1986/07/15City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
(Councilwoman Kaywood entered at 1:50 p.m.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Ron Bates
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CONVENTION CENTER GENERAL MANAGER: LymnThompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Don Dexter, 1st Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: 'PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
Chemistry Week in Anaheim, September 7-12, 1986.
Mayor Roth welcomed 21 German exchange students who were present in the
Chamber audience. The students had earlier toured the Civic Center. The
Mayor, on behalf of the Council and the City, wished the students a pleasent
and productive stay in the United States.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pickler moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 36,707,811.56, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
119: INTRODUCTION OF THE CONVENTION CENTER GENERAL MANAGER: City Manager
William Talley then formally introduced to the Council Mr. Lynn Thompson, the
newly appointed Convention Center General Manager.
566
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth welcomed Mr. Thomspon.
Mr. Thomspon then thanked the Council and stated that he appreciated the
support given him thus far. He will continue in the fine tradition that has
been set in the past.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 86R-330 through 86R-333, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Del E. Webb Corporation for indemnification
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 25, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by Rudy Salazar for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 18, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by Daniel Edwards Freis for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 10, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Nellie Irene Atkins for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 21, 1986.
Claims filed against the City - recommended to be allowed:
e. Claim submitted by Manual Estrada Medina for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December, 1985.
f. Claim submitted by Frank A. Terranova for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 27, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company (File
No. B-181443-05-RWB) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about April 23, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company (File
No. B-181143-05-RWB) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about April 23, 1986.
i. Claim submitted by Frank A. Lowry Jr. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 23, 1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of June 11, 1986.
567
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
3. Approving the following applications in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police.
a. 108: Public Dance Permit, Jesus M. Frias, Empresa Frias, to hold a
dance at the Anaheim Convention Center, July 19, 1986 from 6:00 p.m. to
1:00 a.m.
b. 108: Public Dance Permit, Gary Allen Nelson, E1 Torito, Who-Song &
Larrys Cantina, 2020 East Ball Road, to hold a dance, July 23, 1986, 9:30
p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
4. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the eleven
months ended May 31, 1986.
5. 180: Approving the offer of Rollins Burdick Hunter, Broker of Record, to
extend and amend the City's excess workers' compensation insurance coverage,
underwritten through Employer's Reinsurance at an auditable premium of
$85,000, for the period July 1, 1986 to July 1, 1987.
6. 123: Authorizing an First Amendment to Maintenance Agreement with
Personnel Research Center at a cost of ~65 per hour for additional services in
connection with the re-evaluation of certain clerical positions.
7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Korn/Ferry International at a cost not
to exceed ~14,000 for recruitment services to fill the position of Power
Resource Planning Engineer.
8. 180: Approving the offer of Rollins Burdick Hunter, Broker of Record, at
an annual premium cost of $45,789.84, to place the City's order for aviation
liability, for the coverage in the amount of $20,000,000 per occurrence,
underwritten through Southern Marine and Aviation, Inc., for the period July
1, 1986 to July 1, 1987.
9. 123: Authorizing an agreement with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Companies for a period of six months.
10. 123: Authorizing Local Agency-State Agreement No. 3740 with the State
Department of Transportation and the City of Fullerton, with the Anaheim share
not to exceed $12,075, to provide for the installation, financing and
maintaining of traffic control signal system and safety lighting at the
intersection of Lemon with State Highway Route 91.
11. 123/160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to Montgomery Elevator Company in an amount not to
exceed $56,677.50 for the repair to Gate 5, freight elevator #3, at Anaheim
Stadium and authorizing execution of an amendment to the Standard Terms and
Conditions.
12. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corp., in an amount
not to exceed $100,000 for ten used passenger vehicles.
568
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 15~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
13. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-330: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAI~Y ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(LINCOLN AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT) (Account No. 11-790-6325-E0560, J & J
Sewer Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion
therefor)
14. 160: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-331: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE
AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DIVISION.
15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-332: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
16. 123: Retroactively approving an agreement with The Equitable Life
Assurance Society for the term January 1, 1981 through December 31, 1983 and
an agreement from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984 with automatic 12 month
renewals, to provide for a Total and Permanent Disability Benefit Program, at
a cost of ~250, ~275 and ~300 for each initial determination; and ~85, ~95 and
~100 for each continuation determination for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986
respectively.
17. 174: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter endorsing the Housing
Authority's application for 100 units under Section 8 of Title II of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and a statement certifying that
any relocation payments made as a result of the Moderate Rehabilitation
Program will be funded under the Community Development Block Grant Program,
and be in compliance with Section 882.407 of the Moderate Rehabilitation
Regulations.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-330 through 86R-332:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Kaywood
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-330 through 332, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
150: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANAHEIM WETLANDS AND THE SANTA
ANA RIVER BICYCLE TRAIL: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best
responsible bidder, Challenge Engineering, Incorporated, in the amount of
$439,154.60, for the construction of the Anaheim Wetlands and Santa Ana River
Bicycle Trail.
Councilman Bay stated he did not oppose the Wetlands construction necessary
for the development of the auto center on the Shorb Wells property in the
canyon area north to the Santa Aha River Bicycle Trail. However, he cannot
vote in favor of the action because it is being partly funded out of the
Certificates of Participation Issue of Project C. He does not support voting
569
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
to spend money on Certificates of Participation where the revenue stream has
not been identified. He has consistently opposed such financing on issues
that are not enterprise issues with no revenue streams.
City Manager Talley explained when the project was added to the Certificates
of Participation Issue, it was done with a specific designation that the
additional sales tax generated by the auto sales companies would be more than
sufficient to pay for the added amount to the Certificates of Participation
not only for the Wetlands, but also the auto center project itself. There
would be sufficient additional sales tax generated from the auto center sales
to more than pay for issuing the Certificates and creating a sales center.
Mayor Roth asked if there were any problems at present relative to the land
for the auto center on the Shorb Wells property in the northeast area.
Recently at a Sanitation District meeting, the Mayor of Yorba Linda, Mike
Beverage told him that Yorba Linda was holding some "trump" cards. He would
like a response from staff within the next couple of days advising the City
Council if there was any merit to the statement made.
Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, stated there were no problems he
was aware of with any of the northeast area auto center projects but there has
been an issue identified on the Ball Road project.
City Manager Talley stated he was aware of what Mayor Roth was talking about
relative to Yorba Linda. It was, in his opinion, another instance of an
unprofessional act by that City that in no way affects the decision being made
today or the project. A report will be submitted to the Council on the
matter. He then answered questions posed by Councilman Overholt on the issue.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-333 for adoption, awarding a
contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Challenge Engineering,
Incorporated, in the amount of ~439,154.60, for the construction of the
Anaheim Wetlands and Santa Aha River Bicycle Trail. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-333: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (CHALLENGE ENGINEERING,
INCORPORATED).
Roll Oall Vote~
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-333 duly passed and adopted.
181: ANAHEIM ARTS COUNCIL - RECEPTION AT PEARSON PARK THEATRE: Councilman
Pickler moved to authorize the AnaheimArts Council to serve champagne after
the closing performance of "Hello Dolly" in the Pearson Park Theatre on
July 19, 1986, as recommended in memorandum dated July 9, 1986. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
570
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
118: ALT.OWING PAYMENT OF CLAIM: Councilman Pickler moved to allow payment of
the claim to Manuel Medina in an amount totalling $23,000. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
156/142: ORDINANCE NOS. 4736 AND 4737: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance Nos.
4736 and 4737 for first reading.
135/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4736: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
SECTION 6.32.026 TO CHAPTER 6.32 OF TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO BRANDISHING REPLICAS OF FIREARMS.
135/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4737: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
SECTION 1.16.025 TO CHAPTE~ 1.16 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO TRESPASSING ON THE CITY GOLF COURSES.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held June 23, 1986, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2798: Submitted by Charles Hance, to permit an
automotive sales and service center facility and retain an outdoor storage on
CL zoned property located at 808-820 West Vermont Avenue, with Code waiver of
minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-167, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2798, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-39 AND VARIANCE NO. 3574: Submitted by Grace
Losty, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a
63-unit apartment building on property located at 2642 West Lincoln Avenue,
with Code waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-168 and 169,
granted Reclassification No. 85-86-36 and Variance No. 3574, and granted a
negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-40 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2816:
Submitted by James R. and Shirley A. Needham, for a change in zone from
RS-7200 to RM-1200, to permit the construction of a 9-unit senior citizen's
apartment project on property located at 1028 E. North Street, with Code
waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-170 and 171,
denied Reclassification No. 85-86-39 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2816, and
granted a negative declaration status.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3572: Submitted by Sterik Company, to construct an
additional 20,045 square feet of retail space to an existing commercial
shopping center on CG zoned property located at 120 East 0rangethorpe Avenue,
with Code waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces.
571
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-172, granted
Variance No. 3572, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3573: Submitted by Sterik Company, to construct an
additional 17,800 square feet of retail space to an existing commercial
shopping center on CL zoned property located at 121 North Beach Boulevard,
with Code waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-173, granted
Variance No. 3573, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2811: Submitted by Ferszt Investment, Inc.,
(Orangeview Convalescent Hospital), to permit the 30-bed expansion of an
existing convalescent hospital on CL zoned property located at 1720 Orange
Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Maximum structural height, (b)
minimum structural setback, (c) required site screening, (denied).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-175, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2811, and granted a negative declaration
status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2813: Submitted by Stadium Enterprises, to
permit automotive detailing in an existing industrial building on CL zoned
property located at 1015 East Katella Avenue, Unit F, with Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-177, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2813, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2817: Submitted by Dennis and Edith Berger, to
permit an outdoor storage yard on CG zoned property located at 1120 West
Lincoln Avenue and 1203 West Center Street, with Code waiver of minimum number
and area of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-179, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2817, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1036--TEKMINATION: Submitted by Htpoint
Development, Inc., to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 1036, to permit a
rest home in an existing residential structure on property located at 1226 and
1272 East La Palma Avenue, as a condition of approval of Reclassification No.
84-85-40.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution PC86-180, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1036.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2692--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Hillman
Properties West, Inc., (East Hills), requesting an extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2692, to permit a 3-story, 57-foot 6-inch high
commercial office building on property located on the northwest side of
proposed Riverview Drive, with certain Code waivers.
572
City Hall, Auaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2692, to expire March 29, 1987.
11. VARIANCE NO. 3575: Submitted by Doyle E. and MarJorie L. Smith, to
establish an 8-lot, RS-7200 single-family subdivision on property located at
1643 and 1651 West Cerritos Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a)
Required lot frontage, (b) minimum lot area, (c) minimum lot width and
frontage, (d) permitted orientation of structures.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-174, denied
Variance No. 3575, and granted a negative declaration status.
The City Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2812: Submitted by Richard L. Muckenthaler, L.
A. Muckenthaler Trust, to permit a transmission repair facility on CL zoned
property located at 1601 West Crescent Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum
landscaped setback area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-176, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2812 for two years to expire June 23, 1988, and
granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2814: Submitted by D and D Development Co.,
(Raffle's Hotel), to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an existing hotel
clubhouse on CR zoned property located at 2040 South Harbor Boulevard, with
Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-178, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2814, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood in letter dated July 15, 1986 received before 5:00 p.m. that day since
she was not present at that morning session of the Council meeting.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4735: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4735 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4735: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass 84-85-17, RM-1200, 2902 West Ball Road)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Kaywood
573
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4735 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4738 AND 4739: Councilman Roth offered 0rdinance Nos.
4738 and 4739 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4738: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFFARED TO IN TITLE 18 0F THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reelass. 85-86-01, RM-1200, east side of Citron Street,
south of Lincoln Avenue - formerly Fremont Jr. High site)
ORDINANCE NO. 4739: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFER/tED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRLATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-36, CL, 890 South Anaheim Boulevard)
144: EASTERN-FOOTHILL CORI{IDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEETING: Councilman
Bay reported on the subject meeting held Thursday, July 10, 1986 also attended
by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority at Irvine City Hall. One of the
agenda items was the selection of an Executive Director who will be serving
both Authorities in the beginning. The other significant item was a written
position from the City of Irvine that was considered by some to be almost an
ultimatum to both Authorities that they would not be members and would not
participate unless certain specific conditions were met by the Authority which
included downgrading the San Joaquin Corridor to arterial streets through
Irvine and some other conditions which were received at the time of the
meeting. A motion was made by Supervisor Nestande to reject those conditions
and at the same time, in effect, put Irvine out of the Joint Power Authorities
and not even give them the privilege of voice in the meetings. He (Bay) voted
no along with Santa Ana and Tustin but the motion passed and the action
taken. He did so because when they received the information, he did not have
an opportunity to study it or look at possible alternatives or potential
strategies that might have been worked out to keep the door open. The action
implied that the Joint Powers Authority was closing the door on Irvine and
further negotiations do not seem plausible. The Joint Powers Authority
position is that Irvine is out until they change some of their views and ask
to come back in.
CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION: Councilman Bay recalled that a few weeks ago
he had requested information and opinion on Certificates of Participation and
their relationship to the intent of the City Charter. He a~kedwhen that
information was going to be submitted.
City Attorney Jack White stated he has researched back to the original Charter
Committee and read the minutes of those meetings. He has also researched the
files available in the City Clerk's Office and is now in the process of
compiling the last remaining piece of information he will need to submit a
report to the Council. He anticipated it would be ready two weeks from today
and that the Council would have received it by that time.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be
held to consult with the City Attorney regarding:
574
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
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.
b. To confer with the City's designated representative regarding
labor relations matters pursuant to Gov't. Code Section 54957.6
c. To confer with its attorney regarding matters of potential
litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent.
MOTION CARRIED. (10:40 a.m.~)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:50 p.m)
153: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT -
UTILITIES EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY I.B.E.W.: Human Resources Director, Garry
McKae, introduced the proposed resolution and recommended its adoption.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-334 for adoption, establishing
terms and conditions of employment for employees in classifications assigned
to the Utilities employees unit represented by I.B.E.W., Local Union No. 47,
repealing Resolutions 84R-72 and 84R-458. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-334: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMpLoYEES IN CLASSIFICATIONS ASSIGNED TO THE
UTILITIES EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 47 REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. 84R-72 AND
84R-458.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth commended Mr. McRae and also the members
of I.B.E.W. in bringing the matter to a conclusion within the limits that the
taxpayers and Council could accept. Mr. McRae and his staff did an
outstanding job as well as the City Manager and representatives of the I.B.E.W.
A vote was the~ taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-334 duly passed and adopted.
127/129: HEARING - FIREWORKS: To discuss the use and potential ban of safe
and sane fireworks in the City of Anaheim by the public. This matter was
discussed at the meeting of July 8, 1986 (see minutes that date).
575
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
City Clerk Leonora Sohl, read the motions that were made and seconded at the
meeting of July 8, 1986 which were still before the Council:
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood - - That the Council place on the
November' Ballot the question of whether or not there should be a ban
on the sale and use of safe and sane fireworks in the City of Anaheim
excluding professionally staged displays. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion.
MOTION: Councilman 0verholt - - That the City Attorney prepare an
ordinance banning the sale of fireworks inAnaheim and subsequently
Council to hold public hearings on that ordinance at the conclusion
of which the Council will make a decision as a matter of public
safety relative to the proposed ordinance. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion.
Subsequently, a motion of continuance was offered by Councilman Pickler and
the matter was continued to this date.
Mayor Roth stated he seconded the motion by Councilman Overholt last week for
the purpose of having some discussion. The Council subsequently heard from
those who wished to speak last week. At this time, he is withdrawing his
second because he is not interested in having hearings and then make a
determination. The action now reverts back to the original motion made by
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Councilman Overholt asked if there was another second to the substitute motion
he had offered. There was no second. He then asked for clarification on the
basic motion whether the ballot proposition would result in an automatic
decision or be advisory to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that she intends that the result be automatic.
Whichever way it goes is the way the Council would have to act; Councilman
0verholt stated he did not believe it would require any action of the Council
whatsoever.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that whatever the outcome, that shall be the law
of the City. The Council takes no action. The question will be yes I want
fireworks or no I do not want fireworks. ~he did not want any confusion.
Councilman Overholt stated, based on the outcome of the vote that would become
the law of the City without regard to any Council action whatsoever;
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was correct.
Councilman Bay stated it is time that the Council debated that fine difference
between that type of vote and an advisory vote. If it has an effect of
placing a binding decision on this Council and future Councils, he asked the
City Attorney to explain how that would be done and if it could be done.
City Attorney Jack White explained there are two ways to put an item on the
ballot in a Municipal Election. The first is an advisory measure simply
worded. A yes would mean that the Council would be advised that the people
576
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
wished to continue fireworks in the City or no they do not. The second way
would be an initiative measure that the Council can either place on the ballot
voluntarily or that the people can initiate through a signature method. That
proposal, if adopted by a majority of those voting at the Election would then
become binding. It would be worded as any other ordinance in the City and
would not be subject to being amended or appealed except by another vote of
the people. At this time, he is not prepared to give a final answer relative
to the wording. If it is a binding measure, the wording of the ordinance
would be drafted by his office and the Council would have that wording prior
to the August 8, 1986 deadline for submittal to the County.
Councilman Overholt asked if the ballot proposition results in an immediate
law in the City to either ban or not ban fireworks is it true that it would
not preclude a future City Council from again bringing up the issue and
considering the possible change of that ordinance.
Mr. White answered that a subsequent City Council could bring up the issue and
could again place it on the ballot. The City Council could not merely chan~e
the ordinance if the people through the initiative process voted the ordinance
through. To make any change to that ordinance, if adopted, would require that
the City Council or people initiate the change and allow it to be voted on at
another election. The people would decide to change it or repeal it.
Councilman Bay stated the Council could then not overrule, without a vote of
the people, the same as something in the Charter. The Council should consider
the fact that if the choice is to go to a binding vote that is how it will
be. He was not against that because he feels it is important that the people
of the City make that decision. He does not know where the majority is but
will know that after the Election.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the reason she was asking that it not be an
advisory vote if the majority of voters indicated that they wanted fireworks
banned and the Council decided they did not believe it was a true vote,
nothing will have been accomplished by placing the question on the ballot.
Councilman 0verholt was concerned if the vote in November is that fireworks
will be legal in the City, there will be no further consideration by the
Council as a result of putting the question on the ballot as an absolute
measure rather than an advisory measure.
Councilman Pickler stated if it is going to be put on the ballot~ it should be
the final vote of the people until changed by another vote of the people. Ne
also noted there were many people in the audience that would testify on the
issue which has been done many times before. As far as he was concerned, he
was Joining Councllwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay to place the issue on the
ballot.
Councilman Overholt stated he also supports the motion since his substitute
motion failed. He does not favor this way of doing it. He would rather see
the Council assume its responsibility. He indicated even though he had
opposed a ban in the past, he is leaning strongly in favor of a ban at this
time particularly because of the recent fire. Although he was going to
577
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
support the motion, he had grave concerns because he feels it will not result
in a ban of fireworks in the City and he believes the time has come to have
fireworks banned.
Councilwoman Kaywood re-emphasized the wording she was looking for is a yes or
no ballot vote whether to continue the sale and use of safe and sane
fireworks. She asked if the vote were to be no was the City Attorney saying
there could not be an ordinance because it was negative.
City Attorney White answered no. He has not even started drafting the
document. He was only indicating Just as a preliminary thought in drafting
the ordinance and ballot measure, the initiative measure would be, in effect,
the people voting on whether to adopt a new ordinance and that ordinance would
have the effect of changing the current Code to ban fireworks. It may be
difficult to fashion the language that goes on the ballot in a way that will
indicate that a yes is a yes to continue the current ordinance whereas a no
would be the adoption of the new ordinance banning fireworks.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the wording is crucial; Mr. White stated his
intent is that the language will be crystal clear.
Councilman Overholt stated knowing the only issue before the Council is
whether or not the issue should be put on the ballot, perhaps there are some
people who would like to speak to the matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be glad to hear from them as well but
first would like to take a vote on her motion; Councilman 0verholt stated he
would be opposed to having a voten take before those who wished to speak were
heard. The public was told they would be given an opportunity to speak.
After Council discussion on the matter, City Attorney Jack White clarified for
Councilwoman Kaywood that a motion to consider the question is a motion of
precedence which is non-debatable. It would require a 2/3's vote to carry
under normal procedural rules or four out of five Council Members.
Mayor Roth clarified that the vote to be taken would be calling for the
question of not taking testimony and proceeding. A vote was then taken and
failed to carry by the f0110win$ vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood and Pickler
Bay, Overholt and Roth
None
The public was then invited to speak to the issue with a request that the
subject be limited to the issue of whether or not the question should go on
the November ballot.
578
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Walter Borman, 270 West Ball Road.
He would like first to see an ordinance adopted by the Council
to ban fireworks. If the Council votes to allow the sale, those
who do not want fireworks could go through the
petition-initative process that would then go to a vote of the
citizens.
Joseph LaRoche, Brookhurst Village Board of Directors.
The 684 residents of the complex want fireworks banned except in
controlled situations. He asked that the issue be placed on the
ballot.
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street.
He read a prepared letter to the Council. He is concerned with
the safety aspect involved with fireworks, noting that there are
many wood shingle roofs in the City. He would like fireworks
banned in the City.
Edward Widtfeldt, Pyrotechnics, 2349 West La Palma Avenue.
If the decision is to put the issue on the ballot, it should be
prefaced properly, i.e., should State approved safe and sane
fireworks be allowed in the City of Anaheim.
Agnes Erickson, 301 East North Street.
Fireworks should be banned or the question placed on the
ballot. (She submitted for inspection the remains of fireworks
that ended up in her yard on July 4, 1986).
The following people urged that the question be placed on the ballot: Eileen
Anthony - Amberwick Lane; Don Johnson - 2122 West Juno; Cal Friesen - 1140
Boden; Ralph Marrero - 1250 Beach Blvd.; Jan Billings - 1769 Goodhue.
Hertha MacLachlan, 219 East North Street.
She would like the Council to make the decision to ban fireworks
but if not the question should be put on the November ballot.
Jerry Reeves, 1879 West Cerritos.
There is still one year before fireworks come up again. They
did not know what the wording was going to be. He questioned
why the rush to put it on the ballot. (Also see Mr. Reeve's
testimony given at the meeting of July 8, 1986).
Mayor Roth then asked that the motion again be read and a vote take.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood - - That the Council place on the November
Ballot the question of whether or not there should be a ban on the sale and
use of safe and sane fireworks in the City of Anaheim excluding professionally
staged displays. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
579
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked the fire Chief to comment on what she
considered to be mis-statements made by a member of the Fireworks Industry at
the meeting of July 8, 1986 (Michael Nason, California Pyrotechnics
Association). He stated when there is a ban of safe and sane fireworks, there
are then more illegal fireworks.
Bob Simpson, Deputy City Manager and Fire Chief answered there are less
fireworks shot off if there is a total ban based on a survey done by the
California Fire Chief's Association and California State Firemen's
Association. He also had an opportunity to look at the fireworks that were
presented by Mrs. Erickson and there was a mix of legals and illegals in the
group. Legal fireworks can be altered. Safe and sane fireworks are not very
exciting but what makes them exciting is when they are altered.
Later in the meeting (8:00 p.m.) Councilman Overholt questioned the City
Attorney relative to the placement of the fireworks issue on the ballot.
There was some discussion from the City Attorney with respect to the impact of
people voting on that ballot. If the electorate voted to ban fireworks, what
power, if any, would the City Council after such a vote, have to change what
the people have decided. If the electorate voted not to ban fireworks, what
power, if any, would the Council have. His understanding at the time was,
there may have been some confusion that the Council would be powerless. He
questioned what the power of the Council would be in either case.
City Attorney Jack White explained the current Code permits safe and sane
fireworks to be sold and discharged within the City. The ordinance to be
prepared to be placed on the ballot would be an ordinance to amend the Code to
ban the sale and discharge of safe and sane fireworks. The electorate would
be voting on whether or not they wished to adopt that ordinance banning
fireworks. If the electorate, by a majority voted in favor, fireworks would
be banned. Under law, since that ordinance had been adopted by the people of
the City, it could not be repealed or amended by any subsequent City Council
but only changed by another vote of the electorate. On the other hand, if the
people do not vote in favor of adopting the ordinance banning fireworks, that
would only place the City in exactly the same position as it is today. The
City Council would still at that point in time or any subsequent time have
legal authority to adopt an ordinance dealing with fireworks in any manner the
Council saw fit including banning fireworks. He will probably be asking if
the Council wants that in the ballot measure or in the analysis.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:07 p.m.)
179: PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON SUBTERRANEAN PARKING IN MULTI-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood stated the City has allowed underground
parking 4 feet or 5 feet underground which has been in effect for
approximately a year. She has asked staff to submit a report because it
appears to be something that is very detrimental. She was going to ask that
there be a moratorium on additional projects with underground parking.
58O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay stated he was ready to listen because some time ago he asked
for information from staff but he did not think the public hearing schedule
should be interrupted in order to discuss the matter.
Later in the meeting, (7:15 p.m.) Councilwoman Kaywood stated she requested
staff to submit a report on the issue to prevent what was occurring from
happening again. With parking 4 feet underground, developments were looking
right into existing single-family homes. There are many neighborhoods
literally destroyed because of the situation. She would like to see a
moratorium on such developments until staff could come up with the proper
wording. The probability is that no more than 18 inches and possibly 24
inches would be allowed. To go to underground parking they would need to go
the full distance below so that ventilation and noise does not invade the
single-family residential areas. A couple of these proposals were denied by
the Council and the developer subsequently turned around and went in with just
minor adjustments and built almost identically to what had been denied without
any conditions because somehow it met Code by stretching the imagination as to
what was permitted.
Councilman Bay stated he had made a request of staff some time ago.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated there was a request
last year and the Code was amended to attach a height footage requirement to
2-stories. What they did was put 25 feet on a 1 and 1-1/2-story, 30 feet on a
2-story and 35 on a 2 - 1/2-story. They bmve had two different kinds of
instances arise basically because the garage is considered a basement and a
basement is not considered a story until more than half of it projects above
the finished grade of the site. In a garage situation it means that 4 feet
projects above the grade of the property and one of two things happens; One
is that the first floor of the apartments is 4 feet above ground, thus being
able to see over 6-foot fences; and the other is that when the basement
garages are close to property lines, and they can be up to as close as 5 feet,
there is the possibility that they will have open wall sections. The concern
has been that there will be noise and fumes that come across the property line.
Councilman Bay stated when RM-1200 is put next to RS-7200 there are all sorts
of buffer zone requirements. He questioned how they were getting 1 and 1-1/2
or 2-story KM-1200 next to RS-7200 with only a 5-foot side yard clearance.
Miss Santalahti stated the 5 feet is a possibility when it is a blank wall and
there are no windows or doorways in the wall, 5 feet to a habitable space so
that a window to a garage or a space is not counted. The condominium zoning
has a lesser setback requirement; Councilman Bay conceded it was a loophole.
Mayor Roth stated he did not have an objection to looking into the matter and
then getting a staff report. He was concerned over the issue of any kind of
moratorium on projects and progress. It was necessary to receive information
from staff before any such action.
Councilman Pickler was concerned that between now and the time staff submitted
a report there might be ten other projects in the works. If there was a
581
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
problem, it was necessary to find out from the City Attorney if there was
something that could be done.
City Attorney Jack White stated the Council has the legal prerogative to adopt
a moratorium ordinance any time they wished while considering changing certain
aspects of the Zoning Code. Moratorium is an urgency ordinance that would
require four votes and it must be read in full at the time it is adopted. If
the Council is contemplating doing so this evening, he would need some time to
write the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the specific instance she was referring to was a
development denied by the Planning Commission and the Council. The builder
turned around and said he was going to make the objecting homeowner's life
miserable and he did. She does not know how many more have slipped through
since then.
Councilman Bay stated it was necessary to have all the specifics of the
situation in order to know what they were talking about. It was too much to
expect the Council to stop everything without drawings, sketches, etc.
City Attorney White stated his recommendation is that the Council have an
ordinance written and acted upon this evening or continue the matter for one
week.
During the interim period, he understands there is only one application
pending that is in final stages of plan check that would potentially be
affected by the adoption of an ordinance. Based on the comments he has heard,
he is comfortable with delaying the action for one week. He also recommended
if the matter was discussed any further that it be done in Closed Session.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over any delay.
After further discussion, Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9B1. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:00 p.m.)
No action was taken on the foregoing issue at this time.
111: I-IATJ~WEF_J~ PAKA/)EAND FESTIVAL: Mayor Roth referred to a memorandum
dated June 23, 1986 received from Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation
and Community Services, regarding the Halloween Parade specifically the last
paragraph asking direction from the Council on the course of action staff
should take. He was concerned over the implication that the Halloween
Festival might not take place this year.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had spoken with Arlene Taormina who felt
that she and Andrea Manes might take the leadership role for the 1986 Parade.
582
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt felt if the Halloween Festival was not held this year it
may never be held again. He suggested that they try to get greater
participation on the parts of groups that were involved. He was supportive of
doing whatever had to be done to keep the event going.
Councilman Bay stated if there is no interest from the private sector to make
it happen, he was not one to say that government should make it happen. There
had to be private support as in the past. If there was no Halloween Festival
one year due to lack of private support, the following year there might be a
lot of support to bring it back. It is very late to start on the parade at
this time since the flow time is already past.
Councilman Overholt stated they all agreed it is not government's job to tell
the private community what to do but he feels that he Festival is one of the
more exciting things the City does. If they let it die, it is his judgment it
will not start again.
Mayor Roth stated to let it fall by the wayside, without making some concerted
effort to hold the Festival, would be wrong.
Councilman Overholt suggested that they take some action next week to perhaps
appoint a task force and in the meantime try to come up with some ideas.
Councilman Pickler asked for information from the Parks and Recreation
Department.
City Manager Talley stated that the Department is saying they do not have
funds available, that it has always been a community, rather than a
City-staged event, and the Department is not contemplating gearing up for the
Festival.
Mayor Roth emphasized it was important for Council Members to talk to
community leaders about the importance of keeping the Halloween Festival and
Parade going. It was important that they seek volunteers, talk to the Chamber
of Commerce and other service organizations. It was determined that the
Halloween Festival and Parade be continued and discussed by the Council at
their meeting of July 22, 1986.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2756 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Orange County Steel Salvage, Inc.,
3200 East Frontera Road,
Anaheim, Ca. 92806
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To permit temporary outdoor storage of shredder
waste and dismantled automobiles on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 3200
East Frontera Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution PC86-32 denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 2756 and denied an EIR - negative declaration status for the project.
583
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by George Adams, Orange County Steel Salvage. This matter was
continued from the meetings of March 18, April 15 and May 20, 1986, to this
date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 6, 1986.
Posting of property March 7, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 7, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Planning Department Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
January 20, 1986 and report of the City Attorney dated March 14, 1986,
recommending that the City continue to cooperate with the Department of Health
Services (DHS) and other agencies in seeking to remove the hazardous waste.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Philip Anthony representing Orange County Steel Salvage (OCSS).
They have tried to keep the Council informed by various copies
of letters since the last meeting. They have been pursuing the
definition of discharge requirements that would be appropriate
for putting the shredder waste in a local landfill. At the
present time, the President of the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board has directed its staff and communicated
with the County requesting information to put together those
discharge requirements. The Orange County Waste and Toxic
Management Commission is also requesting the County to ask for
the discharge requirements. The County has not chosen to
formally ask for those requirements. As promised at the last
meeting, Orange County Steel Salvage has started removing part
of the waste to a landfill site in Arizona. Unfortunately in
late June, 1986, OCSS was notified by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to stop taking the shredder waste to
Arizona because of the still unresolved PCB question. It is
extremely frustrating that the PCB issue is still pending
because that is the cloud covering all of the possible locations
for getting rid of the waste and moving it out of the City.
OCSS has been working with the Department of Health Services
~DOHS) and EPA for some months trying to get agreement on
exactly what kind of testing should be done, who would do it and
how it would be done to put to rest the question of whether or
not there is a PCB problem. In the tests done so far by DOHS,
the average results came out a little bit above the level of 50
parts per million. O~ the test results by OCSS Consultants, the
average came out somewhat below the 50 parts per million.
Nobody is willing to accept those early test results as being
conclusive. He referred to letter dated July 14, 1986 to Mr.
James McNally, Program Manager, Toxic Substance Control
Division, California Department of Health, Los Angeles
(previously made a part of the record), documenting the meeting
of Thursday, July 10, 1986 with the Health Department, EPA and
representatives from the Regional Water Quality Board. In the
584
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
letter they have tried to suggest what they feel would be a
better sampling method. Until the question is resolved, the EPA
is not going to let OCSS or anybody else move the waste
anywhere. What they are prepared to do, with the Health
Department watching and participating as they wish, is to
perform sufficient sampling and testing to decide to everybody's
satisfaction the correct answer to the PCB issue. The letter of
July 14, 1986 brings the whole situation up to date.
Another key item, at the request of the Regional Water Quality
Board, OCSS had testing done to determine if any of the
contnmtnants in the shredder waste pile had migrated into the
soil beneath the pile and be a possible threat to Water
Quality. The July 1, 1986 letter (Phase I Site Assessment) from
their consultants Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton reports that there has
been absolutely no migration of either lead or PCB's beneath the
surface of the ground underneath the pile. It is an
authoritative report which clearly points out that there is no
present danger to the people of Anaheim and Orange County from
the contaminants getting into the groundwater. OCSS has tried
to put all the information they have together, lay it at the
doorstep of the Health Department, waiting hour by hour for
their response. He reiterated if they do not hear from them in
the next couple of days, they are going to proceed and carry out
the testing along the lines suggested in the July 14, 1986
letter with professional help.
Mayor Roth.
He is disappointed in that at the last hearing the Council gave
Mr. Adams considerable time to come up with a solution. He
requested help at the time, requesting that the Councilwrite
letters to assist in bringing about some action. Letter dated
June 24, 1986 from Angelo Bellomo, Chief, Southern California
Section, Toxic Substance Control Division, Department of Health
Services in response to his (Roth) letter of May 23, 1986,
stated in part, "He has refused to comply with the law because
he does not wish to spend the money necessary for compliance.
It has been the Department's position to assist the City of
Anaheim in any way possible to alleviate the waste problem. To
that end, we have been working closely with your Code
Enforcement Office and City Attorney's Office. Your statement
is therefore an inaccurate description of the present
circumstances." He is, therefore, concerned about granting
another continuance at this time. Mr. Adams also stated he
would provide the Council with reports on the amount of "fluff"
removed from the site. However, the amount of "fluff" has again
increased. He wants to assure the citizens of Anaheim that the
Council is doing everything in its power to assure the safety of
the citizens as well as their water supply. The issue before
the Council today was whether or not to approve the CUP on one
of the subject parcels. If Councilman Pickler should call for
an order to show cause hearing why the existing permits should
585
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986, 10;00 A.M.
not be revoked, he was wondering if they would then see some
solution to the problems.
Discussion and questioning of Mr. Anthony by Council Members
followed. During the discussion, Councilman Bay stated there
were two things he could not understand and wanted to know the
answers to, (1) why the tests were not accomplished by July 10,
1986 and, (2) why the Council has received no reports at all
during the two month period on what was being trucked off the
property as promised.
The answer to No. 1 is in the July 14, 1986 letter. He does not
know the answer to No. 2.
George Adams, Jr., Orange County Steel Salvage.
Relative to the reports, he has all the weight tickets with all
the loads. After he got "shot down" in shipping the loads to
Arizona, he discontinued them. They had hauled approximately 35
loads to Arizona when they were cut off because of the PCB issue.
Mayor Roth.
He asked if there was now more "fluff" on the property than at
the time of the last Council meeting on May 20, 1986.
George Adams, Jr.
They generate about 50 tons a day or two truck loads a day.
Their goal is to try and haul off two truck loads a day. Yes,
they do have more "fluff" on the property today than at the last
hearing. They need to have their pile tested for PCB's.
Recycling is very necessary to the State and City. Shipping the
material to Casmalia does not solve the problem, it kills
recycling. If it is found that PCB's in the waste are over 50
parts per million, they are probably going to shut down the
shredder but they will definitely not come back and ask for an
extension of time. However, shutting down will mean there is no
place for "Junk" cars to go. They are going to take their own
tests.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED;
None
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council denied 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 substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
586
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - C0UNCILMINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-335 for adoption, upholding the
findings of the City Planning Commission and denying Conditional Use Permit
No. 2756. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-335: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2756.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she agreed
with what Mr. Adams said regarding recycling and where the cars
will go but she shares everybody's concern with the shredder
waste pile growing to a larger amount with nothing moving off of
the property. If all agencies are not in accord on the testing
methods, the results are not going to be accepted and the
situation will be the same as it was in the beginning.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of denial.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-335 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler moved that an order to show Cause Hearing be
set as to why the existing CUP's covering the subject property
should not be revoked.
City Attorney Jack White confirmed that would be on both
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1703 and 2525.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. He indicated that the
hearing should be set five weeks from today. The Council is
taking a bold action by denying and upholding the Planning
Commission's denial on Conditional Use Permit No. 2756. The
motion on the floor will require that OCSS prove why their
~business should not be shut down. It is a very serious matter.
The Council is deeply concerned regarding the shredder waste and
the health and safety iSBUe involved. There is also no question
as to the need for recycling today. He is hoping that within
the five week period, OCSS can come forth with a solution to the
issue. The situation is one which needs immediate and drastic
action.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion clarified as follows:
That an order to show Cause Hearing be held as to why Conditional Use Permit
Nos. 1703 and 2525 should not be revoked, setting the date and time for such
hearing as Tuesday, August 19, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED.
587
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2810 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Talat Radwan/Abraham Ali
27182 Soledad,
Mission VieJo, CA. 92692
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a convenience market with gasoline
sales and off-sale of beer and wine, on CR zoned property located at 1198 West
Ball Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission Resolution No. PC86-153,
denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2810; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by TalatRadwan, Avery Oil Company.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 4, 1986.
Posting of property July 3, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 3, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Leslie Kyle, 439 Via Lido, Newport Beach, Ca., Agent for the
applicant.
They are appealing the Planning Commission's decision of denial
based upon the findings that the Commission did not agree with
the concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages with gasoline
sales. The information provided in the staff report continues
to be erroneous as it was when it went to the Commission in that
there are at least three sections of the Code that do allow for
them to apply for a CUP in the CE zone for this type of use.
The description and purpose of the CR zone is intended to
provide for and encourage the development of retail businesses
directly related to the business of entertainment, housing or
supplying services to the tourists. This is what they are
proposing to do with the subject development. One of the major
reasons they chose to locate on the subject corner is due to its
proximity to the RV Parks. She thereupon submitted a map
showing the location of the proposed development in relation to
existing RV Parks in the area. The business is intended to be
operated by a minimum of two employees at any given time with
additional help that may be required from time to time. It is
intended to be open 24-hours a day with emphasis on serving the
needs of travelers and tourists. Beer and wine sales activity
would not be 24-hours a day but would end at 2:00 a.m. Mr.
Radwan's other existing facilities have always represented a
substantial upgrade for their sites and far exceed development
standards for the zone. This development complies with all
development standards. The project would include demolition of
588
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
the existing service station buildings with retention of
underground tanks. The station would be replaced with the
construction of an approximate 5,000 square foot "L" shape
building as depicted in the rendering. The pump island would be
modified so that it would be angled on the property. Access is
by two driveways with two existing driveways to be closed.
Circulation on and off the property would be adequate and
superior to what is existing now. On site parking would be
provided for 28 spaces. While there are other markets in the
area, they are much smaller and do not offer the services nor
the product line to be offered by the proposed facility. There
is no other larger market in the immediate area. Relative to
the issue of gasoline and beer and wine sales, their position is
that beer and wine is available in many locations. Nomatter
where a customer purchases beer and wine, they have to get back
into their cars and drive off. Rather than taking a limited
prohibition approach, they encouraged enforcement of existing
laws and the passage of legislation which is hard and difficult
and results in swift Justice. They also advocate educational
programs.
Sharon Zuscar, 24825 Daphney West, Mission VieJo, Ca.
She submitted a petition signed by herself indicating that she
had done the foot work involved in connection with the
signatures on the petition. She spoke to over 900 residents
within the immediate area of Walnut. Everybody she spoke to was
in favor of the change to the convenience market. The petition
was 31 pages containing approximately 20 to 35 signatures on
each page. She thereupon submitted the petition (made a part of
the record).
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Omar Hemali, 944 South Brookhurst.
He is in favor of the convenience store. Because it will be
open 24-hours a day, this market will be easy and convenient.
Ken Lawson, 1201 Cerritos.
He is in favor of the convenience store for the beauty of it,
for the people they will employ, four people all three shifts,
and for the convenience. He has been to other facilities Mr.
Kadwan owns. His prices are reasonable on some of the products
he sells, he goes to a lot of expense to make his facilities
beautiful, they are strict in checking ID's for alcohol
purchases.
Hutardo Buenrostro, 1381 South Walnut.
He is in favor of the business and likes the idea.
Lavonne Conyer, 1221 West Street.
She is in favor of the market. It is an improvement for that
area. It is convenient to be able to buy gas and groceries at
the same time. The market will be open 24-hours which will make
589
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the area light at night. The street is wide and there is no
traffic congestion problem at the location.
Vincent Buckmelts, 1607 Memory Lane, Santa Ana.
Mr. Radwan's facilities are architecturally attractive.
Commented on the Planning Commission's objection to liquor and
wine. It is important instead to look at the positive aspects
of such requests.
A.K. Joshi.
He lives about one mile from the proposed market.
good idea to have that market in the area.
It would be a
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She noted that nowhere on the petition submitted in favor did it
say the market would be selling beer and wine. She also noted
signatures from Garden Grove, Fullerton, Amarillo Texas, Orange,
Brea, etc. The Council had to be concerned with those who were
regular full-time residents of an area.
Sharon Zuscar.
She is sure she stated verbally that beer and wine was being
proposed if it was not written on the petition. Many of the
signers work in Anaheim and there were people from out of state
as well, the people who were going to be using the convenience.
She then narrated a slide presentation which showed various
locations owned and operated by Mr. Radwan.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Betty Ronconi, 1241 South Walnut.
She submitted a petition of those in opposition who lived in the
immediate area and from Walnut Manor which was in addition to
the petition submitted at the Planning Commission hearing. The
petition of the applicant is misleading. It does not mention
they are proposing the sale of beer and wine in a 24-hour
pstablishment. That petition was signed by those driving in for
gasoline. The beauty o£ the proposed £acility is a positive
aspect. There are many convenient stores in the area. The
residents opposed the general concept of the sale of gasoline
and alcoholic beverages at the same location. This type of
facility is a negative to the effort of curbing drunk driving.
They would like to see the corner more attractive but the fact
remains they would not have control over their customers when
they left the store. This is primarily a residential area
facing the CE zone development. The only tourist facility is
the Conestoga Inn. The guests are well provided for. The RV
Parks all have their convenience stores. The location makes
their residential area vulnerable to street crimes because there
are a lot of pedestrians. This past month there have been three
purses snatched in front of their houses. There will be more
59O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
traffic on Walnut Street as well as pedestrian traffic if the
convenience store is to sell beer and wine. This type of market
brings an increase in undesirables, loitering and littering and
a 24-hour a day operation will bring noise at night which they
have a lot of now. They are asking the Council to consider
their homes and deny the application.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked if they would object if they did not sell beer and
wine.
Mrs. Ronconi.
It would help, but beer and wine and a 24-hour operation was
almost intolerable in a residential area.
Henry Downs, resident of Walnut Manor, the Lutheran Retirement
Home with approximately 20 residents diagonally across from the
proposed business.
They object to mixing alcohol and gasoline. On the petition
submitted in opposition, approximately 50 to 50 were from Walnut
Manor. The gas station presently located on the subject
property is full of motorcycles. They will be patronizing the
facility on a 24-hour basis and will cause noise. There is also
a problem in the Walnut Manor parking area now with beer parties
being held on the lot. Selling wine and beer across the street
will make the parking area even more attractive for parties.
Foot traffic will also increase. Alcohol and gasoline do not
mix.
George Westhoven, 891 South Walnut, Walnut Manor.
It is 151 steps from the subject property line to the Walnut
Manor property line. He has lived there for 12 years. He
polices the parking lot every Sunday morning. He finds beer
cans and bottles on the lot. He sees no reason to have another
convenience market located at that corner since there are two in
the immediate vicinity.
Ann Drau§elis~ 1199 West Vermont.
She has a signed petition by people in her tract bounded on the
west by Walnut and on the east by Flores. She submitted the
petition. She has lived in the area for 32 years and her tract
is in close proximity to the proposed market. The residents are
very opposed to the proposal. They are opposed to the idea of a
"beer garden" at Ball and Walnut and consider it a travesty in
their neighborhood and an assault on their sanity and serenity.
At present the lights from the station go out at 10:00 when it
is nice to have some semblance of peace and quiet. There are
residents who are diametrically opposed to the sale of beer and
wine at a gas station and feel it is a contributory factor to
driving under the influence. They are particularly worried
about the hours and the beer and wine and want to keep it out of
the area.
591
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Michael Rizzuto, 1217 South Walnut (across the street from the
subject property).
He does not like the 24-hour operation and beer and wine where
he will have to listen to noise for 24 hours a day. He also has
to pick up the cans that the young people drop in front of his
house and on his lawn.
Ann Hamilton, 11 Geneva, Long Beach, Assistant Administrator of
Walnut Manor.
In addition to the refuse, she objects to the kinds of clientele
that tend to congregate around 24-hour markets, and the
additional noise. She would like the Council to remember they
have been serving the elderly of Anaheim since 1938, located on
an 11 acre site and are planning to build a 99-bed skilled
nursing home that would be about 150 yards from the subject
intersection. Their residents are very concerned not only
relative to refuse, the clientele, but the round-the-clock noise.
Drucilla Pruett, 1245 South Walnut.
The residents object to the selling of beer and wine. It is not
needed to service the neighborhood. The people it will serve
are the tourists. There are seven stores within a half mile of
Ball and Walnut to serve anyone. Walnut Street is congested at
the present time. They do not need any more business to promote
crime and congestion in their neighborhood. Many people park in
front of their homes, drink, fight, use profane language, turn
their car stereos up loud awakening residents usually from 12:00
midnight through 3:00 a.m. Almost every morning, the litter
left behind has to be cleaned up. They are against promoting
drinking and driving.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Leslie Kyle.
Some of the concerns expressed are hearsay and not actual
conditions experienced in and around convenience markets. There
is no loitering at many well-run convenience markets because it
is bad for business and is opposed by the operators. The
facility will be larger then AM/PM markets and those at RV
Parks. They do not wish to be equated with 7/11 or AM/PM
markets. Theirs is a high grade junior market. After refuting
some of the other statements made in the testimony of
opposition, she also reported that all of the proceeds from the
sale of alcoholic beverages at Mr. Radwan's facilities go to
charities or other causes within the community where those
facilities exist. It is not in keeping with his religion to use
those receipts for his family's personal gain. They go to
organizations and individuals and that can be documented. She
requested that the Council grant approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2810.
592
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS: Councilman Pickler.
He asked if there was a possibility the operation could cease at
12:00 midnight.
Councilman Overholt.
He asked if Mr. Radwan would consider limiting his business to a
convenience market and gas or not dispensing gasoline and
limiting his business to a convenience market selling beer and
wine.
Leslie Kyle.
Receipts from sales of beer and wine go into the bookkeeping
records for the facility. In order for the business to be
profitable they do show up there. It is not that the receipts
from the sale of beer and wine are not valuable but those
receipts do not go to Mr. Radwan's family's personal gain. They
have gone through the CUP process and if they did not have the
on-sale beer and wine, they would not have been permitted in the
CR zone to have retail sales.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked for clarification on the latter statement that they
would not be permitted to have retail sales without beer and
wine.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
The CR zone which the property is in allows service stations in
connection with a CUP. The service station portion of the Code
states that there are certain activities that may take place.
One is a convenience market and that may include off-sale beer
and wine under certain developmental conditions which
established the percentage of square footage of the total
buildings and things like that. It is not mandatory but it is
identified in the CUP.
Talat Radwan.
To remain open from 12:00 midnight on is not a profitable time
~or them to do business. It is provided as a service to the
community. If the Council recommends that the store be closed
at 12:00 midnight he will do that. Relative to the beer and
wine sales, it is almost impossible to operate if he gives up
the sale of beer and wine because his other sales of staple
products drops. Beer and wine represent approximately 25
percent of the sales or less. The proceeds from the beer and
wine sales go to a non-profit organization.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
593
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-336 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2810, reversing the denial of the City Planning
Commission, subject to all Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-336: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2810.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if the
resolution was being offered with all of the uses requested and
on a 24-hour basis.
Councilman Bay.
That is what he is offering. It will be a CUP granted by the
Council which can also be revoked by the Council. If the
projected worries or conditions prove to be caused as feared by
the development and they do create nuisances, the CUP can be
revoked. He has not seen anything that has convinced him that
this development is going to cause all the problems he heard
today but if it does, the revocation process is available.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The impact of the proposal would be dreadful on a 24-hour
basis. Relative to beer and wine and gasoline sales, to pass
the buck and say it can be purchased anywhere is not living up
to the Council's responsibility. Every time they send a message
to young people that they can buy beer and wine and gas at the
same place it implies approval that it is okay to drink and
drive. It is also unfair to ignore all the homeowners in the
area.
Councilman Overholt.
He is going to vote against the proposal because it involves the
sale of petroleum products and beer and wine at the same
location. The residents of Walnut Manor could be calmed if the
applicant was willing to terminate his business at midnight.
The problem is all-night noise and the sale of alcohol
products. In some neighborhoods, it is a service.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBEES: Bay, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Overholt
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
594
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-336 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3561 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Jerry Tremble, Inc.,
505 City Parkway West
Orange, Ca. 92668
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To expand an existing industrial building on ML
zoned property located at 3941-3969 East La Palms Avenue, with Code waivers of
minimum structural setback and yard requirements and minimum number of parking
spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission Resolution No. PC86-132
denied Variance No. 3561; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQU~NTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 4, 1986.
Posting of property July 3, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 3, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 28, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Frank Sator, 3150 East La Palma, Suite A, Anaheim, Ca.
They own a number of industrial parks in Anaheim. All of their
projects are fully leased. They charge a reasonable rent, keep
their tenants happy and the projects are well maintained. They
recently acquired the subject property, the intent being to
bring it up to their standards and the standards of the City.
Because of the hardship of the odd-shaped parcel, the building
was developed in three phases. It will be very expensive to
face lift the building and relandscape the entire site. They
are improving the parking. In order to assist in recouping
their costs for the improvements, they are requesting the
additional space.
Eon Bevins, Attorney for the applicant.
The proposal will be a general upgrading o~ the entire project.
It is a very irregularly shaped parcel. The parking variance is
technical because the Code was changed. Parking will go from 67
to 98 spaces. An engineering report was provided to the Council
which indicated average parking was less than 50. As suggested
by the Traffic Engineer, they will close the second driveway to
the west which means one less movement out onto La Palma. The
variance reduces the landscaping from 20 feet to 17 feet.
However, they are picking up additional landscaping that is
going to be installed in front of the buildings. Relative to
the setback, the building is an integral part of the development
595
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
because of the financial costs involved. The estimated cost of
refurbishment is between ~100,000 and ~125,000. As indicated on
the posted plan, the area in red appears to be a substantial
encroachment but in viewing the proposal on site, it will not
block the building to the east. The extension into the setback
is not going to block any view of the adjacent parcel. He
thereupon submitted pictures showing the project and the
property adjacent to it.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Jim Hood, 3921 East La Palma.
He represents the property adjacent to the subject property on
the east. There are several problems they find very
inconsistent with the applicant's approach. They are going to
delete one of the ingress and egress points on the property.
The properties share an easement which is that ingress and
egress point. They have already had a number of problems. The
applicant already broached most of the problems regarding the
congestion experienced in that ingress and egress point. If it
is eliminated, it will cause a problem. There are semis and
large trucks which use that access and that creates a dangerous
and hazardous situation for them. They are against closing the
ingress and egress point because of the congestion problem.
They also have a problem relative to parking. They would be
opposed to even one less parking space than required. He
understands the value of keeping parking to Code as did the
Planning Commission. Merely because they completed a study
indicating there will be no problems does not guarantee there
will be no problems later on. They do not oppose high-tech but
the applicant is asking for high-tech without providing the
parking. In his experience, that has caused blighted areas.
Relative to covering the cost for refurbishment, when they make
improvements, they take it out of their net income and the
applicant should do the same. The applicant is adding square
footage while adding only 13 parking spaces which will then be
below Code.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The applicant is providing 98 spaces and is required to have 111
spaces.
Pat Mandarino, 3921 East La Palma.
His office is at the point where the easement is located between
their property on the west and the applicant's property on the
east. He can watch traffic coming and going 10 hours a day from
his office. If one of the alleyways is taken away the area is
going to be even more congested and it could be a danger to
trucks coming and going. Semis might be stuck in the street
trying to turn in and with congestion they could cause accidents
in the area.
596
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Eon Bevins.
They are adding 31 spaces which is going to be a substantial
increase in parking over what is there now. The driveway being
closed at the suggestion of the Traffic Engineer is not the
driveway which is the subject of the easement of the objector.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She interjected and asked if the Traffic Engineer was aware of
the easement and the congestion existing there now in making his
recommendation.
Ron Bevins.
If not, he was well aware of the overall situation. He
explained the history of the easement area. He believes the
adjacent property owner is objecting to the proposed driveway
closure because he will not be able to go in across their
property into the easement. They are going to have to use their
own easement. He reiterated the reason the driveway is being
closed is not at their suggestion but that of the Traffic
Engineer to prevent more movements on La Palma.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
The driveways shown on the drawing all are aligned with a
private roadway that leads into the property or three
driveways. She did not realize there had been a fourth
driveway. The Traffic Engineer asks for driveway closures but
typically it is a reflection of how much traffic and whether
there are trucks coming out. The posted drawing was the one Mr.
Singer saw and the one he accepted. He may not have been aware
of how much traffic goes through the easement unless somebody
made a comment.
Frank Sator.
Mr. Singer was the one who suggested that they get an
independent engineer to survey the traffic and a report was
subsequently submitted relative to traffic and parking.
Mayor Roth.
The conflict appears to be in the fact that the Traffic Engineer
is recommending a driveway closure. Since he is not now
available, he would recommend a one week continuance in order to
get a first hand report from the Traffic Engineer. He is
supportive of upgrading but wants additional information on the
driveway closure.
Councilman Bay.
Whether the driveway is closed or not, he does not have a
problem with parking or a serious problem with traffic .flow.
His concern is relative to encroachment into the 50-foot
setback. Staff reported that La Palms is built to its ultimate
width. He is in that area every day and committees have been
597
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
formed to look for ways to mitigate problems of traffic at peak
times. He referred to the widening of Anaheim Boulevard that
has taken place in the past 5 years and the millions of dollars
in costs because the City did not hold to setbacks. Looking at
the industrial area in 20 years and knowing what the traffic is
going to be, he cannot assume La Palma is not going to need
widening again in about 10 years and certainly within 20 years.
He wants to know from the applicant if he can accomplish what he
wants to do without cutting into the 50-foot setback area. Ne
suggested that the applicant look at a redesign that does not
encroach into that setback.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She agrees with Councilman Bay. The Redevelopment Commission
denied the project as well as the Planning Comm{ssion. She
would be concerned with their vote and the reasoning behind it.
She is concerned over the shortage of landscape setback as
well. Council would be abdicating their duty in approving the
project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On 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.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution of denial, upholding the findings of
the City Planning Comm~sslon.
Before action was taken, Mayor Roth stated the only reason he would not
support the resolution is due to the questions he has that have not been
properly answered by the Traffic Engineer. In addition, he feels there could
be some compromise relative to the encroachment.
After further discussion, Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing
On Variance No. 3561 for one week to Tuesday~ July 22~ 198§~ at 1:30 p.m., the
first public hearing, in order to receive input from the Traffic Engineer.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2377--REVISED PLANS AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Caliber Motors,
5395 East La Palma
Anaheim, Ca. 92807
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider revised plans in connection with a
planned unit industrial service center, including sales and service of new and
used Mercedes-Benz automobiles only, on ML zoned property consisting of
approximately 5.1 acres of land located on the northeast corner of La Palma
Avenue and Brasher Street (Portion A), and 1.1 acres of land located on the
northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street (Portion B).
598
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
HEARING SET ON:
Request by Attorney for the applicant, Farano & Kieviet.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 4, 1986.
Posting of property July 3, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 3, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 19, 1986 from the
Community Development and Planning Department, Zoning Division, recommending
denial of revised plans.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kleviet, attorney for the applicant,
100 South Anaheim Boulevard.
He is present to discuss the possibility of considering the
amended plans that have been submitted to the Council as being
in substantial compliance with the Exhibits submitted with the
original CUP one and one-half years ago. Because of the
success and the attractive nature of the existing facility, the
owners feel it would be appropriate and more complimentary to
the City if they were to design the used car facility that is
intended for the west side of Brasher Street as identical to the
existing building. The proposed building will be 3,372 square
feet but the design, appearance and material will be identical
to the new car showroom on the east side of the street. The
proposed building is 43 percent smaller and the setbacks have
been increased on La Palma from 69 feet to 90 feet and on the
other side from 14 feet to 16 feet. The staff report indicates
14 feet to 16 feet of landscaping to be 14 percent less; it is
actually 14 percent more. On Brasher Street it is 44 feet or
100 percent more. The staff report indicates the 5-foot
landscape is 77 percent less. Since there is no Code on that,
they do not interpret that as any kind of violation. In
addition, they have increased the storage display area from
9,568 to 13,640 square feet or 43 percent larger. They are
~roposing to remove the roof that was supposed to cover the
storage area in the original plan and change the solid block
wall on the east side to a 2 and a 1/2 foot berm. They have
proposed a 2 and a 1/2 foot berm on Brasher Street with the
7-foot 6 inch masonry pilasters and steel picket fence similar
to what is on the property at this time on the east side of the
street. The reason for the revisions is for appearance. This
will be a used car facility for Mercedes Benz only. At present,
Caliber Motors sells approximately 8 cars a month. With the
proposed addition, they project an immediate increase to 25 and
within six months 50 used Mercedes Benz averaging $30,000 per
vehicle or an additional $1,500,000 per month in sales. The
property in the rear of the building will be to display used
Mercedes Benz. The 13,640 square feet will allow the business
to have on its lot, for proper display and appearance,
599
City Hall~ Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
approximately 75 cars. Mr. Farano, working from the posted
plan, showed the proposed changes and additions compared to the
original plan. In concluding, his client feels that the revised
plans are a substantial upgrade and requests that the Council
make a finding that the plans are in substantial conformance
with the plans originally submitted under Conditional Use Permit
No. 2377.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declsration 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.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
She asked for clarification of three points. Revision 1
Exhibit 13 uses the term display for the parking lot in front of
the building. She assumes that there are to be no displayed
vehicles in front of the building. Mr. Farano had stated that
they were not going to be displayed in front of the building but
the drawing uses that term. She also wanted to be certain that
there was only to be a chain link fence along the westerly
boundary of the storage area. The drawing also showed a trash
enclosure which does not meet City standards which has been X'd
out and there will have to be one designed to City standards.
Floyd Farano.
There will be customer parking in front of the building only.
Relative to the trash enclosure, they will meet City standards.
Councilman Pickler.
He confirmed there was only to be a chain link fence along the
westerly boundary of the storage area.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the revised plans submitted in
connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2377 as being in substantial
conformance with the original plans. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
600
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-337, amending Resolution No.
82R-498, Condition No. 7 and approving Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 13 and
that no cars shall be displayed anywhere on the parcel west of Brasher Street
except within the fenced area to the rear of the proposed building. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-337: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITION NO. ? OF RESOLUTION NO. 82R-498 WHICH GRANTED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23??.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-337 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:04 p.m.)
Councilwoman Eaywood seconded
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
601