-ops. Sometimes
there are as many as ten cars per house. Apartments with
off-street parking are necessary to a town or city but being
adjacent to single family homes can only be a catalyst for
trouble. Apartment dwellers are generally uninterested in
surrounding neighborhoods. The area is totally unsuitable for
apartments. It is already a congested area. She has with her
some pictures that one of the neighbors took, who was unable to
be present today, showing cars that are parked in the
"driveways" of the duplexes across the street from the Seven
Eleven Store. They are actually parked on the sidewalks. It is
not even possible to walk on the sidewalks. The proposed
apartments will be next to that area. They will not be an
improvement to the neighborhood.
Before concluding, Mrs. Lingle expressed concern that only one
person received notification of the public hearings; City
Attorney Jack White explained the procedure for notification of
public hearings which is done in three ways in the City of
Anaheim.
Frank Guevara. At the Planning Commission hearing one of the
Commissioners voted against the project because North Street
could not handle the traffic, it is difficult to make a left
hand turn on East and North Street and the area is a single
family area with the proposed apartments to be built in the
1002
161
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
center breaking up that area. He has lived in the area for 22
years. Home owners have applied for loans from the City to
improve their residences and the neighborhood looks nicer now.
The proposal is only going to lower property values and will
disrupt their lives.
Koldan Daves, 725 North Bush. Everything they would like to say
comes down to one word - hardship. This project will generate
more traffic and more density. Placing more people into the
area will not help the area. There are a number of houses now
with very large families and staggering numbers of children who
primarily play in the streets. A prospective buyer would not
buy in the neighborhood because of the situation and that will
cut into his profit if he should ever decide to sell. People
have lived in their homes for at least 30 years and many are on
fixed incomes and cannot afford to move someplace else. The
area has one of the largest crime rates in the City. It is not
fair or right.
Carol Wilson, 1001 and 925 East North Street. She submitted to
the Council copies of the petitions in opposition previously
referred to containing 146 signatures. Her comments relate to
the Anaheim General Plan. This is a major threat to the
existence of their single family neighborhood. Most of the
homes have been well maintained and upgraded in recent years.
They do not believe the area is in transition or necessary for
recycling. While the City is sending the owners and residents
one signal with its low interest loans, it is sending the
developers quite a different signal with its designation on the
Anaheim General Plan of the area as RM-1200. The full meaning
and impact of Anaheim's General Plan for or on behalf of the
interests of apartment developers in Orange County has been
discovered and understood by them. RM-1200 developments for
them mean many dollars. If they keep that designation for their
area, the Council is telling the developers theirs is a
transitional neighborhood or ready for recycling. Piecemeal
intrusions in RM-1200 zones in areas like theirs are almost
certainly tickets to disaster. They would like to request a
review of the General Plan and its many ramifications for their
area.
Lynn Nagel, 724 North Vine. She bought her house in 1954. She
explained the many problems they are faced with in their
neighborhood and relayed specific incidences. At present there
are 33 people living in one house and 35 in another. She urges
the Council not to allow the apartments to be built.
Keith Oleson, 321 North Philadelphia. They will be creating a
huge social impact on the neighborhood if they allow 11 units in
place of RS-7200. He cannot accept the idea that there can be
any rebuttal to the idea that this development is inappropriate
and wrong and it should be denied.
1003
162
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Magdy Hanna. He answered some of the concerns expressed. The
project is a beginning where they can control the number of
people who will be living there by signing a covenant limiting
occupancy. Mr. Wilson lives two houses down from the property.
The house next door is used as an office so there is no impact
on Mr. Wilson's house from the project. The house to the west
is in favor. North Street is wide enough and the Traffic
Engineer has indicated that the traffic can be accommodated.
Once the new project is built, property values will increase.
The quality of the project will enhance and improve the area.
There will be an on-site manager and they will not allow more
than one family to live in an apartment. Two bedroom, two bath
apartments renting from ~750 to ~775 a month are badly needed in
the City.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood. The only control will be to require a
limit on occupancy at the time of approval. She agrees with
Planning Commissioner Herbst who said this was spot zoning
surrounded by single family residences. She empathizes with the
people who live in the area and with the fact that they have had
to come to three hearings in a month. Mr. Hanna does build very
nice projects but this is the wrong spot with single family
residences on both sides which will change that neighborhood.
It is unfair to those living there.
Councilman Ehrle. He has been in that area for many years and
was in Mr. Wilson's house when he was 14 years old. The area is
a transitional one. He disagrees with Commissioner Herbst
because he does not see the proposal as spot zoning. There are
apartments almost abutting the proposed apartments. The problem
is not North Street but Mavis Street and the City has to clean
up that area. The proposed project is a beginning of upgradn§
the neighborhood and the area where it will increase surrounding
property values.
ENVIKONMENTAL IMPACT KEPOKT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Ou motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The title of the following resolution were
read by the City Clerk.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
1004
159
Cit7 Hall~ A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-447 for adoption, denying
Reclassification No. 87-88-16 and Resolution No. 87R-448 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3701. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-447: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-16.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-448: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3701.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood, Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-447 and 87R-448 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Ehrle stated that he will still work with the neighborhood to get
the other street cleaned up.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked that staff investigate those areas where it
was reported that there were many people living in one dwelling.
Greg Hastings. Code Enforcement had already been made aware of the situation
when the matter was heard before the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn to Thursday, October 29, 1987 at
7:30 p.m. in the Grand Lobby of the Anaheim Convention Center for a Joint
meeting with the Community Center Authority and The Anaheim Union High School
District Board of Trustees. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (7:18 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SO}IL, CITY CLERK
1005
9
City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 11:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular
session (of October 20, 1987)
PRESENT: COUNCIL MFRBF/~S: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler, Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: ClTY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PROGRAM, DEVELOPMENT AND AUDIT MANAGER: Ron Rothschild
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
CAPTAIN, POLICE DEPARTMENT: Randall Gaston
A complete copy of the agenda for the adjourned regular meeting of the Anaheim
City Council was posted at 4:15 p.m. on October 23, 1987 at the Civic Center
kiosk, containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the adjourned regular meeting of October 20, 1987 to order at
11:12 a.m. on October 27, 1987 and welcomed those in attendance to the Council
meeting.
106: RECOMMENDATION FOR BALANCING THE FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Mayor Bay.
The Council, in attempting to balance the budget is dealing with
a ~6 million dollar deficit. Negotiations are in progress that
may help to alleviate the situation. He would like to go
through some of the proposed cuts listed in the City Manager's
memorandum of September 11, 1987. He asked if they are still
looking for $5 million or $6 million to totally balance the
budget.
Ron Rothschild, Program Development & Audit Manager.
If they covered the full debt from the Hilton Hotel and financed
any expenditure in the public safety package, the figure would
be a little better than $6 million. The hotel problem itself is
approximately $5.7 million.
Councilman Pickler.
They are working on the hotel situation and the problem may be
resolved in a month or two. He is concerned they are getting to
a point in the budget where if they keep cutting further it will
be a detriment to the City.
Mayor Bay.
Everybody on the Council would like to find a way to proceed
with the capital improvements on Police 2000. However, the
Council has to find a way to make the payments on the
Certificates of Participation (COP) that cover the capital
expenditures in the Police Department. An item still to be
964
10
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 11:00 A.M.
discussed is whether they need to double the size of the Jail or
not. He would like to look at some recurring cost reductions,
those without a great deal of impact so that they could proceed
on the Police Capital Improvements.
Councilman Pickler.
Either they cut or find a source for Police 2000 or hold off on
Police 2000 until they determine their source to finance it.
Cutting services is something he does not want to see done.
Mayor Bay.
He does not agree they have the alternative of holding off on
Police 2000 since money has already been borrowed for the
Certificates. He does not see a new revenue source without
increasing taxes in the City and that is not an alternative as
far as he is concerned. They have to do the work on the police
station; whether they do all of it or not is a viable
alternative.
Councilman Hunter.
He has looked again at the business license tax. He Just paid
his which was $25 and $9 for one employee. The proposal
previously presented on the business license tax would have cost
him ~3,000 to ~4,000 which is not equitable either. Perhaps for
rofessional and other categories it could be ~250 or ~500. A
25 business license tax is "dirt cheap . He is in favor of
doing something reasonable and equitable with the business
license tax to raise revenues for Police 2000.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The present $25 business license tax is total nonsense. It
should be a revenue source and the business community should be
helping the City for the services they receive. She questions,
compared to other cities in the vicinity, where Anaheim stands.
The business license tax is a fair and equitable way to pay for
Police 2000 and she would make a motion to that effect.
Mayor Bay.
He is not dead set against something like that if it is fair.
The request for 44 personnel that came in with the budget for
the Police Department including new jailers for an expanded Jail
will add a large increase to the cost. Thinking along the lines
of a revised business license tax that is fair and equitable
will yield about $500,000 a year or more. Applying that number
against the payments on the Certificates would only be a partial
payment Just for the capital plant without talking about manning
the police station.
Councilman Ehrle.
There are two different issues. Relative to capital
improvements, he feels there is a consensus to move forward with
those. There is also in process the beginning of a management
965
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 11:00 A.M.
study which will be telling the Council whether it is necessary
to have 40 additional .employees, 62 or 10, whatever the number
might be. He is in favor of proceeding with the capital
improvements; the personnel issue will be reported to them after
the study is complete.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The Police Department is using temporary modular buildings that
are falling apart and must be replaced. Buying new temporaries
would be putting good money after bad. If they do not act now,
the cost is going to escalate. Relative to the items of
possible reduction, the whole Vision 2000 Program would be
"thrown out the door." She also wants to put an end to the
massive reports on travel and meeting expenses that were
requested to be submitted. (Later in the meeting, Councilwoman
Kay~ood reiterated her request that there be no more reports;
Mayor Bay directed staff not to provide Councilwoman Kay~ood any
more reports but that he still wanted to receive his).
City Manager Bob Simpson.
There are decisions that have to be made quickly. Setting aside
the personnel request as part of the 5-Year Plan (Public Safety
Package) the cost of the police building itself levels off at
about an average of 32 million per year. That is the debt
service payment to support that. There may be some economies to
be realized by holding off on certain portions of that building
but he thinks it is penny wise and pound foolish. If they move
forward with Police 2000 without an identified revenue stream
and assuming even if the budget gets balanced by the end of this
year, it will still cost 32 million that will have to be found
someplace. The cuts are not proposed by staff but are offered
for consideration by the Council and they are offered on the
basis that they are cumulative cuts. They will continue to be
cut for ensuing years. There are enough to offset the 32
million projected payment for the Certificates of Participation
but many relate directly to public safety. It is a paradox to
be cutting public safety to support public safety and from
staff's standpoint it does not make sense. There are only "X"
number of dollars that are discretionary out of the General Fund
budget. About 60% of the General Fund is used to support public
safety in one method or another. Certain of those funds are
obligated to be paid so that the monies that are discretionary
to handle Police 2000 diminish dramatically without an
identified revenue source. Many of the cuts offered are not
only substantial in nature, but are in areas that are very
sensitive. For press information, the reason they did not
publish the information to the press but treated it as
information to Council is because they saw no need to raise
everybody's concern on cuts that may or may not be made. It was
not an attempt to withhold anything from the press but these
cuts are made selectively across the board and not randomly.
966
8
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 11:00 A.M.
George Ferrone, Finance Director.
There are three critical dates that the Council needs to know.
In working with Bond Counsels on moving forward with the
project, if they do nothing, their limitation to the bond
documents is that all monies must be spent by August 1, 1988.
If they proceed and take no action, that is the deadline. On
August 2, 1988, they will have to use whatever proceeds are left
to buy back Certificates of Participation. The City has the
option to request a one year extension. Therefore, no later
than July 10, 1988 it will be necessary to request from the Bond
Counsel and the Trustee authority to extend the construction
cycle one year. The third critical date then is August 1,
1989. If the extension is requested, they would have until
August 1, 1989 to spend whatever funds for these various phases
of the project and then would have to buy back Certificates at
that point. The projections currently from Police Department
management is that they will be ill-pressed to spend the money
if they get a go-ahead today by the August 1, 1989 deadline. He
will need Council approval to extend that for one year.
Yesterday he received the report for the month ending
October 30, 1987. What has been expended to date through the
end of October is $5,038,000. The original budget for the
Police Department, all five phases is $16,818,220. Actually
spent through the end of October is $5,038,213. The total
budget remains the same, $16,818,220. In order to finish the
first two phases, the information system and the communications
center, they are spending an additional $300,000 and that will
complete those projects. That leaves $11,500,000 where they
would have the discretionary ability to buy back bonds if they
chose to do so.
Additional questions were posed to Mr. Ferrone wherein he
reported that the contract amount they are obligated to spend is
$575,000 for all the remaining phases of the project. It is
ready to take to bid, if Council approves, in 30 days. No
principal payments will have to be made until the next budget
year (1989/90). If they went ahead and committed the whole
capital project it would be slightly less than $3 million a
year. It is a 20-year issue except for CAD (Police
Communications System) which is five years. It would drop to
$2 million after the CAD system issue is paid for. He clarified
that they are looking for $2 million a year on average to pay
for the Certificates to do all of the capital improvements.
Discussion then followed between Council and staff relative to
ways and means of supplying a revenue source to cover the $2
million during which City Manager Simpson explained that staff
has put together information on the business license tax
containing two proposals but this will not produce near the
amount it would take to pay for Police 2000. The other revenue
source is the utility tax. If Council is interested, staff can
bring that back for consideration as well. On the first page of
967
5
City Hall~ Auaheim~ California - COUNCIL'MINUTES - October 27, 1987, 11:00 A.M.
the September 11, 1987 report are the cuts already made. Staff
has not reco,-,ended any cuts that would have a deletory effect
on service levels in the community but others are going to have
an impact as indicated on the subsequent two pages of the report.
Randy Gaston, Captain, Police Department.
They have looked at the prospect of replacing the temporary
buildings which are well beyond service. The cost to replace
them is approximately $650,000 a figure they received this
morningwhich is a base cost. They would have to relocate what
exists there now and have to come in and bring the new buildings
up to code which will cost approximately another $250,000 or a
total of $900,000 in a one time cost. The present buildings
have never actually met code. Replacing the temporaries would
be a one-to-one expansion and it would not alleviate the
problems in the main facility. The Department is running into
problems of getting the Job done every day because of space.
Mayor Bay.
The decision has to be made - are they going to go ahead and
spend the money or turn it back and pay off the Certificates and
not do what the past Council voted to do. That decision was
based on a very high priority for the Police Department - that
police are number one in the City. The Fire Department was also
a number one priority. Police and fire protection are the two
major responsibilities of City Government. He, for one,
supports going ahead and doing the Council work. They do not
have the luxury of months more to make that decision. As
Councilwoman Kaywood, he does not agree putting good money after
bad. He also agrees with Councilman Ehrle that they cannot make
a decision on the personnel for Police 2000 until the present
study is complete. He does not think that the investment in
capital improvements in the Police Department will be a waste
over a long period of time or that what they plan to do for
$16 million is going to be a waste against 20, 30 or 40 years.
He suggested that they can go through some of the projected cuts
on the two pages referred to by the City Manager and talk about
them by number.
Councilman Hunter.
He would rather go ahead with the capital improvements and then
to find some revenue stream, a business license or utility tax
vs. going through the list and making decision that they will
later regret.
Councilman Pickler.
Police 2000 is something that is definitely needed. He wants to
go ahead with the capital improvements and then determine where
they are going to get the funds. He does not want to go through
the proposed items one by one and cut those.
968
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL'MINUTES - October 27~ 1987~ 11:00 A.M.
Mayor Bay.
The total cuts are ~2.7 million or approximately 2.7% of the
General Fund. He does not agree that is a big serious cut and
he cannot see the resistance to discussing them publicly. The
Council should be talking to mana§ement about the things listed
since they do not want to do so publicly. He is in agreement
relative to the police capital improvements because he thinks it
would be penny wise and dollar crazy now that the commitment has
been made not to go ahead with those. A way must be found to
pay for them. He feels they can find cuts in order to come up
with the ~2 million.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler. He feels the consensus is that they go ahead
with the Police 2000 capital improvements. He thereupon moved to approve the
total capital improvements on the Police 2000 Project. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Bay asked the City Manager if he
wanted to hold up any part of that such as the Jail until after
the study was complete.
City Manager Simpson.
They would like to go ahead with all the engineering work
necessary for the Jail. His understanding is the decision can
be delayed on the actual construction but they would like to
include the architectural and engineering portion. He also
stated relative to proposed cuts, staff is not encouraging or
discouraging the cuts. With the decision the Council is about
to make, they are going to spend another ~2 million a year in
General Fund monies. If the Council does not make the cuts now
and they do not identify a revenue source, staff will bring back
to the Council on June 30, 1988 and June 30, 1989 a balanced
budget which will of necessity have cut enough out of the budget
to accommodate the ~2 million in obligations. They will make
the cuts because staff will bring the Council a balanced budget.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to proceed with the
Police 2000 Capital Improvements at a cost of ~16,800,000. Councilman Bay
abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
George Ferrone.
He asked for clarification if their instruction to him is to
request the one year extension on the building; the answer was
yes.
Councilman Pickler expressed concern that the Mayor spoke in
favor of the capital improvements and then abstained when voting.
Mayor Bay.
He was not going to try to stop it because he felt there was a
consensus. It is obvious that there are wide differences of
opinion on the Council and whatever the Council majority
969
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 27, 1987, 11:00 A.M.
eventually decides, that work is going to have to continue until
there is a consensus on whether there is going to be a
combination of cuts and new taxes, or new taxes with no cuts.
It will be necessary to get to a point to come to that decision
and they cannot wait forever to do it.
Councilman Pickler.
If the Mayor has reasons why they should not go ahead, he was on
the verge of going either way. He would like to know that now
or perhaps he too, should reconsider and abstain or vote no. He
does not understand the Mayor's vote.
Mayor Bay.
He was not part of the vote that approved borrowing the money.
He was very much against proceeding before a revenue stream had
been determined. His view has not changed but looking at what
they are already into and deadlines that have to be met else the
funds have to be handed back, he came to the conclusion that
there was no alternative. That is why he did not speak strongly
against going ahead. The choice is always going to come down to
whether they are going to increase taxes to make payments, or to
make cuts.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is shocked by the lack of leadership with the Chair. If it
will not cost a lot of money to do so, she would like to know
what the delay of four months in making this decision has cost
the City; no action was taken on the foregoing request.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:13 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
Councilman Ehrle seconded
970