1986/12/09City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBER~: Roth, Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEH~ERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC ENGINERR: Paul Singer
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II: Malcom Slaughter
Mayor Bay called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Pastor Lawrence Downing, Seventh Day Adventist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RATIFICATION OF RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: The City Council
unanimously ratified a Resolution of Congratulations which was previously
~rresented to Ralph Clark who is retiring from Orange County Board of
Supervisors, 4th District, after 16 years of dedicated service on that Board.
The Resolution was presented to Supervisor Clark at a dinner held in his honor
on December 17, 1986. Mr. Clark had also served on the Anaheim City Council
from 1968 to 1970 and as the City's Mayor from 1969/70.
119: PRESENTATION - "CLEAN COMMUNITY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD": Mr. Larry Goodson,
Chairman of the Board of Recycal, a coalition of Boards interested in cleaning
up the environment, presented an award to the City of Anaheim Parks and
Recreation Department, "Kids for Parks" program. The award was in recognition
of the City's efforts in this regard. Mr. Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Community Services accepted the award along with Kit Gillam,
Mayor Bay and all Council Members.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Gouncil:
Helping Hand Day - December 9, 1986.
The proclamation was accepted by Mr. W. C. Bird and Danny Larsen, one of the
children representing the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Edward E. Dumon,
Systems OperationManager, Utilities Department, on the occasion of his
retirement from the City of Anaheim after 26 years of dedicated service to the
1011
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
City and extending best wishes for a happy retirement. Mr. Dumon was also
accompanied by his wife, and members of the Utilities Department were present
in the Chamber audience in honor of Mr. Dumon.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held November 18, 1986. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay abstained since he was not present at that meeting. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 34,001,105.06, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 86R-532 through 86R-539, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No.
4786 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Southland Ambulance Service for equitable indemnity
for lawsuit sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
September 7, 1985.
b. Claim submitted by Brian De Binder for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 27, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by Balboa Insurance Group as Subrogee of Dorothy
Gleerup (File No. EAF407128) for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about August 8, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Thomas Alan Surman for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 18, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Jim D. McKinney for personal injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 31, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by Dorina Butteling for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1986.
1012
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
g. Claim submitted by Linda Faye Baker for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
October 12, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by Alan Valleau for bodily injury and property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 12, 1986.
i. Claim submitted by Matthew Joseph Meiners for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 12, 1986.
J. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (#JF645-0092) for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 28, 1986.
Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted:
k. Claim submitted by Catherine E. Beatty for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 24, 1986.
1. Claim submitted by Jay Paul Martin for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 28, 1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 111: Anaheim Chamber of Commerce resolution pertaining to a Vacancy
to Occur on the City Council.
b. 146: Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency, Minutes of November 13,
1986.
c. 105: Community Center Authority, Minutes of November 17, 1986.
3. 108: Ratifying and approving the applications for a Public Dance Permit
submitted by Nick Ramirez, for the New Generation Production, to hold dances
at the Anaheim Convention Center on December 6 , 1986, from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00
a.m. and on December 27, 1986 from 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
4. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to an Agreement with Price
Waterhouse for consulting services in connection with Vision 2000, increasing
the contract total to $§0,000 and out-of-pocket expenses to $7,000 to
accommodate additional services.
5. 155/175: Approving the Negative Declaration for the construction of 4
water production wells, a water discharge transmission main to Linda Vista
Reservoir, and appurtenances on the west side of Anaheim Lake, and easterly of
Miller Street.
6. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-532: 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. (Magnolia Avenue
Street, Storm Drain, Sewer and Water Improvements, Lincoln Avenue to 155 feet
north of Cerrttos Avenue, Account Nos. 15-793-6325-E3070, 12-791-6325-E1540,
1013
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
51-484-6993-00710, 55-489-6340-00140, 52-606-6329-06564 and
52-606-6329-06876, and opening of bids on January 15, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
7. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-533: 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. (Orangewood Avenue
Street Improvement, 650 feet east of Rampart Street to State College
Boulevard, Account Nos. 15-793-67325-E3960 and 51-484-6993-00710; and opening
of bids on January 15, 1987)
8. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-534: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (GRIFFITH
COMPANY) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Griffith Co., in the amount of $664,414.95, for Harbor Boulevard Street
Improvement Manchester Avenue to 582 feet south of Katella Avenue, Account
Nos. 01-799-6325-E9020 and 51-484-6993-00710)
9. 109/150: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-535: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE STATE
COMMUNITY PARKLANDS ACT OF 1986 FOR BAUER KANCH PARK, OAK CANYON NATURE
CENTER, PEARSON PARK, EUCALYPTUS PARK, MAXWELL PARK, MODJESKAPARKAND LA
PALMA PARK. (Authorizing the application for grant funds under the State
Community Parklands Act of 1986 in an amount totalling 3639,000, for the
general development of Bauer Ranch Park and improvements at Oak Canyon Nature
Center, Pearson Park, Eucalyptus Park, Maxwell Park, ModJeska Park and La
Palma Park)
10. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-536: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES
HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (northeast corner of Lemon
Street and Orangethorpe Avenue)
11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-537: 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.
12. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 86K-538: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-290 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (Amending
Resolution No. 86R-290 which established rates of compensation for classes
designated as Administrative Management, creating the classifications of
Planning Director and Zoning Administrator, effective December 12, 1986)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-539: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-291 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY.
(Amending Resolution No. 86R-291 which established rates of compensation for
classes designated as Middle Management/Supervisory, creating the
classification of Senior Planner, effective December 12, 1986)
13. 161/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4786: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING CERTAIN LIMITATIONS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
1014
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
FOK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTALPHA, AS REQUIKED BY CALIFORNIAHEALTHAND SAFETY
CODE SECTION 33333.4.
14. 123: Authorizing an Implementation Agreement with Pacifico Avenue
Partnership relating to provide for payment of the Interim Fee on certain
public improvements made within the Anaheim Stadium Business Center, and
authorizing the City Clerk to record the Deed of Trust submitted in
conjunction with the agreement.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-532 through 86R-539:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Roth, Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-532 through 86R-539, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
111: ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO REDEVELOPMF~NT AND
THE LETTER PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED WESTDOME SPORTS ARENA: Receive and file
a Chamber of Commerce resolution pertaining to Redevelopment in the City of
Anaheim and their letter dated November 21, 1986 pertaining to the proposed
Westdome Sports Arena Project.
Mr. Floyd L. Farano, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, explained that
the Chamber had considered the two subject projects which the Chamber feels
are of extreme importance to the City and its business community. The Chamber
wanted to appear today to elucidate and personify its support of both
projects. At the conclusion of Mr. Farano's presentation, he stated that he
appreciated the opportunity to be present today in the personification of the
Chamber's visual support which they wanted to give and express the hope that
the projects will move successfully through the City.
Mr. Bay thanked Mr. Farano for coming forward and was pleased to see that the
Chamber was taking formal action by being present today to inform the Council
of their support.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to receive and file the resolution from the
Chamber of Commerce and their letter dated November 21, 1986 regarding the
subject projects. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179/153: ORDINANCE NO. 4785 - CREATING THE OFFICE OF ZONINGADMINISTRATORAND
DEFINING POWERS: Adding Chapter 18.12 to the Code, creating the Office of
Zoning Administrator and defining the powers of the office.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know when the minutes would be available to the
Council after the Zoning Administrator holds a hearing so that the Council
could take timely action if needed. (See staff report dated December 2, 1986
from the Director of Community Development and Planning relative to the
organizational modification).
1015
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Norm Priest, Director of Community Development and Planning, answered they
would follow the same kind of timing and procedure presently followed at the
Planning Commission level.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to be assured that the Council would receive the
minutes early enough to act; Mr. Priest assured Councilwoman Kaywood that
would be the case. The Council would have to have the minutes before they
could properly consider the action of the Zoning Administrator.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4785 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4785: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMADDING CHAPTER 18.12
TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING THE OFFICE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND
DEFINING THE POWERS OF THE OFFICE.
175: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-511 NJ/NC PRO TUNC: Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution No. 86R-540, amending Resolution No. 86R-511 nunc pro tune
amending the rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of
electric energy as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 24, 1986 from the Secretary of the Public Utilities
Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-540: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-511 AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 711{-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-084, NUNC PRO TUNC.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Roth,
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-540 duly passed and adopted.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 4787 - PUBLIC MEETING PROCEDURES: Adding new Section
1.12.015 to the Code, relating to public meeting procedures.
City Attorney, Jack White, briefed his report dated November 26, 1986 which
related to the amendments to the Ralph M. Brown Act effective January 1,
1987. The amendments will require the City Council to post all agendas of the
City Council meetings as well as requiring any other Boards and Commissions of
the City to similarly publish and post agendas of its meetings at least 72
hours prior to the scheduled meetings. It will require that each Board,
including the City Council, designate someone to have the responsibility of
posting those agendas and also give the Council and each Board the opportunity
to set parameters relating to those members of the public that may wish to
address the Council or Board or Commission at such meetings. Time is required
to be made available at each meeting for public input. The ordinance would
authorize the City Clerk to post notices pursuant to this new provision in the
Brown Act on behalf of the City Council. It would also establish the
1016
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
parameters for members of the public who wish to address the City Council at a
regular meeting by establishing maximum time limits of three minutes per
speaker and ten minutes per subject for those who wish to bring new issues to
the Council. This time limit would not apply to public hearings and speakers
who are speaking in connection with a duly noticed hearing required byLaw.
It would also give the Council the ability to waive those time limitations in
any particular case where the Council saw fit by a majority vote. He
recommended in order to comply with the requirements of the Brown Act and
implement the procedures that will be mandated as of the 1st of January, that
the Council give first reading of the ordinance today and at its next regular
meeting adopt the proposed ordinance.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4787 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4787: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
1.12.015 TO THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC MEETING PROCEDURES.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she finds it inconsistent that the Council cannot
act on something that comes up within the 72-hour period of posting the agenda
and the meeting but a member of the public can address the Council on any
subject at the meeting.
Mr. White explained the Law provides that members of the public may address
the Council on any subject within the subject matter Jurisdiction of the City
Council. It does not provide that the Council has the right to act upon the
addressed matter if it is not a posted agenda item. The Council does have the
prerogative to a limited extent to act upon matters brought to the CoUncil
within the 72-hour time limit and not part of the posted agenda if the Council
finds that either there was an emergency situation created that necessitated
action due to preservation of the public peace, health or safety or if the
Council finds that the item was not known at the time the agenda was posted 72
hours in advance and the need to act upon it even though it be a non-emergency
and the Council by at least a 2/3's vote determines to act upon the matter.
There is limited ability to take action within the 72-hour period but the
procedures which will take effect January 1, 1987 give the Council much less
ability to act than previously.
105: RESIGNATION FROM THE LIBRARY BOARD: Councilman Roth moved to accept the
resignation of Thomas F. Daly from the Library Board as tendered in his letter
of November 24, 1986 with regrets. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth asked that a letter of thanks be sent to Mr. Daly for the time
he spent on the Board.
147: APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE DIRECTOR - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS TO 2~ 3
AND 13: Submitted was letter dated October 27, 1986 from Rita J. Brown, Board
Secretary, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, requesting
appointment of an alternate director to act as a member in the absence of the
Mayor. (Previous alternate was Council Member Overholt).
Mayor Bay stated he will be attending most of the meetings.
1017
8O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler stated he would be happy to serve as the alternate if no
one else wanted to be the alternate at this time.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, Councilman Pickler
was selected to be an alternate director to the Orange County Sanitation
Districts 2, 3 and 13. MOTION CARRIED.
121: LITIGATION WITH CALIFORNIA ANGELS: Councilman Hunter reported on his
meeting all day yesterday in a spirit of cooperation with the attorneys for
the Angels and the City. It was a campaign promise he had made and that he is
keeping in attempting to do something about the situation.
Councilman Bay stated he understands that Councilman Hunter was briefed on
both sides of the issues at length yesterday.
Councilman Hunter stated that to attempt to put what the Angels lawyers and
the City's lawyers had done for one whole year with Judge Domenichini into one
day was virtually impossible. He hoped there would be more briefings on both
sides to bring him up to date as the new Council Member in an attempt to do
something in all sincerity.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Bay 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) To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.6.
(c) To discuss personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:58 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:44 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAR/NG - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 108 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED):
APPLICANT: Wattson Company
840 Newport Center Drive #655
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
Owners: Margo & Lowell Dukleth
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Request for amendment to delete a portion of La Mesa
Avenue, west of White Star Avenue and north of the Riverside Freeway in order
to develop approximately 80 acres bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue, on
the east by Kraemer Boulevard, and the south and west by the Riverside Freeway.
1018
City Hall~ An-helm; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9; 1986; 10:00 A.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-242 denied the request for
amendment to the Area Development Plan; EIR - Negative Declaration previously
approved.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Richard L. Riemer for Margo Dukleth. This matter was continued
from the meeting of November 4, 1986, to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 23, 1986.
Posting of property October 24, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 24, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 15, 1986.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated December 1, 1986 from Mr. Prank
Lowry, attorney, Farano & Kieviet, representing an adjacent property owner,
Harold Coykendall, requested a continuance of the public hearing to January 6,
1986.
It was then determined by a show of hands that approximately five people were
present with regard to ADP NO. 108; Mayor Bay asked for an indication of those
who could not return on January 6, 1987 should the public hearing be continued
to that requested date. There was no response.
Councilman Roth noted that the appellant was present but the attorney for the
client in opposition to any amendment to ADP No. 108 had requested the
continuance. He felt that the appellant should be heard relative to the
request.
City Attorney White explained for Mayor Bay that there was no prohibition on
anyone who has an interest in the matter to request a continuance. Normally
such a request comes from the applicant. From his (White's) standpoint, he
would tend to encourage a continuance to allow the parties that have a prime
interest to perhaps meet and try to resolve the issue between themselves and
return to the Council with a plan which they could both find acceptable.
Mr. Richard L. Riemer, attorney, representing the appellant, stated he heard
for the first time this morning that a continuance had been sought by Mr.
Lowry on behalf of Mr. Coykendall. Nobody has ever spoken with him with
regard to a settlement. If that is something that is in the offing, he and
his client are interested.
Mayor Bay personally urged the principals to get together and work toward a
meaningful solution. If continuing the public hearing to January 6, 1987
would give both the time to possibly start negotiations, the Council would be
happy if the matter could be negotiated.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on ADP No. 108
to Tuesday, January 6, 1987 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
1019
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 218 (READV.),
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-3 (READV.)~ VARIANCE NO. 3588 (READV.) AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: D & D Development Company
711 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite 200
Brea, Ca. 92621
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, and
redesignation from low density residential and low-medium density
residential/property located at 2900-2920 East Lincoln Avenue/to construct a
220-unit, 2-story apartment complex, with Code waivers of maximum structural
height and minimum structural setback and yard requirement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC86-217, 218 and 219
the City Planning Commission approved General Plan Amendment No. 218, granted
Reclassification No. 86-87-03 for RM-2400 zoning and denied Variance No. 3588;
approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
This matter was discussed and continued from the meeting of September 23 and
November 18, 1986, to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 11, 1986.
Posting of property September 12, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 12, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 4, 1985.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Camille Courtney, D & D Development.
She first referred to her letter of December 8, 1986 (previously
made a part of the record). She then briefed her letter noting
that the project now called for 196 units and not 220 as
originally proposed which change was reflected in the staff
report dated August 18, 1986. Their original plan was for
condominiums but upon re-evaluating the feasibility of that
project, they opted instead to pursue apartments. §he then
reviewed the site plan posted on the Chamber wall comparing it
to the previous site plan submitted and noting the differences
between the two plans. She also described the project and
surrounding land uses.
Originally the project proposed 2-story apartments along the
boundary abutting the residents property but now the
second-story had been eliminated from those units. The site was
lowered 4 1/2 feet as a result and those units now sit 4 1/2
feet below the adjacent single-family homes. The 1-story
apartments are now 4 1/2 feet below the next door neighbors.
The pool and recreation area originally on the property boundary
have also been relocated to the interior of the project to
1020
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
mitigate any adverse impacts on the neighbors. She also briefed
the posted exterior elevation plans. The apartments were
intended to rent for $570 a month for the ?20 square-foot unit
and ~750 a month for the 2-bedroom 900 square-foot units.
The changes made to the project were an effort to work with the
neighborhood who they met with on two occasions and reviewed the
changes with them. The request was not an unusual one and has
happened all throughout the City - that apartments are located
next to single-family homes. They are asking for 26 units to
the acre, all the 2-story apartments in the project are 100 feet
away from the existing single-f-mily homes except for one point
at the entrance to the project where they are approximately 80
feet away from an adjacent neighbor who is in support of the
project. Many off-site improvements are proposed. The street
will be widened to its ultimate right-of-way at that point, a
6-foot block wall will be installed along Lincoln and west of
the property, they will continue to widen Lincoln and will
install an 8-foot wall on the boundary next to the single-family
homes. A traffic signal is also proposed and the developer will
be paying for one-half the cost of the signal. The project will
decrease the noise the neighbors have complained about on
Lincoln Avenue. The present dust conditions will also be
mitigated by the project. She then compared apartments vs.
condominiums and emphasized that they manage their own
apartments and their track record has proven to be positive.
They will have an on-site resident manager and their offices are
located in Brea. Therefore, any complaints can be easily
addressed.
Mrs. Courtney then explained for Councilman Roth the steps they
have taken to meet with the neighbors along with the mitigation
measures taken. There have been no changes since the final
Planning Commission meeting and no further information she could
provide to them or changes. Since the Planning Commission
hearing, they have agreed to disagree on the points of
contention.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOK: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Kimberly Keys, 614 Westgate Drive, representing the East Anaheim
Citizens for a Better Community, consisting of approximately 100
paying members.
She submitted a copy of a petition previously submitted and made
a part of the record with 260 signatures of people in the
neighborhood who opposed the apartments. The covering letter on
the petition dated August 4, 1986 listed ten reasons why they
wanted the project denied. They are not opposing the
development but are asking that the number of units be limited.
1021
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The zoning requested by the applicant is the maximum density
allowed for a residential area, there is a concern relative to
safety of the people who are going to be living in the project
and the neighborhood since the project is being built on a flood
inundation area and underground parking is proposed. The
project is in close proximity to the Burris Sand Pit and only a
chainlink fence and crash gate separates the project from the
southern end of the property, children will have easy access to
the three lakes in the riverbed in the area and it is determined
the project could generate 100 school aged children. There are
possible future plans to make South Street a dedicated ingress
and egress point and with a project the size proposed with only
one access, it will only be a matter of time when that will
occur and thus be a real threat to their neighborhood children.
There is very little traffic flow in their area at present but
the project will increase the traffic making an already
hazardous walk to school a more dangerous one for their
children. Their quiet, relatively traffic free neighborhood
will be exposed to overflow parking and additional traffic
during weekend and evening hours when visitors will use the
crash gate as the second access to the complex. Limiting the
units will help to prevent problems from occurring and fit
better into their residential community. Density is their
primary concern. She asked that the Council consider the effect
the complex may have on the peace, safety and privacy of their
families. In answer to Council questions, she clarified they
would like to keep the zoning to RM-2400 which was the original
intent with a maximum of 134 units. They would be happy to
negotiate. They have no quarrel with whether the project is for
apartments or condominiums but with the density.
Council Members posed questions to staff relative to the crash gate and if
there were any plans to extend South Street.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
The condition placed upon the development is that the crash gate
is to be used in emergencies only. There is no intent nor is it
possible to open the gate for public use without another public
hearing. Relative to South Street, at present it is a cul de
sac dead-end street not intended to be opened up to through
traffic. There will be no vehicular traffic access to this
property from South Street. Should such an access be requested,
that also would require a public hearing to delete the condition
that prohibits that from happening.
Eugene Kosek, 2882 East Standish.
He asked all the people present who were opposed to the project
to stand. (There were approximately 40 to 50 people). They all
object to the density of the project. There should be no
deviation from the existing General Plan. The original concept
of a 99-unit condominium project was acceptable. He then read
letter dated August 8, 1985 from the developer advising the
1022
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
residents of the proposed condominium project and that 1-story
units would be built behind the homes on Westgate. The project
density has escalated considerably since then. One hundred and
thirty-four units would be acceptable but 196 is not too much
less than 220 units originally proposed.
C.M. Thompson, 2912 Collier Lane, Anaheim.
He designs such projects from time to time and as he views the
project, under the current Code, 2-stories above parking is a
3-story building in Anaheim. He is a developer and would not
have the courage to ask for that kind of variance. A variance
on a 6 or 7 acre parcel is a design problem and not a reason for
a variance. It is putting a lot of people into a small area.
High density apartments do not belong in that area. It is
almost spot zoning to drop apartments in that little piece of
property.
Jim Bouska, 2882 East Virginia Avenue (corner of Westgate).
He bought his property 19 years ago because it was a quiet
residential neighborhood and a good place to raise children and
an approved greenbelt area. He has compromised to the point
where he can accept 134 units. He then posed questions relative
to the use of Lincoln by semi-truck traffic which he noted had
increased by 50 or 60 percent. He wanted to know if traffic
figures had been updated. Also, with regard to the Santa Aha
River, recent approval was given to the Army Corps of Engineers
to widen the river. (Later in the meeting, Councilman Roth
explained that there were no plans at present to acquire
additional properties to widen the Santa Ana River but the work
would be done within the parameters of the existing channel;
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer explained that Lincoln Avenue was
not a State route and has not been for many years but it does
serve the industrial area of Orange as a link to the 57
Freeway. He does not believe trucks could be prohibited from
traveling on Lincoln. He also explained the improvements that
would be accomplished as a result of the project which would
contribute to the safety of traffic flow on that portion of
Lincoln).
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Camille Courtney.
The density in the project increases as it moves away from the
single-family homes. The evaluation of the project and
percentages of open space vs. required and percentages of
coverage vs. what is allowed, shows that the project is
substantially under all requirements for the zoning. It is not
a dense project. Relative to overflow of parking into the
neighboring area, they have sufficient parking within the
project, not only underground, but also guest parking which is
available right next to the units. The project is designed to
function on its own on that site. There would be no reason for
a car to park on Lincoln or ever in the neighboring
1023
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
single-family residential area. The off-site improvement costs
are astronomical and far and above anything they ever knew when
they acquired the property. The construction technique of
putting 2-stories over a parking structure requiring them to go
4 1/2 feet below grade and support that structure is not a cheap
way to go. They have to have a certain number of units to
Justify the cost. The issue of the 100 feet to the 2-story
area, on the condominium plan, there were 2-story condominiums
located 50 feet from the property boundary which is not the case
with the apartment complex. The net density of the project is
26 units per acre and the gross density with streets, etc. is 28.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler.
The applicant has worked with the residents and brought about
positive changes in the planning of the project. The numerous
off-site improvements will be an asset to the area. The project
is self-contained and will not affect the adjacent
neighborhood. The pluses outweigh any negatives.
Councilman Hunter.
The improvements that will be provided are positive but on the
other side of the issue are concerned residents and maintaining
the integrity of neighborhoods. D & D has met with the
neighbors but it is unfortunate that there cannot be some type
of compromise worked out regarding the number of units since the
two sides do not seem to be that far apart.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked the Traffic Engineer what traffic impact the 196 units
will bring; Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated Lincoln Avenue
at the present time has adequate capacity to absorb the traffic
which will be generated by the units. It is at present
operating below design level. He has little concern relative to
traffic impact. The number of trips generated will not be
detrimental to the location especially since the street will be
widened which will increase capacity.
Councilman Roth.
The improvements necessitated by the project such as a traffic
signal and street widening are a plus and the development will
enhance the overall area. However, the concerns of the
neighbors relative to the density issue is a seriou~ one. They
are concerned with maintaining the integrity of their
single-family area. He would feel more comfortable with the
situation if more work had been done with the neighbors to
compromise on the number of units proposed.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
One of the reasons she is looking favorably on the project is
1024
71.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the fact that D & D is the owner/developer/manager. Onsite
management of owned apartments has been totally different from
other types of apartments and problems that people imagine can
happen do not happen. She is also sensitive to the needs of the
single-family homeowners.
Mayor Bay.
He noted the 1-story units that bordered the west property line
had no garages underneath and they were placed 4 1/2 feet below
ground level with the 8-foot block wall being on Lincoln
Avenue. He asked then what the roof line height would be.
Camille Courtney.
The roof line height is approximately 15 to 16 feet. The
neighbors will see the pitch and crown of the roof only.
Mayor Bay.
In the many years he has been sitting on the Council making
decisions on developments, he has learned that there are certain
fears tied to multi-family developments next to single-family
homes that do not happen. There could be more visual impact
from a 2-story development than the neighbors will get from this
development. There will be no traffic impact to the
single-family neighborhood since ingress and egress is off
Lincoln. The emergency crash gate is Just that and there can be
no use of that access without a public hearing. The height and
visual impact on the neighborhood will be less than wlth a
2-story single-family development. Another reason he favors the
development is the fact that the area used to be a dump and the
dirt now blowing into neighboring backyards will be eliminated.
He feels the development will be an improvement not only to the
area and to the City, but also in the long run an improvement to
every home that borders it. The neighbors are not going to see
the impacts they fear and the history of the developer, managing
what they build, not selling them off and letting somebody else
manage them will be of great benefit.
ENVI/[0NMENTAL IMPACT KEPORT - NEGATIVE DECLAKATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, 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 Hunter voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-541 for adoption, approving GPA
No. 218 Exhibit A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-541: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 218, EXHIBIT A.
1025
City Hall, Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
Roth and Hunter
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-541 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Relative to the reclassification, she asked if it is approved
can it be tied to the 196 units so that it could not be
increased afterwards in the event of a sale.
City Attorney, Jack White.
In approving a reclassification, typically a condition is
included that it will be built in accordance with plans as
submitted. As a legal principle, it is not appropriate to limit
within a particular zone the number of units which can be built
on one parcel as opposed to another. If approved to the RM-1200
or RM-2400 zone, the number of units authorized under that zone
could at a later date, unless the property is rezoned, be
built. However, this particular project could not obtain
building permits without building in accordance with the plans
submitted. This project would be as the plans show. Twenty
years from now, if the property is redeveloped and it is still
in this zone, there was no guarantee they would not be allowed
to build in accordance with the maximum number of units that the
zone allows. He confirmed if they were to change their plans
they would have to come back to the City to do so. He
reiterated 20 years from now after the property is redeveloped
and the buildings are torn down and new ones constructed, they
could build anything the zone permits. Today, it would have to
be built in accordance with the plan submitted.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-542 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 86-87-3 tied to the specific plan (RM-1200 zoning).
(City Attorney White confirmed that one of the conditions would be a standard
condition that no building permit could be obtained except in accordance with
development as set £orth on the plans marked as exhibits to the case). Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-542: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-3.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
Roth and Hunter
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-542 duly passed and adopted.
1026
City Ha!l~ Ansheim~ ~a!ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-543 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3588. City Attorney White, for clarification, pointed out the
Variance involves Sections 18.32.062.011 and .012, both relating to structural
height. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-543: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3588.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBEKS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86K-54~duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. MOTION
CARRIED. (3:02 p.m.)
AFTER ILECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:12 p.m.)
Before proceeding, Mayor Bay announced a slight change in the items scheduled
to be heard. After the public hearing on Variance No. 3487, the next item to
be considered will be the public hearing on the issuance of Housing Authority
Revenue Bonds and reconvening the Housing Authority Meeting to act on the same
bond issue. Following that, the continued public hearing on Angelo's will
take place.
179: PUBLIC HEARTNG - VARTANCE NO. 3487 - AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL:
APPLICANT:
Magdy Hanna
Newport Pacific Realty & Investment Corporation
4000 McArthur Blvd., Suite 680,
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Requesting to amend conditions of approval/and or
revised plans, for Variance No. 3487, to construct a 52-unit apartment complex
at 3153, 3157 and 3163 West Ball Road, with Code waiver of maximum building
height.
HEARING SET ON:
Request for amendment to original conditions of approval requires a public
hearing.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 27, 1986.
Posting of property November 26, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 26, 1986.
1027
7O
C.ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 2, 1986 (four-page
report) from Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning which explains
the request in detail. Staff's recommendation is to deny the request.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Magdy Hanna, 4000 McArthur Blvd, Newport Beach.
The project was approved and they got a grading permit in May.
Since that time, there have been problems with the site. Ground
water was discovered at depths of 7 to 9 feet whereas the
original soils report indicated ground water at 12 1/2 to 14
feet. Since May, they have been trying to find a possible way
to build the project within budget. They have closed Escrow and
recorded their construction loan in January of 1986. They have
requested bids on correcting the problem but the costs would not
permit them to build the project within the budget allowed. An
alternate solution is to raise the building slightly from the
ground while at the same time raising the block wall on the
north elevation. The Soils Engineer was present to clarify the
minimum they can raise the buildings without having an effect on
the compaction of the soil. The Engineer indicates that 2 feet
will be sufficient. Mr. McGaughy, the property owner to the
north, is concerned regarding his privacy but if the building is
raised 2 feet and the block wall 2 feet, it will have the same
effect as the current plan. He reiterated there is no way they
can build the project within budget if they have to mitigate the
water problem in another way. He clarified for Councilman Roth
that although he had previously mentioned raising the structure
3 1/2 feet in his letter of November 6, 1986, they can live with
increasing the height by only 2 feet.
Steve Alford, Project Engineer, Aako, Geotechnical Engineering
Consultants, 2483 State College Blvd., Fullerton.
His firm was employed by Mr. Hanna to do the preliminary soils
investigation on the site. They tried to establish where the
groundwater was. The groundwater in the subject site and the
entire valley (Santa Ana/Anaheim/Fullerton area) does
fluctuate. The groundwater stablized initially at 12 feet below
finished grade. Subsequently ~hey went out and tested again and
the groundwater table varied with + or - 7 feet Just from the
test pits they exposed at that point. There were various layers
of fine grain material that can trap water from a number of
sources or the ground water table itself. In this instance, the
development calls for isolated footings and in his opinion could
not be done safely unless there was approximately 4 feet of some
material underneath the foundations. It would involve putting
the foundations where there is actually standing water right now.
1028
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Mel McGaughy, the property owner to the north, (31 years).
The notice he received indicated the applicant wants to raise
the buildinB 3 1/2 feet which means he wants to go to
3-stories. In addition, he wants to sit in close to his
property with 2-stories 26 or 27 feet. He ls opposed to the
requested amendments. Relative to the water problems, the
adjacent property owner has subterranean parking in his
development and everything seems to be fine. It is an economic
and money problem for Mr. Hanna. He does not want him to build
and then sell where he (McGaughy) will be left with the
problem. He confirmed for Councilman Roth that he is obJectinE
to the structure being raised 2 feet and the wall being raised 2
feet and he should not be allowed to raise it at all. He also
did not believe that raising the wall 2 feet would compensate
for raising the building 2 feet. He feels there should be a
10-foot wall there regardless. A neighbor of his is present to
speak to the water issue. He (McGaughy) does not believe there
is a water problem.
Annika Santalahtt, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Clarified that the original plan is basically identical. There
is a slight modification in that the 3-story portion that was 2
1/2-stories is a little further than it was before. It was 60
feet now it is 67 feet but otherwise the site plan is
identical. Relative to the water, the City does not maintain
records indicating where the watertable sits individually on
properties. The Water Division expected it to be 80 feet in
that area. The project next door was built according to Code
and they had no problem. The Water Division indicated that in
this case there could be localized conditions and that is what
it appears to be. The adjacent project did not have the same
problem.
Tom Donovan, 905 South Western Avenue (37 years).
They have two functioning wells on their property and are still
involved in using cesspools and septic tanks. Surface water is
not what they are addressing but the well water level which is
at 27 1/2 feet. The free water level in the area where they are
located is at 13 1/2 feet. He questions the fact that the
project adjacent to the subject development did not incur the
same difficulty. When he spoke at one of the previous public
hearings about 8 or 9 months ago, the water problem he brought
forth was with regard to drainage and the basic level of the
main sewer line down Western Avenue. The other issue that
concerns him as a property owner of approximately 4 acres, it
appears that proper engineering inquiries ahead of time would
have presented adequate data. Another concern is the short
27-foot separation between the 2-story and 1-story. Some day,
he may develop his land but has no plans to do so as he
previously reported.
1029
6S
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Jack Sera, 11051 Santa Teresa Drive, Cupertino, owner of the
apartment complex adjacent to the subject project. He has about
six apartments on the west side (to Mr. Hanna's east) where if
they raise the apartment house more than originally asked for,
the people living in those apartments will not have any privacy
at all. They have a nice patio between the apartments and the
wall and that is one of his selling points. If the apartment is
raised to a 3-story building, it will hide his building.
MagdyHanna.
He then introduced his contractor, Mr. Frank DeLuna, to explain
what they would have to do to build the project as presently
proposed.
Mr. Frank DeLuna, Frank DeLuna & Company, 18019 Skypark Circle,
Suite E, Irvine, Ca. 92701.
They looked at the soils report before they looked into the
construction contract which indicated the watertable was at 12.5
feet. They did not anticipate any kind of problem. When the
tractor was excavating the side, it got stuck. They called the
Soils Engineer back out to take some test excavations to see
what was going on. Simultaneously they got bids from several
subcontractors on the extra grading required and what to do to
take care of the problem. The cost of importing 2 or 3 feet of
rock and overexcavating down to 10 feet, putting the rock in and
putting the soil back on top was very very costly due to the
depth and cost of materials - approximately 370,000 a foot to
accomplish. The reason it is so expensive now is because they
would have to go below the current 5 feet to 10 feet and
excavation to 10 feet is very costly. They were all surprised
at how localized the water retention was.
Magdy Hanna.
They did not try to design the building, take out building
permits and then come back and raise the building. That was not
the intention. It is Just an unfortunate situation.
Councilman Bay.
He wanted to be certain i~ the Council chooses to approve the
change, they were talking about a 2-foot increase in the overall
height of the structure and the wall; Mr. Hanna answered yes.
The wall being the one on the north elevation. The wall on the
east elevation between the apartment house next door and the
subject properties separates a driveway. Also if the Council
approves, he would like them to direct the Planning Department,
Engineering Department and Plan Check to expedite the process
because he already recorded the loan and is paying ~15,000 a
month on the project now.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
1030
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked Mr. Hanna if the Council did not approve, could he go
to a i-story apartment; Mr. Hanna answered he could not do so
because it would not be economically feasible and instead he
would have to seek another solution perhaps a change to a
commercial zone.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-544 for adoption, amending
conditions of approval of Variance No. 3487. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-544: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVALOF VARIANCE NO. 3487.
Before a vote was taken, Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning,
stated because of the verbal stipulation made by Mr. Hanna regarding the
2-story differential, the first page, Item C, Condition No. 20 will need to be
modified to insert - "that the maximum overall building heights shall be 27
feet for the 3-story portion as measured at the nearest adjacent property line
and 18 feet 4 inches for the 2-story portion as measured at the north property
line and that the first front parking garage shall be 2 feet below the natural
grade." The Exhibits on the wall do not reflect that information.
Councilman Pickler wanted to know why staff recommended denial;
Ms. Santalahti answered that there has been a great deal of
concern with anything 2-stories or higher closer than 50 feet.
This 2-story building is going to be located about 27 feet from
the single-family to the north. Her comments are based on past
actions. The adjacent apartments (new developement) was a
similar situation with 1 1/2-stories or one as the Code defined
it at the time within 50 feet and then 2 1/2 after approximately
50 feet or more.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She has a great deal of empathy with the problem but also had to
consider Mr. McGaughy's position who is being surrounded to the
point where he does not know whether his property will be
livable or unlivable.
A vote was then taken on the ~oregoing resolution amended to include the
increase in building height of 2-feet and the increase of 2-feet in the wall
height on the north property line as well as the recommendations by staff.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth, Pickler, Hunter and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-544 duly passed and adopted.
1031
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
177/137: PUBLIC HEARING - ISSUANCE OF HOUSING AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS: To
consider approval of the issuance by the Anaheim Housing Authority of revenue
bonds in an amount not to exceed ~5,500,000 for the purpose of providing
financing for the acquisition of land and construction and development thereon
of multifamily rental housing facilities to be located at 730-810 No. Loara
Street (Sage Park Project).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 22, 1986.
STAFF INPUT:
Submitted was report dated November 24, 1986 from Lisa
Stipkovich, Assistant Dtrector~ Community Development and
Planning~ recommending that the Council adopt a resolution
approving the Issuance of Multi-family Housing Revenue Bonds for
a project to be developed by Sage Park (a California limited
partnership) and assignin~ a Private Activity Bond Allocation to
the Anaheim Housing Authority.
Norm Priest~ Director of Community Development & Planning,
briefed the subject staff report noting that the Internal
Revenue Code requires that the elected representatives approve
the Issuance of Bonds as being in the public interest at a
public hearing. They are seeking approval of the issuance of
those bonds today and if acted upon favorably would immediately
come back with a second action wherein the Council~ acting as
the Housin~ Authority would also approve the issuance of the
bonds. Bond Counsel and the City's Financial Advisor is
available for any questions. He recommended favorable action.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed Issuance of Bonds as
recommended by the Community Development and Plannin~ Department; there was no
response.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-545 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-545~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR PROJECT TO
BE DEVELOPED BY SAGE PARK AND ASSIGNING PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND ALLOCATION.
Chairman Bay reconvened the the meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority.
(3:59 p.m.)
177/137: ISSUANCE - SALE AND DELIVERY OF ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS: Submitted was report dated November 24,
1986 from the Assistant Director of Community Development & Planning, Lisa
Stipkovich, recommending approval of the Issuance of Multi-family Housing
Revenue Bonds for a project to be developed by Sage Park (developers).
1032
City Hall; A-~heim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9; 1986; 10:00 A.M.
Authority Member Kaywood offered Resolution No. AHA86-13 for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. AHA86-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCg, SALE AND DELIVERY OF ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY
VARIABLE RATES DEMAND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS, 1986 SERIES A (SAGE
pARK PROJECT), AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INDENTURE OF
TRUST, LOAN AGREEMENT, REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS, REMARKETING AGREEMENT, INTERCREDITOR AGREEMENT, OFFICIAL STATEMENT
AND BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ASSIGNING ALLOCATION AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AND APPROVING OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS AND APPROVING
OTHER RELATED ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. (Authorizing the issuance,
sale and delivery of Anaheim Housing Authority variable rate demand
multifamily housing revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed 35,500,000, 1986
Series A (Sage Park Project); authorizing the execution and delivery of an
Indenture of Trust, Loan Agreement, Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants, Remarketing Agreement, Intercredttor Agreement;
assigning Allocation; and authorizing the execution and delivery of and
approving other related documents and other related actions in connection
therewith).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AUTHORITY MEMBERS:
AUTHORITY MEMBEKS:
AUTHORITY MEMBERS:
Roth, Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
Chairman Bay declared Resolution No. AHA86-13 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Authority Member Bay moved to adjourn the Anaheim Housing
Authority. Authority Member Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(4:00 p.m.)
Before proceeding, Councilman Roth announced that he was not present for the
first hearing regarding Angelo's which took place on November 12, 1986 and
since he did not have an opportunity to review the tapes or evidence presented
at that meeting, excused himself from the second hearing on November 18, 1986
after advice from the City Attorney. He was, therefore, excusing himself from
the hearing today.
Councilman Roth left the Council Chamber. (4:00 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HFARING - TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 828: To consider termination or modification of Conditional
Use Permit No. 828 which permits the operation of a walk-up restaurant on CL
zoned property located at 221 North Beach Boulevard. This hearing was
initiated by the City Council upon action taken at their meeting of
September 23, 1986.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication ln Anaheim Bulletin October 2, 1986.
Posting of property October 3, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 3, 1986.
1033
(;4
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
This public hearing was continued from the meetings of October 14, November 12
and November 18, 1986 to this date (see minutes those dates).
Mayor Bay.
He explained at the meeting of November 18, 1986 when the public
hearing was continued to this date, all receipt of evidence had
been completed with final arguments from both sides to be
presented today with each side being allowed 15 minutes for
those arguments and rebuttal limited to 5 minutes each.
From the audience, a gentleman indicated that the attorney for
Angelo's left the Council Chamber and was in the Planning and
Zoning Department but would be returning shortly.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. MOTION
CARRIED. (4:02 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (4:09 p.m.)
Mayor Bay.
He asked that the arguments from the City be presented.
A verbatim transcript of the entire proceeding is on file in the City Clerk's
Office. The following is a synopsis of the proceedings.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney II, first explained that the
proceeding was authorized by and conducted pursuant to Section 18.03.091 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code to consider the termination or revocation of a
conditional use permit previously granted by the City after public hearing
duly conducted. The Code Section permits the modification or termination of
such a permit on one or more grounds upon which he then elaborated. Mr.
Slaughter then presented the City's arguments supporting termination or
revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 828 citing the testimony given and
the evidence previously introduced into the record emphasizing the recurring
theme and statement by most of the witnesses who testified in favor of
termination or revocation that none of the problems experienced by people in
the area were experienced prior to the opening of Angel0's.
Mayor Bay interrupted Mr. Slaughter when the 15-minute time limit expired.
The Mayor then asked to hear arguments from the attorney for Angelo's.
Michelle Reinglass, attorney representing Angelo's stated that
before presenting her arguments on behalf of her clients, would
like to clear up a matter of evidentiary importance. She had
submitted a letter to the Council with a copy to the City
Attorney's Office requesting that additional matters of the
City's files be made a part of the record. She asked if they
had an opportunity to review the letter and those matters.
1034
City Mall~ A~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9; 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Bay answered that the letter had been received. He then
deferred to the City Attorney.
City Attorney, Jack White answered that the letter had been
received by the City and a copy received by him together with a
copy of a declaration of Ms. Reinglass and other supporting
material. It was his recommendation that those documents
collectively be marked for identification purposes only as
Exhibit N but that they not be made part of the evidence of the
hearing due to the fact that the hearing on evidence was
previously closed by the Council.
Mayor Bay confirmed those documents will be marked Exhibit N but
will not be accepted as additional evidence because the hearing
on evidence was closed at the last meeting. Today's meeting is
limited to final arguments and rebuttals.
Ms. Reinglass surmised then that her request was being denied;
Mayor Bay answered yes.
Ms. Reinglass then presented her arguments in opposition to
termination or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 828
and in favor of retaining the ability of Angelo's to operate as
a drive-in drive-thru restaurant. During her presentation, she
emphasized that there was selective enforcement against
Angelo's, that there was no evidence to connect the problems
reported, which they admit exists, to Amgelo's, that Angelo's is
willing to do anything to solve those problems but they should
not be blamed for anything that does not go on on their property.
The arguments were then followed by rebuttals first by Deputy City Attorney
Slaughter and then by Attorney Michelle Reinglass limited to five minutes each.
At the completion of arguments and rebuttals, Mayor Bay asked that the City
Attorney review the alternatives regarding action by the Council.
City Attormey White stated that the Council had (1) the ability
to terminate the proceedings and thereby allow the existing CUP
to remain in e~ect and the facility to continue to operate as
it presently is operating, (2) the right, if they find there is
substantial evidence to warrant based upon the criteria
enumerated by Mr. Slaughter, to revoke the existing CUP which,
in effect, eliminates the rights to conduct other than an
enclosed restaurant or, (3) modify the existing conditions of
approval to the existing CUP to allow it to remain in operation
but to impose additional obligations or restrictions on the
manner in which the business can be operated. One additional
course of action - if the Council believes that the business
itself constitutes a public nuisance, the Council could direct
the City Attorney's Office to commence a civil action under the
appropriate provisions of the Government Code and Civil Code to
abate the nuisance. If the Council were to determine to allow
1035
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the business to continue and impose new conditions, City staff
today is not in a position to recommend what those conditions
would be. It would take some additional investigation.
Mr. White then explained for Councilman Pickler that under
Alternate No. 2, revoking the existing CUP, that action would
revoke portions of the use other than the part expressly
authorized by the Zoning Code which permits enclosed restaurants
to be operated in that zone. Council would have the alternative
to abate that portion of the use if they found it constituted a
public nuisance but that would have to be done through civil
action.
Mayor Bay stated the enclosed restaurant is by right in that
zone so that they would not need a CUP. If the CUP is revoked,
that right still exists.
Councilman Hunter recommended that the Council not revoke or
terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 828 but that they modify it
with conditions and that those conditions be that Mr. Dennis
Williams continue to hire professional cleanup services at
AnEelo's on Beach Boulevard, that he contract with professional
security to enforce strict regulations of peace and safety and
that if the CUP is either now or in the future allowed for a
drive-thru vs. Just a walk-up, that speed bumps be placed in the
parking lot, that Mr. Williams post more signs in regards to
loitering, and that there be strict cooperation with the Anaheim
Police Department and neighboring businesses. He used as an
analogy the action taken by the Council with regard to Orange
County Steel Salvage where for almost two years the Council has
allowed that business to stay in operation which is a far
greater problem than Angelo's but that business has not been
terminated. It was necessary to work on a new attitude in the
City, a spirit of cooperation and working together. That is why
he is opting for modifying the conditions on Angelo's on Beach
Boulevard vs. termination. In revokinE the drive-in aspect of
the business, in essence, they are terminating Mr. Williams'
business because the business is not a walk-up type operation.
Councilman Pickler stated that he did not feel modifications
were going to help the situation. He is concerned more than
anything else with traffic circulation and congestion that is
created by Angelo's, and the problem started when Angelo's
arrived. If they want to keep operating the walk-in restaurant,
that was the original intent. If they were going to operate a
drive-in, they have to have the space to accommodate the cars
that are going to patronize the business. The situation in that
area had to be controlled. It was the wrong spot for the type
of business being conducted. Eventually there are going to be
accidents and the situation had to be rectified now.
1036
5¸9
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it has been obvious from the start
that there has not been sufficient space at the subject location
and that the problems across the street did not exist until
Angelo's located in the area. At this point, she would opt to
allow the walk-up, sit down restaurant but not the drive-thru
which is causing all the problems.
Councilman Bay stated he was not for over control and never has
been. He feels that the very type of business of Angelo's
particularly at the subject location and in their other
locations tend to be an attractive nuisance dangerous to the
peace and welfare of the City the same as a swimming pool might
be dangerous to children if it is not protected or controlled
properly. He has nothing against drive-ins but he does not
recall them being out of control to the point that the operation
at Beach Boulevard has been nor the way they were on State
College some months before nor the type of operations that were
going on out in the industrial area. It was generally the same
group of people in all three locations that tend to follow
wherever Angelo's is. He agreed that the CUP should be revoked
in this area.
City Attorney Jack White stated that the action would be by
resolution and it should incorporate the findings under the
appropriate sections of the Code as previously enumerated in the
arguments by the Deputy City Attorney.
City Attorney White again clarified that the City's contention
has been, and still is, that the permit holder under the
existing CUP has the right to conduct a walk-up restaurant but
not the right to conduct a drive-in or drive-thru restaurant.
Their contention has been to the opposite. He then informed the
Council that Angelo's has filed an application which is now
pending before the Planning Commission for a CUP to operate
those two additional features. That application was heard
yesterday and continued until January 19, 1987 for further
consideration.
Mr. Slaughter stated that no hearing was actually commenced but
it was continued.
City Attorney White stated if the City Council revokes the
existing CUP, the City's position at the current time will be
that there is no right to conduct a use other than an enclosed
restaurant. However, the Council needs to know that an
application is now in the process and pending in front of the
Planning Commission which may or may not end up in front of the
City Council.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-546 for adoption, to revoke
Conditional Use Permit No. 828 based upon the evidence presented in the
arguments by the Deputy City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book.
1037
¸6O
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL I~NUTES - December 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-546: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 828.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
Kaywood and Bay
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-546 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session
to consider the balance of the items not concluded at the earlier Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was
absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (5:50 p.m.)
129/153: CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW FIRE CHIEF: Councilman Pickler
moved that the Council approve the City Manager's appointment of Jeffrey R.
Bowman as Fire Chief of the City of Anaheim, effective December 9, 1986.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained.
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH BOB D. SIMPSON:
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the second amendment to the employment
agreement with Bob D. Simpson, Deputy City Manager. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOUNRMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn to 8:30 a.m. on Thursday,
December 11, 1986 at the Anaheim Hilton Hotel, E1 Capitan Room for the Vision
2000 meeting. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was
absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:55 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1038