1986/07/22City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
~S~T:
P~S~T:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Ron Bates
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLX: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIKECTOK FOK ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: A moment of Silence was observed in lieu of the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - PROPOSED TRANSITWAY IN ORANGE COUNTY: Mr. Brian Pearson,
Orange County Transit District, briefed the Council on the subject proposed
transitway which at this point is a conceptual plan. He explained the
assumptions and objectives that lie behind the plan working from charts. The
central concept would be to locate in the freeway median not, only as an
exclusive lane, but it would have its own ramp structures that would link the
median facility to the arterials at the major activity centers. In certain
locations there will also be stations where direct transfers could be made to
service transit vehicles. The plan will also be linked to the commuter
lanes. The objective is to build the kinds of facilities that will encourage
carpooling, vanpooling, use of commuter buses, express buses and regular
transit services to increase vehicle occupancy. The second objective is to
provide direct access to major employment centers. Funding is already
established. The District has a significant capital reserve which will be
committed to the development of the plan. The schedule is to complete the
conceptual plan and present it to the Board in October for approval. They
hope to have some general concurrence on the form of the plan by October for
adoption by their Board and Commission and then proceed into preparation and
environmental documents with construction to start in 1989.
Mr. Pearson's presentation was followed by questions from the Council.
Before concluding, Councilman Overholt questioned Mr. Pearson relative the
kinds of enforcement being taken relative to the carpool lanes noting that
there were those who feel those lanes aren't safe whereas the problem lies in
the fact that there is a blatant disregard of the rules by motorists using
those lanes.
Mr. Pearson agreed and stated that one of the problems is lack of staff by the
Highway Patrol to commit to enforcement. He noted that future projects will
have some sort of barrier.
602
Cit~ Hall, A-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 22~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Bonnie Vollmann on
her retirement from the City after 12 years of service. Bonnie started her
career with the City at the Convention Center with her last position in the
Public Information Office as Secretary.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the adjourned regular meeting
held June 27, 1986 and approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 1,
1986. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND KESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances an~ 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 31,672,494.36, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 86R-338 through 86R-343, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance
No. 4740 for first reading.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Harvey Lem for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City from February 23, 1986 to present.
b. Claim submitted by Leonard Dan Hall for personal injuries sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City from March 6, 1985 to present.
c. Claim submitted by David Gervais, Roland Gervais, Susan Rehberg,
Thomas Rehberg, Liberty Mutural Insurance Company for bodily injuries
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on March 12, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Gene Blechman for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 28, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Southern Pacific Transportation Company (c/o Wayne
R. Sims, Esquire) for indemnification/comparative contribution for bodily
injuries sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on September 30,
1984.
603
City Hall, An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
f. Claim submitted by Vince Charles Shimazu for indemnification for
personal injuries and property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about July 20, 1985.
g. Claim submitted by Theresa I. Fredrick for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 20, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by William C. Jacoby for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 5, 1986.
i. Claim submitted by Victor Barone for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 25, 1986.
J. Claim submitted by Sandra L. Cronce for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 11, 1986.
k. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 3, 1986.
(File No. W-179506-05-MES)
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for June
1986.
b. 105: Park and Recreation Commission, Minutes of May 28, 1986.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of June 25, 1986.
d. 105: Community Services Board, Minutes of June 12, 1986.
e. 105: Senior Citizens Commission, Minutes of June 12, 1986.
3. 109/140: Approving the submittal of a grant application through the State
Major Urban Resource Libraries (MURLS) Funding Program in the amount of
~14,610 to be appropriated to Account 17-3155 and expenditures to 17-173-5125
MURLS.
4. 123: Authorizin§ the First Amendment to Health Services Agreement with
the County of Orange to provide certain health and sanitation services, for a
5 year term ending June 30, 1991.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Edward A. La Bahn to provide civil
engineering design services in connection with Water Utility projects in an
amount not to exceed $68,000 for a 12 month term to be completed on or about
August 1, 1987, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to extend
the term up to three additional years, with a yearly 6% salary increase.
6. 123: Authorizing a First Amendment to Letter Agreement with Phillips
Brandt Reddick dated July 23, 1985 increasing the contract by ~1,680 to a new
total of ~17,680 for additional landscape architectural services related to
604
City Hall, AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
the construction of a wetlands habitat on the Santa Aha River near La Palma
Avenue/Weir Canyon Road.
123: Authorizing a First Amendment to Letter Agreement with Phillips Brandt
Reddick dated November 14, 1985 increasing the contract by ~5,200 to a new
total of $13,500 for additional landscape architectural services related to
design of/or extension to the Santa Aha River Trail bike trail in conjunction
with the design of the wetlands habitat on the Santa Aha River in the City.
123: Authorizing a First Amendment to Agreement with Robert Bein, William
Frost & Associates dated September 24, 1985 increasing the contract by $7,550
to a new total of $17,550 for additional engineering services for the
replacement wetland habitat.
7. 106/144: Authorizing appropriation of ~10,000 from the Council
Contingency fund to be used for the JailAction Committee's cost benefit
analysis of alternative jail sites.
8. 160: Authorizing the PurchasingAgent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $58,130.40 for five
each 150 KVA's and five each 500 KVA three phase padmount transformers, in
accordance with Bid No. A4339.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of ~109,929.42 for three
each 225 KVKA three phase padmount transformers, five each 300 KVA three phase
padmount transformers, and five each 750 KVA three phase padmount
transformers, in accordance with Bid No. A4340.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of J. A. Dillingham Roofing Inc., in the
amount of ~34,430 for replacing and installing metal decking on the Stadium
Gate #4 canopy roof, in accordance with Bid No. 4354.
11. 124: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-338: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
ILEQUIILE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Anaheim Convention
Center Box Office Addition, Account No. 24-964-7107; and opening of bids on
September 4, 1986)
12. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-339: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (BRUCE PAVING,
INC.) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Bruce
Paving, Inc., in the amount of ~82,062.70, for Safer Off System Streets,
Barrier Removal, Phase I, Account No. 24-792-6325-E2270)
13. 181: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-340: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF AIJ.
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: MITO SQUARE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Account No.
605
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
16-836-7103-36160, De Armond Construction, contractor; and authorizing filing
of the Notice of Completion therefor)
14. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-341: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(KNOTT STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT). (Account Nos. 24-792-6325-E2210 and
52-606-6329-05030, Nobest, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the
Notice of Completion therefor)
15. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-342: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-008 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS WITH FULL-TIME
EQUIVALENTS. (Amending Resolution No. 86R-008, which established rates of
compensation for unrepresented part-time Job classifications with full-time
equivalents represented by the IBEW, effective April 18, 1986)
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-343: 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.
17. 160/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4740: Amending Section 1.04.310 of the Code,
pertaining to purchasing.
ORDINANCE NO. 4740: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
1.04.310 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
PURCHASING.
18. 129: Approving the letter to SBA requesting low-interest loans for
victims of the La Palma apartment fire and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
19. 173: Urging California Transportation Commission to allocate 3.3 million
from the 1984 State Budget Act for improvements to the San DieganAmtrak Route
and communicate this support to various California Transportation Commission
(CTC) members.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-338 through 86R-343:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES; COUNCILMEMBEKS:
ABSENT; COUNCIL MEMBE~S;
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-338 through 86R-343 duly passed and
adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
137/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4741 - GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS: Adding Chapter 1.23
to the Code, relating to authorization for issuance of General Obligation
Bonds. Submitted was report dated July 16, 1986 from the City Attorney,
recommending approval of the proposed ordinance which will permit the sale of
General Obligation Municipal Bonds approved by a 2/3's majority of City voters.
606
City Hall, A--helm, C, ltfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4741 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4741: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 1.23
TO TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ISSUANCE.
127/129: BALI~T MEASURE - FIREWORKS: City Attorney White stated in response
to the Council's request at the meeting of July 15, 1986, he prepared a draft
of a proposed ballot measure relating to the initiative to be placed on the
November Ballot regarding prohibition of the use and sale of safe and sane
fireworks in the City. The material was not available at the time the agenda
was prepared. One of the concerns expressed was that the measure be worded in
such a way so that yes becomes a vote in favor of fireworks and no is a vote
in opposition. There are two ways that can be done. The first, if it was
merely an advisory measure the wording could be anything the Council chose.
If it is a binding measure to be adopted directly by the people, the primary
difficulty is that what is being voted on is the passage of an ordinance.
Under current Code, safe and sane fireworks are permitted. This would be an
ordinance to prohibit fireworks. Therefore, a yes vote means yes, I wish to
adopt this ordinance and the ordinance prohibits fireworks. It becomes yes,
do not want fireworks and that is the difficulty. The way he visualizes it
being done if it becomes a binding measure would be to reverse the current
situation which would require the Council, prior to the Election, adopt an
ordinance prohibiting fireworks and then place on the ballot an initiative
measure to say we wish to allow safe and sane fireworks. Then the ballot
measure would be to allow fireworks and a yes would be yes we wish to adopt an
ordinance allowing fireworks. It is the only way he could think of to turn
the language around so that a yes vote would be a yes in favor of fireworks.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated what she did not want to see was that a "yes"
means "no." There are so many people on both sides of the issue she did not
want them voting the wrong way. If the third line of the proposed ordinance
were changed to say "ban" instead of "prohibit" (or added in parentheses), it
could be "yes" ban and that would be clear. People have been asking that
fireworks be banned, not prohibited.
Mr. White explained the language in the box on the first page of the proposed
resolution would be what appears on the ballot. It is different from the
language in the ordinance itself which appears on the following two pages and
the word ban did not appear in the ordinance in any event.
Councilman Overholt stated he is concerned that the Council would be powerless
to take action to ban fireworks if the electorate votes not to ban fireworks.
He did not think the Council's hands should be tied on the safety aspect of
the issue in prohibiting the Council from then entertaining an ordinance
banning fireworks.
Mr. White stated the Council would still have the power at a later date to ban
fireworks even if the electorate did not vote to ban them.
Council Members Overholt, Pickler and Roth had no problem with using the word
prohibit instead of ban; Councilman Bay stated all he is concerned about is
that the people get to vote yes or no and know what it means. He also had no
607
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
problem understanding the current wording. Perhaps an easy way would be to
include both words, to ban and to prohibit.
Councilman Overholt recalled that the. Council was to take action on the matter
on the matter on July 29, 1986. At that time, the Council can discuss
alternative language.
Mr. White then asked if the Council wished to have a resolution prepared
asking that the City Attorney prepare an impartial analysis to be included in
the voters pamphlet and whether or not the Council wishes to have ballot
arguments in favor or against the measure; Councilwoman Kaywood answered yes.
Mr. White continued relative to the arguments, the first priority is for the
Council Members to write ballot arguments. If they decline, there is a
hierarchy listed in the California Elections Code. The resolutions could be
prepared and the Council could defer making any determination until the next
meeting.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she will volunteer to write the argument was not
sure it was going to be pro or clarifying language; City Attorney White stated
the purpose is to advocate one side or the other.
At the conclusion of further discussion and questions to staff for
clarification, City Clerk Sohl stated that it was up to the City Clerk, using
the guidelines in the Elections Code, to choose which of the arguments are
used in the ballot booklet if there were a number of arguments submitted on
each side of the question. The suggested last date to submit arguments is
August 14, 1986 and rebuttals had to be submitted to the Clerk by August 25,
1986. Those issues would be brought back to the Council next week for a
decision.
162: REQUEST TO ERECT A TENT - GOODMAN CHURCH BUILDERS WESTERN~ INC.~:
Submitted was letter dated July 17, 1986 by Wayne Goodman, President, Goodman
Church Builders Western, Inc., requesting permit to erect a tent on the Knott
Avenue Christian Church property for a period of three months during the time
they will be remodeling the church.
Mayor Roth stated he discussed the matter with the City Attorney. He
thereupon moved that the item be handled administratively by staff in
accordance with the recommendations o£ the City Attorney. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Roth noted that there were individuals in the audience regarding the
matter and he had spoken with them earlier. He suggested that they arrange
for a meeting with the Planning Staff and with the City Attorney's Office
relative to the request.
108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4725 - VENDING FROM VEHICLES: Amending Section
14.32.310 of the Code relating to vending from vehicles and establishing
permit application and appeal fees pursuant to Section 14.32.310 of the Code.
This matter was continued from the meetings of June 17, July 1, and July 8,
1986, to this date (see minutes those dates).
6O8
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated July 17, 1986 had been received
from the President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, Floyd Farano,
requesting a continuance of the matter until Tuesday, August 26, 1986.
Councilman Roth moved to continue Ordinance No. 4725 and the Resolution
establishing permit application and appeal fees to Tuesday, August 26, 1986 at
10:00 a.m. as requested by the Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked to hear from the Chamber.
Floyd Farano, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, stated that the item had
never been agendized by the Chamber. He apologized for asking for a
continuance at this late date. It had been brought before their Board of
Directors on a non-agenda basis last Thursday and the Board subsequently voted
to request a continuance since the Chamber had not taken any kind of position
on the issue. The Chamber does not have a position but there is a segment of
the business community that has an interest in the matter.
Mr. William Sweeney, representing Orange County Food Service stated he would
have no objection to the continuation and would be happy to consult with the
Chamber during the continuance.
Councilman Pickler asked if there were any further persons in the Chamber
audience who wished to speak on the proposed ordinance; no one was present.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
111: 1986 HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL AND PARADE: Mayor Roth referred to the
discussion last week regarding the possibility of trying to get assistance
from anyone who wanted to help stage this year's Halloween Festival and Parade.
William Taormina stated his sister Arlene called former Committee members to
be present this morning but no one showed up which is an indication of the
response in the business community. He had read Chris Jarvi's memo of June
23, 1986, (Anaheim's Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services)
discussing the matter. He then explained that the problem this year is the
insurance risk. He has been trying to procure the insurance for the event but
he cannot find a quote in the market place to insure the Festival Committee.
There is not even an opportunity to buy the insurance at this time. The
problem is not necessarily the cost of the insurance, but it is simply not
available. The second problem is the tradition of Anaheim. The downtown area
has gone through a tremendous change over the past five years. It is now a
case where the attendees of the Parade and/or Festival are of an economic
strata that is not the same as it was years ago. Whereas there was
traditionally a lot of community involvement, there are now more downtown
individuals.
With respect to continuing leadership, his firm and others have always been
willing to accept the responsibility, but standing alone with only about five
people it is hard to get support. Further, the logistics involved in a parade
and festival takes about a year. Thus, because of the insurance dilemma,
609
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
leadership, and change in strata of those attending the event his feeling,
would be not to have a festival this year.
Mayor Roth first thanked Mr. Taormina for comin~ forward. He is deeply
concerned that the Halloween Parade may be a casualty of the insurance problem
plaguing the United States. It is such a tradition in Anaheim and that is the
concern of the Council. He asked Mr. Taormina if there is still time to put a
Halloween Festival together.
Mr. Taormina answered yes and they will be more than happy to do so but they
have to have a guarantee if there is an accident they will have adequate
insurance coverage and those associated with the event will not be liable for
negligence.
City Attorney White stated that his office has not reviewed the matter and he
would like the opportunity to discuss it with the City's Risk Manager before
stating anything. The issue has some serious potential repercussions for the
City and he is not prepared to respond at this time.
Councilman Overholt stated what concerned him about Mr. Jarvi's memo was the
indication it was almost a foregone conclusion that there was not going to be
a Halloween Festival and he (Overholt) was not willing to accept that. It was
time to look at what really was important and perhaps the big show was not all
that important. He would like to encourage the Committee to try to come up
with something that will bring about a Halloween Festival in Anaheim this year
consistent with good judgment and not exposing good people to liability
hazards. It will be called the Halloween Festival and although it may not be
the biggest, it will be a festival.
Mr. Taormina stated he would wait to hear from the City Attorney and the Risk
Manager.
179: CONSIDkmATION OF CODE AMENDMENT PERMITTING CHURCHES AS INTERIM USES IN
THE CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA: Request from the Planning Commission to consider
a Code amendment to permit churches as interim uses for a period of 3 to 5
years in the Canyon Industrial Area. Submitted under date of July 15, 1986
was an excerpt from the minutes of the July 7, 1986 Planning Commission
meeting regarding the matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the discussion on the issue a suggestion was
made that churches be allowed as interim uses in the subject area from 1 to 3
years whereas later in the meeting a motion was offered recommending that the
Council consider the Code amendment but for a period of 3 to 5 years. To her,
that was far reaching for the Canyon Industrial Area.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated in the meeting when
the Planning Commission discussed the issue, it was in connectionwith a use
permit that had been filed and could not be acted on by the Commission. Frank
Lowry, Attorney, Farano & Kieviet, was present for another reason but
commented on the matter and asked that it be submitted to the Council. About
two years ago, the Council received a request from a fraternal organization to
be permitted to file a CUP. With all the discussion relative to uses non
610
City H~11, An~he~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
supportive of the industrial area, the Council refused to change the Code at
that time. She is concerned that a church was not dissimilar and might not be
an appropriate Code change at all. She noted that Mr. Farano was in the
Chamber audience and may want to comment.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that churches bring other uses such as a preschool
and nursery school as well as meeting at night. It seems as much as the
Council has protected the Canyon Industrial Area, that this goes far afield.
Miss Santalahti stated if the Code was changed the Council might wish to be
extremely clear in specifying church services only without any ancillary uses
whatsoever.
Mayor Roth stated there are several churches in the industrial area. He did
not know if they were there by permission. In his opinion, it is an interim
use utilizing properties on off-peak hours on Sundays and evenings when there
is no traffic. He felt Mr. Lowry's argument was a good one which would give
small congregations an opportunity to get started; Councilwoman Kaywood
reiterated that he (Lowry) also stated that it should be from 1 to 3 years and
not 3 to 5 years.
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, stated his firm is not participating or
representing any particular client but rather an observer who happened to be
present at the time the matter came up. Their suggestion was that perhaps the
use could be satisfied by restricting and conditioning such use to evening
hours or weekends at a time when the facilities are not being used by the
industrial users. They thought it would be a good plan for the City. One
year is not long enough and 5 years is longer than the property owners have to
have. Three years would probably be the best or anywhere from 2 to 4 years.
Their recommendation would be 3 years. It would help both the churches and
the industrial owner. He would have problems with allowing preschools and
nurseries which involved use of the property during normal business hours.
That is not an appropriate request.
Councilman Overholt stated if there is a Code amendment, there will be an
opportunity to have a hearing.
Jack White, City Attorney, stated legally the Council was not required to
schedule the matter for a hearing but they had the right to hold a public
hearing if they wished. If they were contemplating making this a conditional
use in the industrial zone, he would have a concern having it limited
expressly in the Code to a period of time as opposed to Council's right by
condition to limit both the types of activities and the length of time the
permit is valid. If the Council is interested in exploring churches in the
canyon industrial zone, he suggested that it be by condition as opposed to
trying to w~ite in the Code something that is going to cover a lot of
situations that cannot be foreseen at the present time.
Councilman Overholt emphasized that whatever was done he would want to give
ample opportunity for the industrial users to be heard.
Kenneth Kehl, resident of Yorba Linda, stated at the present time they have a
church in Canyon High School. Relative to day care centers or child
611
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
facilities, according to the State Health and Welfare Social Services, they
would not allow that in an industrial area. They want to relocate their
church because the school gave them a 12-month use of the facilities only and
unless they can prove they are seeking other facilities, they will not give an
extension to that use. The City of Yorba Linda has designated properties of 2
and 3 acres for churches but that size is inadequate and would not maintain a
congregation large enough to take care of the overhead facilities. Church
facilities need at least 5 to 11 acres.
City Attorney White asked if the Council was suggesting that he prepare an
ordinance to submit to the Council; Mayor Eoth stated it appears that is what
the Council wants or some additional information on the matter.
City Attorney White stated he can prepare an ordinance to be submitted in two
weeks; Mayor Roth stated that would give an opportunity to inform some of the
people concerned about uses in the area to give their input.
Councilman Bay stated when the Council starts talking about allowing churches
or any other brand new use in the northeast industrial area, he wants a
complete hearing process with both sides represented as well as pros and cons
from the City Attorney on the downside as well as the upside of making such a
cbmnge. He would want to see advertised public hearings before making any
decision that he considers critical to protecting the industrial area.
Councilman Overholt agreed and one way was to ask the City Attorney to prepare
an ordinance and at that time decide to what extent they were going to expose
it to other interested parties; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Council
had the option of saying no to such a Code amendment now.
City Attorney White stated he would prepare an ordinance and submit it to the
Council in two weeks. He would recommend that the Council not set a hearing
today but that they wait to see the ordinance he drafts first. The Council
should feel comfortable with what he has written before setting a hearing.
Councilman Roth moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an
ordinance for Council consideration relative to an amendment to permit
churches as interim uses in the canyon industrial areas with possible public
hearings to follow. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Bob Fulton, Pastor, Interchristian Fellowship, which meets
at Canyon High School, stated their desire is not to locate in Yorba Linda but
Anaheim Hills. That is the focus of their ministry since there are not many
churches in Anaheim Hills.
156/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4736 - BRANDISHING REPLICAS OF F~S: Adding
Section 6.32.065 to the Code, relating to brandishing replicas of firearms.
Submitted was report dated July 2, 1986 from the City Attorney, recommending
adoption of the proposed ordinance as prepared by the prosecution section of
the City Attorney's Office.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed ordinance;
there was no reply.
612
City ~11, Anaheim~ Califormia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4736 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4736: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION
6.32.065 TO CHAPTER 6.32 OF TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODERELATING TO
BRANDISHING REPLICAS OF FIREARMS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4736 duly passed and adopted.
135/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4737: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4737
for adoption, refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4737: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION
1.16.025 TO CHAPTER 1.16 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRIATING TO
TRESPASSING ON CITY GOLF COURSES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4737 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4738: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4738 for
adoption, refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4738: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-01, RM-1200, east side of Citron Street,
south of Lincoln Avenue - formerly Fremont Jr. High site).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBE~S: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4738 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4739: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4739 for
adoption, refer to Ordinance Book.
613
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4739: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-36, CL, 890 South Anaheim Boulevard)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4739 duly passed and adopted.
112: CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION: Councilman Bay asked the status of his
request to the City Attorney for an opinion on the intent of the Charter
dealing with Certificates of Participation on other than enterprise functions
that have no known or clear revenue stream. He was concerned about running up
against a deadline if he received three votes to put a Charter amendment on
the November Ballot.
City Attorney Jack White stated the Council will have the material he promised
by the end of this week.
175: WATER RATES: Councilman Bay stated he had been reading the minutes of
the Public Utilities Board meetings and the debates over whether the Board
voted for the budget or they did not. He came to the conclusion that the
Public Utilities Board (PUB) did not vote for the budget. The water rate
increases were then taken back to the PUB. He assumed that the proposed water
rate increases were coming back to the Council next week or the first week in
August. He needed more information on Justification for the water rate
increases. Information was submitted when it was first proposed. He recalled
that the cost of water actually had gone down and the Justification for the
rate increase was based on increasing working capital and reserves. He wanted
to know if that had changed and requested that he be provided with the
arguments on the Justification from staff previously presented and to have it
at least a week in advance of the time the issue was coming back to the
Council.
114: VISIT FROM THE MITO JAPAN DELEGATION: Mayor Roth thanked the Sister
City Committee and all those involved for makln$ the recent visit of the Mlto
Delegation a most pleasant and successful one. He especially acknowledged Bob
Anthony, Chairman, Sister Cities Committee and Mrs. June Lowry as well as the
interpreter Cheiko Duty.
119: PASSING OF DOCTOR MA.P, SHAIJ. STONESTREET: Councilman Overholt commented
on the passing of Dr. Marshall Stonestreet and the loss it would be to the
Anaheim community. Council Members added their sincere condolences to the
family and agreed that Dr. Stonestreet's passing was indeed a loss, but that
Anaheim was a better place for having had Dr. Stonestreet in its midst.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be
held to confer with the City Attorney regarding:
614
Ctt~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 22, 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.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Council Members 0verholt and Bay.
(1:50 p.m.)
118: WORTMAN VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved that the City
Attorney be authorized to settle the case of Wortman vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 37-45-97, in the amount of ~27,500.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Council Members 0verholt and Bay
were temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HFAKING - 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 Palma 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. This matter was continued from the meeting of
July 15, 1986, to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication tn 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.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated July 21, 1986 had been received
from Frank Sator, agent for the applicant, requesting an additional two week
continuance of the public hearing.
Council Members Overholt and Bay entered the Council Chamber. (2:00 p.m.)
Mayor Koth noted that Karl Sator was out of the country and wanted the
opportunity to be present at the hearing. He (Roth) asked that the public
hearing be the first item scheduled under public hearings that date.
615
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue public hearing on Variance
No. 3561 and Negative Declaration to Tuesday, August 5, 1986 at 1:30 p.m.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2788:
APPLICANT:
Stafac Inc., (Shell Service Station)
100 West 10th Street
Willmington, Delaware 19801
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a self-service gasoline sales and a
foodmart with off-sale beer and wine on ML zoned property located at 3085 East
La Palma Avenue with the following Code waivers: (a) Maximum number of
freestanding signs (deleted), (b) permitted location of freestanding signs
(deleted), (c) minimum distance between freestanding signs (deleted).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission Resolution No. PC86-122,
denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2788.
HEARING SET ON:
Planning Commission decision appealed by Shell Oil Company.
continued from the meeting of July 1, 1986, to this date.
This matter was
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 19, 1986.
Posting of property June 20, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 20, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 12, 1986.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber. (2:02 p.m.)
City Clerk Sohl noted that all three requests for waivers had now been deleted.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Allan Zall, Attorney, 1759 Irvine Blvd., Ste. ~204, Tustin,
Ca. 92680.
He represents the independent dealer, Michael KurkJian. The
proposed plan is well thought out, well conceived and consists
of three components - that the gasoline station presently on the
property will be removed and new construction will take place
with new equipment. It will be a self-service gasoline
station. Secondly a new food mart will be added and lastly they
are requesting off-sale beer and wine privileges. There is a
need in the community for the project as evidenced by the
petition he will submit containing several pages of signatures
of those from the community who favor having the service station
along with the food mart and also beer and wine privileges. His
client is prepared to stipulate to having beer and wine
privileges during the hours of 4:00 p.m. 2:00 a.m. seven days a
week. The food mart and the gasoline station will be open seven
days a week, 24 hours a day. There will be air and water at the
site for customer's use, there will be adequate parking for
616
City Hall, A~heim, C~!ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
seven vehicles, two restrooms will be provided, a special trash
storage container collected two times a week, fully automated
with an intercom system so that employees in the market can talk
to the person at the pumps with two buttons provided for
emergency shut off in case of any difficulty. Both systems will
be within complete reach of the employees in the food mart.
There was a typographical error in the Planning Commission
minutes. There will be two full-time employees up to 2:00 a.m.
and from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. only one employee. The property
will be properly maintained in a neat and orderly manner. There
will be two lines, one for gasoline only serviced by one
employee and the other for those who want to buy food, beverages
and other items. It will be a convenience to the community. A
gas only customer will be able to go in and out of the station
rapidly. There will be better lighting, a much improved,
cleaner appearance, the property value will be upgraded and as a
result, adjoining properties in the area will increase in
value. It will be a convenience for drivers who need service
when other places are closed. Relative to the beer and wine,
there are no schools, churches or residences in that area.
Studies indicate the problem of drunk drivers is mainly people
who go to taverns, social events, sporting events or parties.
He submitted the petitions (made a part of the record).
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Dale Lewis, representing Shell Oil Company, 511 North
Brookhurst, Anaheim, Ca. 92803.
He asked that the Council review the development separate from
the beer and wine issue. There is a need for the project.
There is a 23-year old obsolete unattractive facility on the
property at the present time which negatively impacts the
dealer, the customers and to an extent, the City. The customer
will benefit and the City will have a modern attractive facility
that will not only upgrade the intersection, but also the
general area. There will be many improvements outside of the
property line as well - a median island, sidewalk repair, street
lighting on Kraemer, traffic signal assessment and an increase
in property tax revenues. There are many advantages and no
~isaJvantages. It is im the industrial area and will provide
services to the industrial user. The size and shape of the
property is adequate, there will be no traffic burden and no
detrimental effects to the general welfare. They agreed to
abide by all conditions imposed except Condition No. 4 relative
to dedication along the streets pending approval of the General
Plan Amendment circulation element. That condition is so
disruptive and damages their project that they could not build
it. It eliminates one island use. It will restrict the
circulation of automobiles both coming in and internally will
cause parking problems and restrict the tanker access which is
important for service station development. They have looked at
the site and tried to go to a secondary layout. Although they
can save an island by doing that, they will still have other
617
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
problems, general circulation internally, the tanker problem and
parking problems. They have dedicated a lot of property at this
location as well as at other locations in the City. There are
strong reasons for eliminating that particular condition. It
will not only make their project impossible, but he believes it
is a questionable condition for any project. When the Ceneral
Plan Amendment is given full, proper scrutiny under a public
hearing and when all the detrimental aspects are considered both
near and long-term, the Council will see fit to disapprove the
plan. If the condition is imposed, they cannot construct the
project and the City will be faced with an eyesore over the
long-term at the critical intersections. He asked that the
Council view the development with all the advantages it offers.
For those strongly opposed to beer and wine, he asked that they
still look at the project itself. If they feel they can support
it without beer and wine, he would suggest that they do that.
For those who would agree with his view that beer and wine at a
development such as this is compatible and is no different than
beer and wine at a grocery store or any other properly licensed
facility, he would hope the Council would approve the project as
presented.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Overholt.
He is going to vote against the project if it includes beer and
wine.
Councilman Pickler.
He is not going to eliminate Condition No. 4. He frequents the
area almost daily. In the morning and later in the afternoon,
the intersection is extremely congested and something has to be
done to alleviate the situation. Arco proposed a project across
the street and it was turned down because of the traffic and
circulation.
Dale Lewis.
They will not be able to proceed with the project if the
condition is not eliminated. He disagrees that more traffic
will be generated by the project. Perhaps something should be
done about the traffic congestion but the way it is being done
in this instance is wrong. There should be proper public
hearings and input before placing those conditions on a project.
Councilman Bay.
To put the issue in the right prospective, Condition No. 4
states the applicant will offer to dedicate a strip of land 65
feet in width from the central line of the street. He knows
that is not a brand new 65 feet off of the property. He wanted
to know how many feet it is.
Dale Lewis.
It would be an additional 12 feet off of both streets.
618
City Hall, A--heim~ Califor-ta - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Michael KurkJian.
He is the dealer in the present location at 3085 East La Palma
(home address: 5808 East Mountain Street, Orange). He went
around the property to all of the commercial areas and
interviewed all the people and asked if they wanted to support
the project. One-hundred percent were very enthusiastic mainly
because there are no stores in the immediate neighborhood. Most
people said it will be within walking distance. There was only
one person against beer and wine. He has been an Anaheim
businessman for 7 years or more and will do his best to run the
best food market in the City of Anaheim.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS BY COUNCIL: Allan Zall.
The reason the application across the street was turned down was
due to their lack of innovative and creative planning. The two
lines proposed in the subject plan will mitigate any traffic
problems. Further, a large percentage of customers will be
walking to the business.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Bay.
The subject intersection is the second busiest intersection in
the entire City.
Mayor goth.
He is interested in upgrading the corner because it is an
eyesore. He understands that selling beer and wine is an
important financial consideration for such businesses but he is
concerned with adding beer and wine sales to that intersection.
He asked if the applicant would be satisfied with an approval
that would not include beer and wine.
Mr. Zall asked for a recess to confer with his client. (2:40 p.m.)
Later in the meeting (2:49 p.m.), further discussion took place.
Dale Lewis.
The matter has been discussed with the principals and because
they feel an upgrade is so badly needed on that corner, they
will accept an approval without beer and wine.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Zoth closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler.
He asked for a report from the Traffic Engineer relative to the
impact of a convenience market at that intersection.
619
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
The type of use projected will cumulatively generate about 1,000
additional trips a day. The average service station generates
750 trips and a market generates 550 trips. Many of the trips
are combined uses, thus only one-half of the market trips will
generated that are normally generated in a freestanding market
or 1,000 trip ends. This is a fairly substantial amount of
traffic going in and out of the driveways. The number of new
trips for convenience market only would be approximately 250.
The intersection is very heavily congested and the critical
intersection improvements are going to be desperately needed.
He would recommend that Condition No. 4 not be deleted. Without
improvements to critical intersection standards, it would be
choking the entire industrial area.
Councilman Pickler.
Until traffic and circulation problems are eliminated at that
intersection, the use will be adding to the existing burden. It
is congested at any time of the day. If one is approved it will
be difficult to say no to other requests.
Paul Singer.
The traffic mitigation measure, if the project is approved, will
be the dedication of the 12 feet.
Mayor Roth.
He sees a compromise as being the 12-foot dedication to offset
the extra 250 trips while the City has an opportunity to improve
the intersection. The dedication of the 12 feet by the
applicant, no beer and wine and the ultimate improvement has a
great deal of merit.
Councilman Bay.
He expressed how critical an intersection Kraemer and La Palma
is. Relative to Condition No. 4 and the 12-foot dedication, the
applicant would be agreeing to dedicate in advance but it would
not happen until an ordinance is passed. There will be a public
hearing process before the dedication happens. He would not
vote to release the applicant fro~ Condition No. 4 because the
Council is fully aware of the technical problems facing the City
not only at this intersection but many intersections. Hew ill
also not support beer and wine at the location primarily for the
same reason he would not support the Thrifty Oil application
based on consumption by industrial employees operating heavy
machinery and equipment in that area, all three shifts 24 hours
a day.
Francis Fuller, Shell Engineer, 511 North Brookhurst. He worked
on two different layouts for the project trying to accomplish
the dedication and to work out the traffic for their delivery
trucks to come in as well as the cars and including the
landscaping and parking. He has both plans with him. (He
620
Ctt7 Hall~ An~hetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 22~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
submitted them to the Traffic Engineer and the City Council).
The only solution he could see would be in obtaining a variance
relative to the amount of planters required between the islands
and the street. He could then accomplish being able to move the
cars through the station with the 12-foot dedication and also
parking. Instead of seven spaces there would be six.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
If the irrevocable offer of dedication is made now, the plan
posted on the Chamber wall would be the one that would remain in
effect. If the dedication is taken and the street improvement
takes place, it would be a non-conforming situation and they
would be loosing their landscape planters. They would not
consider it a variance unless the applicant came back with
something new altogether and did not want to put in the
landscaping. When the street taking actually occurs, the
resultant plan will be considered a legal non-conforming
situation.
Paul Singer.
He will be happy to work with Mr. Fuller in helping him design
circulation on the site. He is quite sure it can be easily
accomplished with only two pump islands.
Mr. Fuller.
He confirmed for Councilman Bay, when they give the dedication
they would then give up the planters between the street and the
pump islands. If they had to put up another planter, it would
create a problem with traffic.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, 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. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth o££ered Resolution No. 86R-244 /or adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2788 with no off-sale beer and wine and including
Condition No. 4. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-344: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86R-344.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated he also wanted to be assured that
the situation relative to the planter as explained by Mr. Fuller be worked out
with the Traffic Engineer.
City Attorney, Jack White.
The planter would not have to be addressed as part of the
resolution. Relative to Condition No. 4, he recommended that
621
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
the last sentence be reworded to read, "This offer of dedication
shall be accepted by the City only upon the adoption of a
resolution incorporating a critical intersection plan or element
into the Anaheim General Plan." It would be taking out the word
ordinance and making it a resolution and providing it would be
in the General Plan.
A vote was then taken on the foregoin~ resolution including the reworded
Condition No. 4:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Pickler
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-344 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2784 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Ada I. Higdon, (Angelo's)
9600 Santa Monica Blvd.
Beverly Hills, Ca. 90210
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a drive-in and drive-through restaurant
with on-sale beer and wine and an outdoor eating area on CL zoned property
located at 221 North Beach Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum distance of
a drive-through lane.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-148 denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2784; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 10, 1986.
Posting of property July 11, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 11, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 1986.
Mayor Roth announced that letter dated July 11, 1986 had been received from
the attorney for the applicant (Angelo's) requesting a continuance of the
subject public hearing until August 5, 1986. Since there were people in the
Chamber audience who indicated their presence relative to the item, there were
two options. Those who wished could speak today and their testimony made a
part of the record. However, he feels it would be prudent to return on
August 5, 1986 should the Council grant the continuance.
622
City Hall~ A-~heim, Cal~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2784 and negative declaration to Tuesday, August 5,
1986. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay noted that in the meantime, the
business could continue operating. Requests for continuances by the applicant
keeps the applicant operating. He wanted the Council to realize in moving to
continue, they are supporting what may be numerous continuances.
Mayor Roth noted that such requests for a continuance have been granted as a
courtesy extended to the attorneys.
Councilman Pickler suggested that one way or the other the matter be heard on
August 5, 1986; Mayor Roth asked that the applicant be advised they will not
be granted another continuance.
Councilman Overholt stated they could indicate to the attorney that the
continuance is granted to accommodate the applicant's schedule and there will
be no further continuances; Mayor Roth noted also that it was because of the
people present in the Chamber audience.
City Attorney White suggested that the Council indicate that they have
expressed their intention not to grant further continuances.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was
absent. MOTION CAPd{IED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2807 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Cosby Way Partners
5100 Birch Street
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To-permit repair of personal autos and storage in an
existing multi-tenant industrial building on ML zoned property located at 1161
North Cosby Way, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (denied).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-152 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2807, in part, approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of July 1, 1986 and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 10, 1986.
Posting of property July 11, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 11, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 1986.
623
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent; there was no
response.
City Clerk Sohl reported that the applicant and agent were notified twice, by
letter on July 7, 1986 and by legal notice sent July 11, 1986.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Pickler.
The request is an unusual one. He is concerned about the
congestion in the area, traffic and circulation. He is familiar
with the area and drives by it two or three times a week.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
She does not recall receiving an application like this before.
Rather than being a commercial business, it is to allow rental
of one unit or more to individuals who want to work on their
cars. The Commission granted the parking waiver but also
allowed the use for only one year specifically to see what the
activity was and that it was not going to be a commercial use.
She believes that there are only three units that would be
permitted to be used in this way in any case. The three units
take up the parking they have in excess right now. For these
three units, they would have 5.5 spaces available. If they want
to go to 5 spaces they would need a parking variance.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Jeff Boatman.
He represents Fren Metals, 1160 North Cosby. They operate at
the end of the cul de sac at 1160 and the subject building is at
1140 North Cosby. What is occurring is a serious traffic
problem at the end of the street. There is frequent double
parking taking place. It is difficult getting in and out of all
the adjacent businesses operating on Cosby Way. One of the
reasons is due to the storage of different apparatus which is
occurring at the present time such as boats, race car equipment,
trailers, etc. in the industrial parking stalls causing the
employees to park in the street. There is no parking in the
area even now.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
In the industrial area, it is not unusual for individual users
to block off the parking area for material storage, thus forcing
employees to park in the street. It is not unique to Cosby
Way. Unfortunately it is a problem throughout the entire
industrial area. One cure would be to prohibit parking on Cosby
Way but that would be a drastic measure.
Jeff Boatman.
His purpose in being present and his concern is that the Council
is made aware of the problems that exist now. What is
developing is a "Junk yard" situation with camper shells, old
furniture and the like now being stored in the area. He feels
624
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
they are Just trying to get permission for all these things to be acceptable.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2807 to Tuesday, July 29, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. and in the meantime
requested that Code Enforcement investigate the situation in the area.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Roth asked that the City Clerk again contact the applicant and agent
informing them of the continuance and the need for a representative to be
present.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn.
the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent.
Councilman 0verholt seconded
MOTION CARRIED. (3:27 p.m.)
LEONOKA N. SOHL, CITY
625