1986/07/29City Hall, An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 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
(Councilman Roth entered at 10:31 a.m.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Darrell Ament
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Greg Hastings
Mayor Pro Tem Pickler called the meeting to order and welcomed those
in attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Father Gary Goldacker, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION - PRESENTATION: Mrs. Fran Mauck introduced Jantce Bart,
Anaheim's 1986 Mother of the Year, and read the letter submitted by Mrs.
Barr's daughter which resulted in her winning the coveted title.
Mayor Pro Tem Pickler, on behalf of the Council and the City, welcomed Mrs.
Bart and each Council Member congratulated her on being selected Mother of the
Year. She was presented with roses as a token of the City's esteem.
MINUTES: Councilwman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held July 8, 1986. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman
Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
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. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,868,378.03, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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; Councilwoman Kaywood
626
City ~-ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
offered Resolution Nos. 86R-345 through 86R-349, 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. Claims submitted by Lyle C. Shaver for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 14, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by Pedro Yruretagoyena for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 13, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by Steven Charles Beverly for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 10, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Stadium Business Park for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 28 and 29, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Donald Kent Anderson for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 18, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by Chris P. Murphy for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 20, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by Olga Gomez for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 30, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by Judy A. Davis for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 1, 1986.
i. Claim submitted by Lou Ann Bond White for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 6, 1986.
J. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (File No. JF646-0476) for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 13,
1986.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - recommended for denial:
k. Claim submitted by Arlene Wolfe for injuries sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about February 7, 1986.
1. Claim submitted by Isabelle Derian for bodily injuries sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 19, 1985.
Claim filed - recommended to be accepted:
m. Claim submitted by Roger McNichols for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 5, 1986.
627
City ~,11, A--he~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of July 2, 1986.
3. 180: Approving a proposed resolution regarding municipal liability tort
reform and authorizing presentation to the Orange County League of Cities and
to other appropriate persons and/or organizations.
4. 155: Approving the Negative Declaration for a 2,200 square foot
renovation and a 4,000 square foot addition to Martin Luther Hospital located
at 1830 West Romneya Drive.
5. 123: Authorizing a First Amendment to Agreement with Eric W. Gruver,
Ph.D., to conduct psychological evaluations for police officer, police reserve
and Jailer applicants, extending the term through July 31, 1987.
6. 123: Authorizing Service Agreement No. 07C929 with the State to provide
materials testing services for the Kraemer Boulevard FAU Project M-007(1) with
cost to the City not to exceed 51,000.
7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the City of Placentia, at a cost of
517,750 each, for traffic signal improvements at Lakeview/Orangethorpe
intersection.
8. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Ernest and Clara Andreola for
dedication of property located at 308 South Clementine in connection with the
widening of Clementine Street, and authorizing payment of 5200 for said
property.
9. 123: Authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Department
of Transportation and Orange County Transportation Commission, for Phase II of
the Beach Boulevard Super Street Demonstration Project.
10. 129: Approving a request by P. H. Hagopian, contractor for the Fire
Stations 2 and 3, Account Nos. 01-935 and 01-940, to substitute California
Living in place of Tile Experience, Inc. as the subcontractor for ceramic tile.
11. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Intercontinental Micro
Systems Corporation and Lease Ail La ?alma to allow encroachment of two 4-inch
conduits to house coaxial cables under Leaverton Court, east of Van Buren
Street. (85-6E)
12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Structural Rubber Products Company in the
amount of 528,727.06 for State College Boulevard rubberized railroad crossing
material at Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Crossing No.
2-170.3, in accordance with Bid No. 4351.
13. 160: Accepting the low bid of Riedel Omni Rubber Products, Inc., in the
amount of 526,076 for State College Boulevard rubberized railroad crossing
material at Southern Pacific Transportation Company Crossing No. 512.7, in
accordance with Bid No. 4352.
628
City Hall~ Anahm~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
14. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-345: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (State College
Boulevard Street Improvement, Ball Road to Orangewood Avenue, Account No.
15-793-6325-E3060; and opening of bids on August 21, 1986, 2:00 p.m.)
15. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-346: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (85-16A) (Declaring intent to abandon an
unused former Southern California Edison Company easement through the middle
of property generally located at 5030 East Crescent Drive, 85-16A, and setting
a date for the public hearing therefor - suggested date: August 19, 1986)
16. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-347: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (85-15A) (Declaring intent to abandon a
portion of an unused former Southern California Edison Company easement on
property generally located on the south side of Savanna Street, west of Knott
Street (3512 West Savanna), 85-15A, and setting a date for the public hearing
therefor - suggested date: August 19, 1986)
17. 000/135: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-348: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-264 ESTABLISHING CART RENTAL FEES
TO BE CHARGED AT THE H.G. "DAD" MILLER ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE.
(Establishing green fees and cart rental fees to be charged at the H. G. "Dad"
Miller Anaheim Municipal Golf Course, and amending Resolution No. 85R-264,
effective August 1, 1986)
18. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-349: 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.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-345 through 85R-347 and 85R-349:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Pickler
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-345 through 86R-347 and 86R-349, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 85R-348:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-348 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
175: DECREASE OF POWER COST ADJUSTMENT BILLING FACTORS: Receiving and filing
629
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 29, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the Public Utilities Department report of July 17, 1986 - Re: Decrease of
Power Cost Adjustment Billing Factors, effective August 1, 1986, resultinE in
a decrease in electric rates.
Mayor Pro Tem Pickler announced that in essence, this will be a 5 percent
electric rate reduction due, in part, to Anaheim's creative and cost effective
efforts to obtain power from sources other than Southern Califoru/a Edison.
Anaheim's rates will be approximately 2.5 percent below Edison. The average
residential customer will pay $2.00 less per month and commercial customers
will receive similar benefits depending upon the size of their company.
Further recent refund money the City has "won" from Edison in rate cases will
also stabilize electric rates through at least April of 1988.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the Public Utilities
Department report of July 17, 1986 regarding the decrease of power cost
adjustment billing factors. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
175: REVISION OF WATER RATES AND FEES: Amending rates, rules and regulations
for the sale and distribution of water as adopted by Resolution No. 72R-600,
and amendments thereto, effective August 1, 1986. Submitted was report dated
July 21, 1986 from the Secretary of the Public Utilities Board, recommending
that the Council adopt the findings of the Public Utilities Board with respect
to increases in water rates and fees and adopt those water rates and fees
effective August 1, 1986.
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, requested to speak to the issue. He
read a prepared statement giving reasons why he supported and why he felt the
proposed increases in water rates and fees were warranted.
Previously submitted was letter dated July 28, 1986 from Allan B. Hughes,
Executive Director, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce opposing the revision of water
rates and fees (made a part of the record).
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-350 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-350: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS.
73R-255, 73R-387, 73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 75R-479, 76R-378,
78R-418, 78R-419, 78R-459, 79R-643, 80R-304, 81R-124, 81R-402, 82R-355,
83K-331, 84R-246, and 86R-118.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay spoke against the proposed water rate
increases and fees. Since the cost of water and the cost of electricity for
pumping water has gone down in the last two years, he does not agree there is
a justification for increasing water rates and fees. It is his understanding
that the cost of new water pipes in the redevelopment area are paid for
through the redevelopment project and tax increments. These represent changes
in water lines which are the oldest in the City. The Council passed fees in
the "platinum triangle" area to pay for expansion of water lines in that
630
City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 29~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
area. The expansion in the canyon with the new East Hills development was
heavily advance paid for by Kaufman & Broad and the developers in the area.
The fact that there has been no increase in water rates in two years is not
Justification.
Mayor Roth entered the Council Chamber. (10:31 a.m.)
Councilman Bay continued that when he saw the first figures given to him, it
was to build reserves and working capital as well as some large valve
replacements. He agrees with the letter received from the Chamber of Commerce
in recommending a denial of the proposed revisions and instructing the Public
Utilities Department to review the proposed Capital Improvement Plan and
develop a prioritized list based on need. It is also recommended "...that any
future increases be discussed during the budget review period and not after
the approval of the Department's Resource Allocation Plan for the year." The
increase was included in the Resource Allocation Plan and within the expenses
and costs set up for the Department. To him the matter should have been
carefully and fully discussed during the budget session prior to the approval
of Utilities Department budgets. He did not approve it and he voted no but he
did not recall much discussion on the water rate increase which is higher for
residential than industrial. Looking at the water budget of ~18 million, ~8
million is the cost of water, the other ~10 million is the cost of operations
and Capital Improvements. He feels that ratio is out of balance.
Councilman Pickler stated he felt it was necessary that repairs and
replacements be made in a timely fashion. The Department could not work on a
day-to-day basis. The Department has looked to the future relative to the
needs and he could see no reason for not approving the proposed increases.
Darrell Ament, Assistant General Manager/Management Services, reported that
the Public Utilities Board held hearings on June 19 and July 17, 1986. At the
meeting of July 17, 1986, the Board voted five to one to recommend an increase
in water rates and fees representing an overall increase in water system rates
of about 7.5 percent, the first increase in 2 years. Even after the increase,
Anaheim water rates will still remain in the lower 1/3 of the residential
rates in Orange County. A residential customer will see an increase of
approximately $1 a month. Commercial/Industrial bills will remain about the
lowest in the County. The increase will raise water revenues approximately
$1.2 million of which 80 percent is related to capital. The bulk of that
capital is replacement for facilities that are either wearing out or
inadequate to serve the continuing development in the City. Mr. Ament then
briefed data contained in the July 21, 1986 report relative to the
recommendation and reasons and Justification for same. In concluding, he
stated he Joins with the Public Utilities Board in recommending the proposed
water rate increase effective August 1, 1986 as well as the fee increases. If
water fees are not increased, rate payers of Anaheimwill subsidize developers
approximately $42,000 for 1986/87.
Councilman Overholt stated it was his understanding in each successive year a
larger portion of the Water Capital Replacement program was going to be
absorbed by rate fee increases. The reason he raises the issue is that the
letter from the Chamber suggests that there be an ongoing study, perhaps a
631
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
prioritization of capital programs and also that the matter should be
discussed during budget hearings. The Chamber still has the opportunity to
study the issue to Join in that study with respect to whatever recommendations
are going to come up next year.
Mr. Ament answered that was correct. In terms of the budget cycle, they do
prioritize capital projects carefully. Those are reviewed within the
Department and with the City Manager, reviewed in depth with the Chamber of
Commerce Blue Ribbon Committee and subsequently reviewed by the Public
Utilities Board and ultimately presented to the City Council. At the rate
hearing on July 17, 1986, they did an in-depth presentation of the 1986/87
capital projects and went through them by priority order. The Board had that
information when they made the recommendation to the Council to increase the
rates.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized anytime projects are deferred, costs did not
go down. As an example alley restoration went from $600,000 to $5 million by
diverting the project.
Councilman Bay stated that he was asking that reasonable cuts in projected
budgets across the utility operation costs be made so when there is a need to
expend that much in capital improvements, funds have not all been spent in
salary increases or other costs such as almost 3700,000 in public relations
which he also spoke to and voted against at the time. When it came for time
to pay for necessary lines, it then takes a rate increase to pay for them.
Mayor Roth stated he also voted against the Public Relations Program because
he felt it could be done by the City's Public Information Office and asked if
the proposed increase had anything to do with paying for that program; Mr.
Ament answered that it is included but the program was being increasingly done
in house.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-350 duly passed and adopted.
127/129: FIREWORKS BALLOT MEASURE: Calling and giving notice for the
submission to the voters of an initiative measure relating to fireworks at the
General Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 1986. Submitted was
report dated July 18, 1986 from the City Attorney attached to which was the
draft of a resolution placing the ban of safe and sane fireworks on the
November 4, 1986 ballot.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that next to the word "prohibit" (see ballot
wording in proposed resolution indicated under Section 1), that the word "ban"
be added in parentheses which would make the intent absolutely clear. It will
632
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
then be a clear yes or no. Yes means ban. No means no ban. If a motion is
necessary, she is offering it. Councilman Bay offered the second.
City Attorney White stated he had no problem adding the word "ban# in
parentheses but recommended in order to be consistent that it also be added
after the next "prohibit" on the fifth line. Otherwise there might be some
implication that there is a difference. If ConncilwomanKaywood would offer
the resolution with those two changes, that will be sufficient.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-351 for adoption adding the
word "(ban)" in the ballot question. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-351: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE
VOTERS OF AN INITIATIVE MEASURE RELATING TO FIREWORKS AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 1986.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood questioned "Licensed Wholesale"
business included as a definition. It is her understanding when Mr. Moriarity
lost the business, Anaheim no longer had a wholesale fireworks business.
City Attorney White stated it was his understanding that another location in
another city has purchased an interest or the business. He was not aware the
intention is to relocate out of Anaheim or to keep it in the City. Therefore,
it was best to include that definition.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
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-351 duly passed and adopted.
179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERM_IT NO. 2777 - BURNETTE ELINE
PROPERTIES: Request for a rehearing submitted by John Harry, A~ent, for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2777, to permit an industrial related office
building on ML zoned property located at 2100 South State College, with
various Code waivers, denied by Council on May 27, 1986 (Res. 86R-223).
Councilman Pickler asked if the applicant had made any changes in the plans
originally submitted.
Mr. Jack Harry, agent for the applicant, 14 Mountain View, Anaheim, answered
"yes" and they were scheduled to meet with staff later in the week. The
purpose of the request is to get staff's concurrence. They have downsized the
building and tried to address the objections raised by the Council. They are
hopeful with the revised plans the Council will find the project more
acceptable.
633
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney White explained for Councilman Pickler that the purpose for a
rehearing is to reconsider the previous decision of the City Council based on
the same project. If there is a revision of the project, there is a procedure
for resubmitting revised plans and reprocessing the application. Technically
under the ordinance, there are grounds specified for a rehearing. However,
when plans are revised, there is also a procedure for going through the
process again which seems to be the more appropriate procedure.
Mr. Harry stated they feel that the revisions are entirely within the
parameters the Planning Commission accepted. They are trying to address some
of the questions the Council had.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to grant the request for a rehearing submitted
by John Harry, agent, Burnette Ehline Properties, for Conditional Use Permit
No. 2777 and setting the date for the public hearing as Tuesday, August 26,
1986 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay assumed that Mr. Harry was going to submit any changes to the
staff prior to the hearing; Mr. Harry acknowledged that would be the case.
112/127/129: IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS/ARGUMENTS RELATIVE TO CITY MEAS~ ON
FIREWORKS: Submitted was report dated June 23, 1986 from the City Clerk,
recommending that the Council adopt the proposed resolution authorizing
certain City Council Members to file an arguments in favor of the City measure
and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. City Clerk
Sohl stated following Council discussion last week, she indicated Councilwoman
Kaywood's name in the resolution as being authorized by the Council to file
the written argument in favor of the initiative measure, but this could be
amended.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she previously talked to Bob Simpson, Fire Chief
and Deputy City Manager and he has agreed tow rite a factual argument in favor
of a ban.
Councilman Bay asked what would happen if no one wants to write the other side
of the question from the Council Members. If more than one group comes in
wanting to write that argument, he wanted to know who decides who is going to
write it.
City Attorney White explained there is a hierarchy specified in the Elections
Code starting with community organizations, working its way down to
individuals. If there is more than one group that fits the top category that
group would be authorized to write the argument. The Elections Code then
provides that the City Clerk has the discretion to determine which of the
arguments gets placed in the voter information pamphlet.
Councilman Overholt asked if the Council had to take any action to allow the
Fire Chief to write the argument. He did not think the Council was taking a
position one way or the other. He did not want to restrict or authorize
anybody to write the argument. Mr. White explained the law provides the
Council may, by adopting a resolution, designate or appoint certain of its
members to write the ballot argument in favor or in opposition. Council
634
Cit~ H~11, Anabe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 29, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Members can write an argument independently and would then be placed in the
category of an individual and submit the argument to the City Clerk and that
argument would or would not be included. The same would be true for a City
official. If they fit under the individual category, the law does not
expressly provide that a City Council can designate an individual, other than
one of its own members, to write an argument. If the Fire Chief volunteered
to write the argument under his name, he would have that opportunity and
submit it to the Clerk under the representations that have been made this
morning. He does not believe a resolution is necessary to designate him nor
probably would it be within the confines of what the law provides in the
Elections Code.
Councilman Overholt stated he would be opposed to the Council taking action
today that would slant the issue one way or the other, but anybody who wants
to write an argument should have the opportunity to do so subject to whatever
process is appropriately set forth in the Elections Code.
City Clerk Sohl stated the Council would still have to decide whether or not
the City Attorney should prepare an impartial analysis and the proposed
resolution could be amended accordingly.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86K-352, authorizing and directing the
City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis regarding a City measure.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-352: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA DLRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
ANALYSIS.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if the Council chooses to have
the City Attorney write a neutral objective position regarding the measure,
could they then choose not to have any other arguments on the ballot.
City Attorney White answered the Council can choose not to have an impartial
analysis, but it cannot preclude arguments being submitted by community groups
or individuals that would be included in the ballot measure under the
Elections Code.
Councilman Bay asked if the Council does assign Members of the Council to
write an argument pro and/or con, was that the end of the matter without going
through the selection process; City Attorney White answered yes.
City Clerk Sohl stated she would be posting a notice that the last date to
file arguments will be August 14, 1986 and the argument may contain no more
than 200 words.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were statements made that were flagrantly
untrue, could something be done.
City Attorney White stated he believes there is a provision in the Code that
would authorize the City Clerk to challenge the validity of statements made
and then there is a procedure set forth which can actually end up going to
635
City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Court to determine whether language is fair and appropriate. It is sometimes
difficult to determine what is misleading and what is not. There is an
expedited proceeding to get a ruling prior to the ballot being printed.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-352 duly passed and adopted.
173: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE CODE - YELLOW CAB COMPANY: City Clerk Sohl
announced that some weeks ago (May 27, 1986) a request was submitted by Diane
Slagle, Vice President - Yellow Cab Company, for consideration of an amendment
to Chapter 4.72 of the Code. Ms. Slagle, in letter dated July 16, 1986,
stated she is withdrawing her request at this time.
No action was taken by the Council.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held July 7, 1986, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2815: Submitted by Lincoln Plaza Development,
to permit an automotive detailing and sales facility on CL zoned property
located at 299 South Euclid Street.
The City Planning Co.mission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-181, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2815, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE 3576: Submitted by Mary E. Horsley, to retain an existing
addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2103 West Orange Avenue, with
Code waivers of maximum lot coverage and minimum rear yard setback and area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Eesolution No. PC86-185, granted
Variance No. 3376, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption,
(Class 5).
3. VARIANCE NO. 3577: Submitted by David L. and Sandra S. Ingram, to
construct a family room addition to a single-family residence on RS-7200 zoned
property located at 1603 Arbutus Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a)
minimum side yard setback, (b) minimum rear yard setback, (c) minimum
dimensions of vehicle accessways and parking areas, (d) maximum fence height
to construct a family room addition.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-186, granted
Variance No. 3577, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption,
(Class 5).
636
170
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1998 AND 2501--TERMINATIONS: Submitted by
Sidney Sik Yah Chan, (Rustic Motel), to terminate Conditional Use Permits Nos.
1998 and 2501, to permit expansion of an existing motel located at 916 South
Beach Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2757.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-187, terminated
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1998 and 2501.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. l168--TERMINATION: Submitted by Atrico Realty,
Inc., (Kentucky Fried Chicken), to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 1168,
to permit an on-sale liquor establishment in a proposed building at 129 West
Ball Road, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2772.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-188, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1168.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2818: Submitted by Ramesh Patel, (Crest
Motel), to retain 4 kitchenettes in an existing 16 unit motel on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 2650 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-182, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2818, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2821: Submitted by Henry and Chantana Lew, to
permit a board and care facility for up to 12 adults on RS-7200 zoned property
located at 2224 Spinnaker Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-183, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2821, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2822: Submitted by John Kocyla, to permit a
church in a converted residential structure on CL zoned property located at
406 West Vermont Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces
(deleted).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-184, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2822, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIF2.
160/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4740: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4740
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
637
167.
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4740: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 1.04.310 OF CHAPTE~ 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO PURCHASING
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Xa2wood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4740 duly passed and adopted.
137/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4741: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4741
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
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.
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. 4741 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4742: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4742 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4742: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RRT.ATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-25, GL, 1840 Chelsea Drive.
111: HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL AND PARADE: Councilman Overholt stated he had heard
a lot of good rumors and interest and understands there will be a meeting held
relative to saving the Halloween Festival. He also received a call from Leo
Freedman who indicated his theatre (Freedman Forum) will be open by the time
of the Halloween Festival and if in any way the theatre could contribute as a
focal point, he would be more than happy to cooperate. He (Overholt) was glad
to see that people are not willing to let the Halloween Festival go and feels
that it is something worthwhile keeping. He again pledged his personal
support.
Mayor Roth stated he has talked with some of the leadership in Buena Park and
they are going ahead with their parade in October. He suggested that Buena
Park be contacted relative to how they solved the insurance problem in holding
such an event.
137: CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION - INTENT OF THE CHARTER REGARDING SAME:
Councilman Bay referred to the City Attorney's report regarding this subject,
in answer to his request that the Attorney review City Charter Sections 1.09
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Ca~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
and 1.10 dealing with the Issuance of Obligation Bonds and/or Revenue Bonds.
His (Bay's) opinion, as previously stated, is that the Issuance of
Certificates of Participation particularly relating to issues that do not have
a revenue stream is the same as issuing General Obligation Bonds without the
consent of the electorate. His concern is not so much with the Certificates
that are tied to enterprise functions that have known and well-defined revenue
streams. He is concerned that the City can go on issuing Certificates of
Participation without any vote of the people under the guise that it is not a
debt incurred against the City. He would question, under the threat of
default, whether the City would consider letting one of the Certificates
default without doing something about it. The legal inference that it is not
a debt to the City is merely that. In reality, the City would more than
likely stand behind any of the Certificates of Participation it is involved in
for the good of the City's position financially and its credit standing. When
the present City Council and future City Councils have the power on three
votes to borrow money, whether there is a revenue stream or not, with not only
not a vote of the people of the City but also not so much as a public hearing,
he feels something is wrong in allowing that type of freedom outside of the
range of the Charter.
He has not had the City Attorney write up any change to the Charter but he
still feels that under Section 1209 or 1210, the Council should be putting it
to the voters to give the voters a chance to vote yes or no whether they would
like to vote on that type of indebtedness for the City. He is not going to
ask the City Attorney to do that if there are not enough votes on the Council
to support it. He is bringing it up today to make a motion in concept - that
the Council take some steps to give the people a choice on whether the City
should be allowed to go on incurring that type of debt without their consent
by a vote.
Councilman Overholt stated that Councilman Bay should make a motion to
determine the position of the Council.
Councilman Bay moved to the foregoing concept as articulated.
Mayor Roth stated he has voted against some Certificates of Participation in
the past and the Council has an opportunity to act when such issues come
before them. The problem he has relative to a Charter amendment is that
nothing can be changed without a vote of the people. However, people have
elected responsible representation in voting for the Council Members. He has
a problem locking everything into the Charter when there is an opportunity for
such decisions to be made by the Council.
Mayor Roth asked if there was a second to Councilman Bay's motion. The motion
died for lack of a second.
144: JAIL ACTION COMMITTEE - STATUS REPORT: Mayor Roth then called upon both
Allan Hughes and Floyd Farano to give a brief status report on the Jail
action. He feels the issue relative to the Jail and the Anaheim site chosen
by the County needs to be briefed periodically by the Jail Action Committee
leadership. Some good news was that the City of Orange, on a 5/0 vote voted a
$10,000 amount matching that of the City of Anaheim (see minutes of J~me 22,
639
! 65
City Ha]l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
1986) to be used for the Jail Action Committee's cost benefit analysis of
alternative Jail sites.
Mr. Allan Hughes, Chairman, Jail Action Committee, stated the Committee was
extremely gratified with the support of the Anaheim Council in their vote last
week to support their efforts. He feels the Committee is making some
excellent progress in the situation as far as their relationship with
Sacramento and there have been some successes. There was some concern that
the general public now perceives they have solved the problem and no longer
need any action to prevent the Jail from being built in Anaheim. That is not
true. They have an active program to continue their efforts to represent the
City and community of Anaheim to prevent the construction of the proposed Jail
in Anaheim and hopefully to focus the attention on a rural site.
Floyd Farano, Chairman, Strategy Committee of the Jail Action Committee. The
previous week a meeting was held with Bud Smull of Business Properties,
himself and Mayor Beam of Orange wherein they explained the undertaking of the
Jail Action Committee, what they had accomplished and the planning for the
future. Their support was requested resulting in a vote adopting a resolution
to support the Jail Action Committee vote by attendance at the meetings,
participating in the decisions, and also by lending its support with the
contribution of $10,000 to the financing. The Committee has undertaken
something in excess of 3100,000 in obligations for the purpose of engaging
various studies that will be designed to counteract whatever the direction is
of the County of Orange. They have retained the services of an EIR expert
from Orange, New Jersey and Mr. Steinman who used to employ the people who did
the first Omni report. The present undertaking is to arrange with Mayors Roth
and Beam to have a meeting with Mayor Griset of Santa Ana for the purpose of
soliciting his support. They have also received some inquiries from cities
like Villa Park. They are getting the Job done. He then acknowledged the
business community, those individuals and entities who have devoted many hours
to the effort as well as City staff.
179: SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2784 -
ANGELOS/BEACH BOULEVARD: Councilman Overholt referred to letter dated
July 23, 1986 from Hichelle Reinglass, Attorney, representing Angelo's/Beach
Boulevard. The public hearing was scheduled for July 22, 1986 and then
continued to Ausust 5, 1986 at the request of Attorney Reinglass who indicated
she would not be available on that date. The subject letter now requests a
further continuance also indicating if the Council does not grant the further
continuance it is a violation of due process and prejudicial to her client.
He emphasized that attorneys trial calendars or personal trips should not
dictate the Calendar of the City Council. He for one is going to be prepared
to vote against a continuance of the August 5, 1986 continued public hearing,
which was requested initially by the attorney. If Ms. Reinglass's firm is
unable to represent Angelo's, Angelo's should get another attorney. He gets
upset with attorneys coming before the Council and making charges, accusations
and requests that no Court of Law would ever grant to them.
Councilman Pickler agreed; Mayor Roth stated the reason the Council was firm
about the continuance was that people were present in the Chamber audience at
640
I66
City Hall~ A-aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the time the public hearing was first scheduled to be heard and were told that
it would take place on August 5, 1986.
City Attorney Jack White stated it would be most helpful to staff, if today
the Council could give some direction in order to respond to Ms. Reinglass so
that she would know the Council's position on the continuance so that there is
no misunderstanding when the date comes for the hearing. If a majority of the
Council is not in favor of another continuance, it would be helpful from a
legal standpoint to so indicate so that Ms. Reinglass can be contacted to let
her know that the hearing will proceed as scheduled. If she needs to arrange
for other representation, she will have that opportunity.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the continued public hearing scheduled
on Conditional Use Permit No. 2?84 on August 5, 1986 not be continued to
another date as requested and that the applicant and attorney be notified of
Council's action. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Clerk Sohl stated that she had already written and spoken to Ms.
Reinglass's secretary on the phone and that the applicant has received copies
of all correspondence sent.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be
held to confer with the City Attorney regarding:
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. Regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9 (b) (1).
c. To consider Personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:45 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
bein8 present. (1:45 p.m.)
153/101: ~EATING CLASSIFICATION OF STADIUM GENERAL MANAGER: Councilman Roth
offered Resolution No. 86R-353 for adoption, creating the classification of
Stadium General Manager at a salary range of XSRll effective July 25, 1986, as
recommended in memorandum dated July 29, 1986 from the Human Resources
Director Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-353: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CREATING THE CLASSIFICATION OF STADIUM GENERAL MANAGER AT A SALARY
RANGE OF XSRll EFFECTIVE JULY 25, 1986.
Roll Call Vote:
641
: 63
City ~a!!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
AYES=
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMB~S:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
C0UNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-353 duly passed and adopted.
153/101: CONFIRMING APPOINTMENT OF STADIUM GENERAL MANAGER: Councilman Roth
moved to confirm the appointment of William Turner as Stadium General Manager
at a salary of ~61,750 a year effective July 25, 1986, as recommended in
memorandum dated July 24, 1986 from the City Manager. Councilman 0verholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134/179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 208~
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-21~ VARIANCE NO. 3534 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Kathleen F. and Sammy John Nobles, Terry F. Wylie and Edwara L
and Yolanda E. Roldan,
111 South Illinois Street
Anaheim Ca 92805
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to tLM-1200 to
construct a 40 unit apartment complex on property located at 1918-1932 East
Cypress Street, with code waiver of maximum structural height; to consider an
amendment to the land use element of the General Plan from general commercial
and low-density residential designation to medium density or low-medium
density residential designation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-44 recommended adoption of
GPA 208 Exhibit "B". Resolution No. PC86-45 and 46 denied the
Reclassification and the Variance.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Hugo Vazquez, Agent.
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.
This hearing has been continued from the meetings of March 18, April 22,
May 20 and July 1, 1986, to this date. At the April 22, 1986 hearing the
applicant agreed to redesign the project to be submitted as a lower density
project, conforming to requirements of the RM-2400 zone. These plans were
subsequently submitted and referred back to the Planning Commission for
recommendation.
At their meeting held July 21, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed revised
plans submitted in conjunction with Variance No. 3534, (Revision No. 1) for a
27 unit affordable condominium complex, and recommended that due to limited
access and density that the project conform to RM-2400 standards.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Reports dated February 3, 1986 and July 21, 1986.
642
164
City H~_ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Hugo Vazquez, 619 South Live Oak Drive, Anaheim.
Recounted that he has been pursuing approval for this project
over the past year. Initially the project was proposed for a 40
unit apartment complex, and due to discussion and objections
presented at subsequent public hearings the plans have been
redrawn. They now propose a 27-unit condominium complex
inasmuch as it is felt this would be more acceptable to the
surrounding property owners. The plans show two and three
bedroom units with sizes ranging from 850 to 1100 sq. feet. He
explained that they had done everything possible to meet code
requirements and still provide affordable housing.
He hoped that the project would be accepted as a condominium
project, otherwise, they would intend to build it as a 27-unit
apartment project.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN FAVOR: Pat Fitkin, 408 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim 92804
Agent representing property owners Roldan and Wylie, reported on
her efforts to contact and discuss the revised plans with
residents in the area surrounding Coffman Street. She indicated
that she believes the area residents approve of the revised
plans submitted for consideration this date. She also discussed
efforts made to obtain the ingress/egress easement across the
Church property.
Raymond Ware, 2047 Mauerhan Place, Anaheim, representing the
Church property at 311 North State College Blvd.
Stated that the developer and the Church are in closer agreement
than they have ever been. It has been the Church's position all
along that this developer be permitted to build no more than any
other developer in the area would be allowed. They do not feel
the project should be allowed variances from code. He indicated
they have negotiated for the easement and given the developer a
price which they feel is equitable. The one exception to
variances from code they would like permitted is an 8 foot fence
between the properties rather than the 6 foot fence which is
required. A major concern to the Church is still the use of the
easement and the fact that residents might use the church
property for access, overflow parking, storage of oversize and
recreational vehicles, but he recognized that these are problems
with which the Church would have to cope, and there are means by
which they can do so, i.e., speed bumps, posting no parking
signs, etc.
In response to Councilman Pickler, Mr. Ware advised that he
would prefer the project be built as apartments.
William E. Allen, 1713 E. Sycamore, Anaheim.
He is also a member of the Church group. He recalled that 33
years ago when the Church bought the property it was understood
643
City H~]1~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
that the easement ran to the east and the specific location must
be a matter or record somewhere. He suggested that the current
project built as apartments would be his choice since he did not
think there was currently much of a market for condominiums. He
also mentioned concern over the use of the easement, and
indicated the Church did not want to have a situation created
which would require continual policing.
Phyllis Boydston, 728 North Janss Street, Anaheim.
Agent for the Nobles property, which is presently vacant, noted
that there are significant problems with the property in its
present state, squatters have been moved off by Code
Enforcement. The access situation is a problem as well but
there should be some solution to it. She noted that her clients
have a financial hardship with this property and are paying for
something which happened (lack of access) many years ago. She
did not think that 27 units would add that much traffic onto the
street.
William S. Phelps, 1259 North Batavia, Orange.
He questioned how this proposal could be put before the Council
when in his experience there has been a 3,000 sq. ft.
requirement for condominiums, and the applicant is asking for
consideration under a 1200 sq. ft. requirement with minimum lot
areas.
OPPOSED:
Mrs. Way, 189 Evelyn Drive, Anaheim.
She indicated she had discussed this project among her neighbors
who are in attendance today and they would prefer it be
developed as condominiums. They tend to think this would keep
the density down. She questioned what records there might be
showing when the easement was granted the church, and called
Council's attention to the speed which automobiles traveled on
Evelyn Drive.
EXHIBITS MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
None.
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Councilman Bay voiced his concern over the traffic circulation
problems, and the fact that the area very clearly evidences the
need for some overall planning efforts. As more of these larger
lots begin to develop, he did not see how the necessary
circulation could be provided without putting all of this
additional traffic on Coffman Street.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that the approval of this
project as condominiums with less square footage and lot size
than has previously been established as required would set a
dangerous precedent, and one which would be difficult to reverse.
644
1.62,
City H. 11~ A--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
STAFF RESPONSES TO COUNCIL:
An-ika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Relative to the block wall which is required by one of the
Interdepartmental Conditions, she noted that a six foot wall is
the maximum permitted by code, and, technically anything over
six foot would require a Variance, however when both parties are
in agreement they have administratively approved walls to eight
feet in the past.
In response to the questions about records of the easement
granted the Church, Ms. Santalahti noted that the Title Report
makes no reference to this easement, that the City involvement
would be only for public utility easements and there is not a
recorded easement on the City maps across the Church property.
Jack White, City Attorney.
Advised Council that existence or nonexistence of the
ingress/egress easement is an issue between the two property
owners. The Council has authority to approve or disapprove the
zoning actions pending before it on condition that the necessary
right of way be acquired. If this condition is not met then any
approvals granted cannot be exercised.
In response to Councilman Bay's concern over the issue of
providing traffic circulation to an area such as this, Mr. White
explained that the City Council always has power to exercise its
rights under eminent domain laws to provide access where it is
in the public interest to do so, i.e., if it is necessary for
reasonable and rational development of property. On the other
hand, the City is not required to exercise that power to cure
the problem of a land-locked parcel, nor is that parcel entitled
in any way to having the City correct the problem.
FINAL SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Hugo Vazquez indicated he would be happy to accept an approval
conditioned upon his obtaining the appropriate ingress/egress
easement, and he would work this out.
CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION/COUNCIL CONCEKN:
At the conclusion of discussion the City Council determined to
perm/t development of a 27-unit condominium project, developed
to RM-2400 standards, and to condition the approval on
acquisition of appropriate ingress/egress easement by the
developer.
The project was approved without change to the requirement for a
6 foot block wall, with indication that if both parties desire
to erect an 8 foot block wall, that may be allowed
administratively.
645
159
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Califorala - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon findin~ that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received,
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered offered Resolution No. 86R-354 for adoption,
approving General Plan Amendment No. 208, in accordance with Planning
Commission recommendation, Exhibit "B", permitting 18 units per acre, without
additional restrictions.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-354: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMEND~T NO. 208.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
C0UNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-354 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-355 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 85-86-21, changing the zone to RM-2400, subject to the
Interdepartmental conditions recommended in staff report dated February 3,
1986, including a condition that prior to finalization of the zoning on
subject property, appropriate easement to provide ingress/egress to this
property as approved by City staff, be acquired by the developer. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-355: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-21.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES-.
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-355 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-356 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3534, subject to the Interdepartmental conditions set forth in
staff report dated July 21, 1986, including a condition that prior to
finalization of the zoning on subject property, appropriate easement to
provide ingress/egress to this property as approved by City staff, be acquired
646
City Hall~ Anebeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
by the developer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-356: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3534.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Bay, Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-356 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay the City
Council moved to waive Council Policy No. 543, pertaining to density bonuses
allowed for affordable units. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:05 p.m.)
AFTE~ RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:10)
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, the Code waiver pertaining to parking was denied,
approved EIR - Negative Declaration, and granted CUP 2807 for a period of one
year.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planniu~ 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.
Prior to the applicant making her statement Councilman Pickler advised that
the reason he requested review were his concerns for parking and traffic in
647
City ~!1~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
that area. Also he had gone out and looked at the area, and noted many code
violations. He asked if she had received notice of these.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Sharon Browning, 2512 Chambers Road, Suite 206, Tustin.
Property Manager and Agent for owners of subject property. She
replied to Councilman Pickler that the source of the problem is
one tenant in Unit "U", who has a research development use and
this has carried over into automotive uses. She advised she has
cautioned him about maintaining his activities within the
building four times, to no avail, and has now served him with a
notice that he has 30 days to vacate.
She further advised that the use for personal repair of autos
being requested in CUP No. 2807 is to allow an activity to
continue which is already in existence in three of the units.
These gentlemen have leased the units for their own personal use
to store and repair automobiles, and wish to continue doing so.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN FAVOR: None.
OPPOSED:
Jeff Boatman, 1160 North Cosby Way, Anaheim.
He noted that the Code Enforcement Officer was busy on his
latest trip out, but there is still a problem due to the very
limited amount of parking spaces. Allowing these spaces to be
used as private or business storage contributes to the problem.
He disagreed with the applicant that the source of the problem
is only one of her tenants. He noted that more than one
individual was cited.
EXHIBITS MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
None.
A copy of the Memo dated July 25, 1986 from the Assistant
Director for Zoning regarding Code Enforcement activity at this
property was given to Ms. Browning.
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Councilman Bay stated he preferred to allow the Agent for this
property some time to clear up the problems noted. If he were
to make a decision this date he would have to vote no based on
his observations of the condition of the property at present.
FINAL SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
No rebuttal by the applicant.
COUNCIL ACTION:
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the public hearing
on Conditional Use Permit No. 2807 was continued to the meeting of September
9, 1986 to allow the Property Manager an opportunity to work with the tenants
and to clear up the code enforcement problems. MOTION CARRIED.
648
i :5 8
City ~L~ll; Anaheim~ ~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council further noted that it was intended that Code Enforcement
would go out to monitor the progress on this property at non-specific times.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Hayor Roth moved to recess to Closed Session to
discuss the balance of items set forth earlier by the City Attorney.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (Recessed 4:50 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Koth called the meeting to order, all Council Members
bein~ present. (4:55 p.m.)
123: On motion by Mayor Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City
Council authorized payment of a July lease payment due under certain lease
purchase agreements dated August 1, 1982, between the City of Anaheim and
Imperial Municipal Services Group, Inc. Councilman Bay abstained from
voting. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mayor Roth moved to adjourn to
9:30 a.m. August 5, 1986 for updated presentation by the Anaheim Postmaster.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:58 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
649