1985/01/15Cit7 Hall, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRE SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER:
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
AUDITOR: Gary Huniu
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING:
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING:
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth
Gordon Hoyt
Annika Santalahti
Joel Fick
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend John Lenihan, St. Boniface Catholic Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION - DISNEYLAND AMBASSADOR: Ms. Mary Jones, Community
Relations Director, of Disneyland introduced and presented Melissa Tyler, the
1985 Disneyland Ambassador, to the City Council.
Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council and the City, welcomed Ms. Tyler and
expressed the City's pleasure in having her as a representative not only for
Dtsneyland, but also of the City of Anaheim. He presented Ms. Tyler with
roses, an "A" frame representing the key to the City and a brief case with the
City seal to use in her travels.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the meetings
held October 10, October 23, October 30 and November 6, 1984. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
't'he' reading in full o£ 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. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,978,580.16, in
acco?dance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
24
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Overholt,
seconded by Councilman Bay, 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 Overholt offered
Resolution Nos. 85R-21 through 85R-28, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management.
a. Claim submitted by Palm Villa Apartments for indemnity based on
Superior Court Case No. 39-86-81, Aboutalib, et al, vs. City of Anaheim, on or
about September 10, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by John J. Sexton for indemnity based on Superior
Court Case No. 39-86-7, Anderson vs. City of Anaheim, on or about September
11, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by John J. Sexton for indemnity based on Superior
Court Case No. 39-98-37, Walker vs. City of Anaheim, on or about September 11,
1984.
d. Claim submitted by Daniel Joseph Perlman for monetary loss sustained
purportedly due to false arrest and imprisonment by Anaheim Police Officers at
Hilton Towers, on or about October 26, 1984.
Claims filed against the City - recommended to be allowed:
e. Claim submitted by David W. Puvalowski for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to malfunctioning tire guard at Convention Center,
on or about November 17, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Peggy A. and Thomas R. Fortner for personal
property damages sustained purportedly due to broken exit spikes at the
Convention Center exit, on or about November 17, 1984.
g. Claim submitted by Leon Vasquez for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to broken exit spikes at the Convention Center, on
or about November 17, 1984.
h. Claim submitted by Lawrence J. Montagna for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle and
City driver were involved at the Stadium, Orangewood Avenue, 2000 South State
College, on or about October 28, 1984.
i. Claim submitted by Mary Ann Hickman for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the Electric Company at 217 South
Knott, #12, on or about November 16, 1984.
25
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
J. Claim submitted by Lorraine L. Harper for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of City electrician at 2407 West
Broadway, on or about November 26, 1984.
k. Claim submitted by Allan F. Jankowski for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of Fire Department at the water service
line at 1588 West Lullaby Lane, on or about November 7, 1984.
2. 174: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter of endorsement for an
application for funds under Section 8 of Title II for 1,607 Existing housing
units.
3. 175/123: Ratifying the employment of G. R. McKervey, Inc. by the Public
Utilities General Manager to perform emergency work on the water system caused
by separation of 8-inch water main on December 21, 1984.
4. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the four
months ended October 31, 1984.
5. 123: Accepting Orange County Revenue Sharing funds in the amount of
52,500 to continue Senior Day Care Center services for FY 1984/85; authorizing
an agreement with Orange County for said funds; and appropriating said funds
into Program 01-278, Senior Citizens.
6. 123: Authorizing the City Engineer to participate in a joint project with
the City of Orange to rehabilitate Nohl Ranch Road from Santiago Boulevard to
Nohl Canyon Road in an amount not to exceed 58,500.
7. 123: Authorizing a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Placentia to
widen and rehabilitate Lakeview Avenue from Orangethorpe Avenue to La Palma
Avenue; designating Anaheim as the Lead Agency; at an estimated cost to
Placentia of 5137,000 and to Anaheim 5200,000, with A.H.F.P funding of one
half of the project cost.
8. 144:' Supporting the formation of the Orange County Unified Transportation
Trust Fund and opposing any action which would alter the present partnership
of the County/City Arterial Highway Financing Program.
9. 179: Granting an extension of time for Reclassification No. 67-68-33,
proposed change in zone from R-1 and R-A, to CO, on property located on the
south side of Ball Road, extending from Iris Street to 128 feet west of of the
centerline of Palm Street, to expire January 23, 1986.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Ted Case Painting, in the amount of 514,860
for repainting the Anaheim Therapeutic Center, in accordance with Bid No. 4167.
11. 160: Accepting the bids of Universal Truck Body, in the amount of
56,648.32 for one body and hoist; and AA Equipment Rental Company, Inc., in
the amount of the $15,841.70 for one truck mounted air compressor/road
emulsion tank and related appurtenances, in accordance with Bid No. 4171.
Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
26
City Hall} Anaheim, C. alifor.n~a - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
12. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-21: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 24 TO THE MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE
FEDERAL-AID PROGRAM. (Authorizing Supplement No. 24 to Local Agency-State
Agreement No. 07-5055, Project No. M-M005(4) at a cost of ~557,670 in Federal
Funds with City match of $89,130 for a street improvement project on Harbor
Boulevard from Broadway to I-5)
13. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE RELOCATION OF PRESSURE REGULATING
STATION #46 ON CRESCENT DRIVE WEST OF ROYAL OAK ROAD AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF
PRESSURE REGULATING STATION #61 ON VALLEY GATE DRIVE WEST OF SHADY OAK WAY AND
THE INSTALLATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE REGULATORS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE
PERALTA HILLS AREA IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 54-603-6329-02176.
(Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Valverde
Construction, Inc., in the amount of ~124,670)
14. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BROOKHURST
STREET STREET AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
13-792-6325-E2490, 53-619-6329-02360 AND 54-605-6329-01733. (Loant
Construction, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion
therefor)
15. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
THE ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION. (Letter dated December 20, 1984 to provide
for a change in the date used for calculating unused Holiday Pay)
16. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
THE ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION. (Letter dated December 20, 1984 to provide
for a contract ending date of October 2, 1986)
17. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS 84R-558, 84R-185 AND 84R-287 AND DELETING
CERTAIN JOB CLASSIFICATIONS FROM T~E ANAHEIM FIRE ASSOCIATION BARGAINING UNIT.
(Fire Staff Aide, Fire Prevention Aide, Fire Prevention Aide A, Fire Training
Aide and Fire Training Aide A from the Fire Association Bargaining Unit
effective December 28, 1984)
18. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
19. 177: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-28: A RESOLUTION OF INDUCEMENT OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF ANAHEIM RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FINANCING THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS MULT-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
RENTAL PROJECTS AND RELATED FACILITIES. (Total amount of $89,600)
27
City Hall} Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-21 through 85R-28:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-21 through 85R-28, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar.
108: HEARING - REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF TAX ASSESSMENT - GRANADA INN: Steven
C. Nock, Attorney for Ankirk, requesting continuance of the hearing in
connection with the Granada Inn, appealing the decision of the Hearing officer
denying abatement of the tax assessment due on the Granada Inn.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the subject hearing from
January 22, 1985 at 10:00 a.m. to January 29, 1985 at 10:00 a.m. as requested
by Mr. Nock in his letter dated December 26, 1984. Councilman Pickler was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
144: COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF ORANGE
COUNTY: Councilman Bay moved that Councilwoman Kaywood be designated Council
Member to attend Committee meetings the first Friday of each month at Fountain
Valley at 7:30 a.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman
Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
175: STRATEGIC PLAN - PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - 1984/85 TO 1988/89: This
matter was continued from the meeting of December 4, 1984 (see minutes that
date). Submitted was report dated November 26, 1984 from the Public Utilities
General Manager to the City Manager/City Council attached to which ~as the
subject plan with the recommendation from the Public Utilities Board that the
Council approve the plan.
Councilman Bay moved to continue approval of the Strategic Plan to allow more
time for a detailed study of the Plan. He had no problem with a motion to
receive and file but he did with an approval vote by the Council on a
five-year plan.
Councilman Bay thereupon gave his comments relative to his concerns about City
government being the owner of Utilities. (See verbatim transcript of this
portion of the discussion/Councilman Bay's comments only - on file in the City
Clerk's Office).
At the conclusion of Councilman Bay's remarks, Councilman Overholt moved to
continue approval of the Strategic Plan for the Public Utilities Department to
a later date and prior to further consideration of the Plan, that a verbatim
transcript of Councilman Bay's remarks only be provided to staff and Council
Members, the date of the continuance to be whenever the Public Utilities
General Manager was going to be able to bring in his updated report on where
the utilities were headed. (See minutes of January 8, 1985 where Council
Members requested specific data on utility matters).
28
Cit~ Ha..ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, stated
staff was working on the report requested by the Council at the present time
and his best estimate for submittal of that report was six weeks.
Before action was taken, Mr. Hoyt responded relative to Councilman Bay's
previous motion made at the Council meeting of December 4, 1984 (see minutes
that date) to prepare a letter to the City's congressional representatives
with regard to lobbying the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission procedures.
This was actively proceeding and copies of the letter for Council signature
were still in preparation. Staff was working in close consultation with
Special Counsel in preparing the documentation. Before concluding, Mr. Hoyt
stated that relative to the electric rate disparity, in his judgment, it was
caused entirely by the wholesale electric rates the City was paying to
Southern California Edison.
Mayor Roth referred to the letter written by him sharing his concerns relative
to the City's financial obligations presently, and in the future due to
participation in electrical generation. He wanted a response to that document
as well, within the same eight weeks when the matter would again be before the
Council.
MOTION: A vote was then taken on the motion of continuance to March 12,
1985. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10967 (REV. NO. 2)--SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by
Anaheim Hills Development Corporation, requesting approval of specific plans
(Area 19, Anaheim Hills), on proposed RM-3000(SC) zoned property located
southwest side of Nohl Ranch Road, southwest of Canyon Rim Road.
The City Planning Commission approved specific plans for Tentative Tract
No. 10967 (Rev. No. 2). This matter was submitted to the Council for
informational purposes.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted a discrepancy in the staff report of the Planning
Commission of January 7, 1985 relative to the number of units involved,
whether it was 39 or 49.
Later in the meeting (1:35 p.m.) Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for
Zoning, confirmed that the number of units was 49.
108: HEARING - ANGELINA HOTEL APPEAL OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: Submitted
by Chandulal K. Patel, Angelina Hotel, appealing the decision of the Hearing
Officer denying abatement of the tax assessment and penalties due on the
Angeltna Hotel per Audit No. 84253 on the Transient Occupancy Tax due on the
Angelina Hotel.
Submitted was report dated January 4, 1984 from the Hearing Officer,
recommending upholding the findings and assessments of the City Hearing
Officer and the City Internal Auditors, and assess the subject hotel
management the additional taxes, penalties and interest of ~3,409.77. (Date
of calculation for penalty and interest is October 19, 1984.
29
Ci.t~ Hall..;. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar.~ .15., !9.8.5., 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Chandulal Patel, Owner of the Angelina Hotel, stated he also owned other
motels and was very aware of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The Angelina
Hotel never did any transient business at all and the previous owner never
paid any such taxes to the City. He had been the owner for four to five years
and had not paid any taxes because of the fact that he did not transact any
transient business nor had any intent to do so. The residents were
long-term. He had never furnished maid service, televisions, and in some
cases, furniture. The Angelina Hotel was a hotel apartment rather than a
transient business. The record he submitted to the auditor reflected some
cases where the tenants did not stay more than 29 days, and he personally
agreed there was a violation in not paying the tax on those. He then
submitted an accounting of those instances where he felt it was fair to pay
the taxes (see Exhibit 1, days subject to tax - prior to February 21, 1984
before a change in the City's ordinance took place, Exhibit 2, days subject to
tax after February 21, 1984, Exhibit 3, average unreported revenue totaling
~840.65). Mr. Patel then briefed the figures contained in the three Exhibits.
Mr. Patel's testimony was followed by that of the City's Hearing Officer, Ron
Thompson who reported that the assessment against Mr. Patel was $3,409.77.
Further, Mr. Patel did quote from the Hearing Officer's report that, "It is
the opinion of the Hearing Officer that the Angelina Hotel does not cater
primarily to transients as defined in the Anaheim Municipal Code." In
reviewing that opinion with the City Attorney's Office, the City Attorney felt
the Hearing Officer did not have the prerogative of making that determination
and coming to any other would be a gift of public funds. The data submitted
today by Mr. Patel had been reviewed by him (Thompson) and the Audit Staff and
if the Council determined that the Angelina Hotel did not primarily cater to
transients the data would be correct, i.e. the ~840.65 total.
City Attorney William Hopkins, in answer the Councilman Overholt explained
that if the Angelina was a hotel designed for transients, the tax would
apply. If not, then it would not apply. The word "primarily" was not used in
the Code definition. The Council could make a finding either that it was not
a hotel designed for transients or that it was such a hotel.
Councilman Overholt asked, assuming the Council accepted Mr. Patel's figure of
~840.65, what would the total obligation be today including penalties and
interest.
Gary Huniu, Auditor, reported that the penalty rate at this time amounted to
approximately $420 with interest owing of between $125 and $150.
Council discussion followed wherein additional input was given by the City
Attorney for purposes of clarification at the conclusion of which Councilwoman
Kaywood expressed her concern about calling the Angeltna an apartment so ~s
not to set a precedent for any of the substandard projects throughout the
City. She asked Mr. Thompson if there were any other hotels in Anaheim
primarily used as an apartment house still called a hotel.
Mr. Thompson answered he believed the Angelina was an exception to the rule.
It did not cater to transients as defined by the Anaheim Municipal Code as did
30
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
all the other hotels and motels with which he was familiar. The Angelina
provided none of the typical services provided in those establishments.
Councilman Overholt asked if it was the opinion of the Hearing Officer that
the Angelina Hotel was not designed to cater to transients and if that was his
finding; Mr. Thompson answered affirmatively that was his finding.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved, based on the finding of the Hearing
Officer, that there be assessed against the owner of the Angelina Hotel a
deficiency in the Transient Occupancy Tax of $840.65, a penalty of
approximately ~420.33 for non-payment of that tax, and the interest applicable
to that tax amounting to between ~125 and ~150 finding that the tax be based
upon the use of the structure as an apartment rather than a hotel.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4567 - SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENT PROJECTS: Amending
Chapter 18.94 to, and amending and repealing various subsections and sections
of Title 18 of the Code pertaining to the development of Senior Citizens'
apartment projects. This matter was continued from the meeting of January 8,
1985, (see minutes that date) to this date.
Annika Santalahtt, Assistant Director for Zoning, reported that the
information obtained as requested at the previous meeting pertained to the
number of licensed drivers, total Orange County and the age category 55 and
over vs. 60 and over. Staff ran similar figures on the entire population of
Orange County. Statistically, she did not know what it came out to other than
a general inclination. Perhaps 55 and over was not that dissimilar from 60
and over in terms of car driving. Figures were as follows relative to overall
population in Orange County: 16.8 percent, 55 years of age and 11.9 percent,
60 years of age and over. Of the valid licensed drivers in Orange County,
19.2 percent, 55 and over, 12.6 percent, 60 years of age and over. The
remaining population of the valid drivers accounted for 80.8 percent under 55
years of age. Staff's general response, to put a break between 55 or 60 based
on the data was not a critical difference. Apparently ownership dropped more
significantly at 65 years of age.
Councilman Bay stated Council was looking for the best data available age 55
vs. 62 in order to compare a ratio difference between the percentage of
drivers in those two categories. That should be played back against the
difference in parking requirements within the ordinance dealing with under 150
units vs. over 150 unit because the main difference was between 55 and 62. He
felt that could be done but another week should be allowed in which to do it.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue first reading of Ordinance No. 4567
for one week to allow submittal of additional data from staff. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Before a vote was taken, Council Members expressed their concerns both for the
need for senior citizen housing while maintaining commensurate parking
standards as well as additional discussion on the new State Legislation with
31
City Hall.~ Anaheim,. California -.COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
regard to the definition of a senior as being age 55, etc. - matters which had
been discussed at the previous meeting and other meetings where senior citizen
projects were proposed.
Mayor Roth suggested that staff visit the project in San Dimas where his
father lived to ask the management people at that facility to give their
experience relative to parking in that senior citizen complex which was not
used to anywhere near its capacity. Later in the meeting, he also asked a
representative of Calmark, Senior Citizen Project Developers, to provide him
with statistical data relative to parking on those project they presently had
in operation.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. Councilman
Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
144: MAJOR THOROUGHFARE BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM - EASTERN AND FOOTHILL CORRIDORS:
Councilman Bay stated he had not received any comments regarding the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) either from the Council or staff. He
recommended that the City Manager set up a Liaison Committee meeting with
staff to discuss possible changes to the MOU and in the meantime gather
information on where Orange and Yorba Linda stood at this time and if there
were differences to set up meetings between Anaheim and those cities if the
differences were great.
City Manager Talley stated that the meeting would be set up, but it would be
no sooner then a week.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session
pursuant to Government Code Section No. 54956.9A and 54956.9B1 relative to
pending litigation.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the
City Attorney concerning pending litigation.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED. (11:47 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (1:36 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2624 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Anaheim Hills Development Corp.,
380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, 92807
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned, south side of Canyon Rim
Road, west of Serrano Avenue, to permit a remote telephone switching facility
with Code waiver of minimum structural setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC84-198 approved the Conditional
Use Permit. Recommended adoption of the EIR - negative declaration.
32
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COpNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of October 23, 1984, review requested by Mayor Roth. Public
hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of November 20, 1984 (see
minutes that date where extensive input was received) and continued to this
date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 8, 1984.
Posting of property November 9, 1984.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 9, 1984.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated October 1, 1984.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Dick Nagler, 2640 Warden Street, San Diego.
Answered the concerns of residents raised at the November 20,
1984 meeting. Stamped concrete with a cobble stone effect will
be used for the driveway leading to the structure. A security
gate required by staff is not required for safeguard of the
property. The architectural design of the building is such that
it will be at or below street level with Canyon Rim Road. The
great variety of shrubbery and trees natural to the area will
mitigate the view of the building from Canyon Rim Road. The
view across the reservoir will be obscured by the landscaping.
The necessary exterior lighting will be oriented downward and
they would be willing not to have lights on at night. Relative
to sound, the building contains an electric switching system
that has no noise associated with it. Noise would emanate
primarily from the air conditioning unit used to keep the
computer equipment at the right temperature. Sound readings
taken in the area by a sound engineer revealed readings in the
evening hours ranging from 30 to 45 decibels (db) with a high
day time reading in the 60 db range, the peaks being caused by
traffic. The air conditioning they were installing runs at 24
dbs at a range of 200 feet. That sound diminishes at a range of
600 feet, the distance of houses across the reservoir, to about
14 dbs. Relative to posing a danger to the drinking water from
fertilizing and watering the landscaping, their landscaping plan
was reviewed by staff and it was determined there would be no
problem. The drainage system is designed to take any run off
away from the reservoir. Their first choice site selection at
Serrano Avenue and Canyon Rim Road is not for sale. Parcel 2,
the subject parcel, if designed properly, would maintain the
integrity of the reservoir providing a natural setting and be
far less detrimental than anything that might be built there in
the future.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
Architectural Plot Plan - Canyon Rim Road remote switching
center - Pacific Bell.
33
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
OPPOSED- Lew Herbst, Spokesman, 9112 Rldgecrest Circle, Anaheim.
CONCERNS: The driveway is a draw for kids to skateboard and if the
concrete has ripples in it, would pose a danger. The plan
submitted shows heavy landscaping. Homeowners around the
reservoir have not been allowed to landscape and fertilize. The
drainage ditch runs into the reservoir at the far end and the
drinking water could become contaminated. Ambient noise levels
are accentuated across water. Alternate sites are available for
the facility.
It was determined by a show of hands that 10 people were present
in opposition.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahtf, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Representatives from the Water Division informed her the
switching facility in itself did not pose a problem but their
concerns are consistent with all projects around the reservoir.
If allowed, conditions should be imposed that all runoff and
drainage from the developed property should be routed into the
storm drain system and not the reservoir. If it is impractical
to route existing slope drainage away from the reservoir, the
use of organic and chemical fertilizers on the slope landscaping
must be prohibited. It was indicated those could be eliminated
through proper site design and landscape plant selection.
IN FAVOR: No one was present to speak in favor.
FINAL SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Mr. Nagle was willing to make the driveway any combination that
would be viewed as safe. The density of the landscaping has the
sole purpose of obscuring the view of what little of the
building showed. They would comply with all necessary
regulations that would prevent contamination of the water system
and with any reduction in landscaping deemed necessary. Anaheim
Hills is not willing to trade sites. Pacific Bell is willing to
comply with whatever reasonable recommendations are required to
make the site suitable. The Telephone Company's use of the site
might be the one with the least effect.
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
(See minutes of November 27, 1984). Mayor Roth: Walnut Canyon
Reservoir is responsible for 950 million gallons of City
drinking water and the effect of the proposed use on the
reservoir would be detrimental. Noise amplified across water
and the sound emanating from the facility could be detrimental
to the peace and quiet of the area.
CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION/COUNCIL CONCERN:
None.
34
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JanuarY 15, 198.5, 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no", Councilman
Pickler was absent. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-29 for
adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2624, reversing the findings of
the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2624.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-29 duly passed and adopted.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3419 (READV.) AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Vernon W. Edmonds,
P. O. Box 190, Anaheim, CA.
92805
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: RS-A-43,000 zoned, 920 South Western Avenue, to
construct a 15-unit apartment complex with Code waivers as follows: (a.)
maximum structural height, (b) maximum site coverage, (c) maximum fence height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC84-195 granted the Variance, in
part, approved EIR - negative declaration. Approval of revised plans was
recommended at their meeting of January 7, 1985.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of October 23, 1984, review requested by Councilman Overholt.
Public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of November 20, 1984
for submittal of revised plans. (See minutes of November 20, 1984).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 9, 1984.
Posting of property November 8, 1984.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December November 9, 1984.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated January 7, 1985.
35
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 19~5,' 10.:00 A.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Hugo A. Vazquez, 619 So. Live Oak Drive, Anaheim, CA. 92805.
He hired a new architect, Dale Cexton and Associates, who
redesigned the project.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Mr. Dale Cexton, 825 South Western Avenue (across the street
from the proposed project). He met with Mr. McGaughy, an
opponent of the project and Mr. Vazquez and presented his new
approach. He responded to the problems posed and resubmitted
the design. Mr. McGaughy is now comfortable with the solution
proposed and although it was not an ideal solution, he could
live with it. He reoriented the building, pulling the two story
structures as far away as possible from Mr. McGaughy's property
line. A portion of the building is now 75 feet away and another
portion 71 feet away from the northerly property line which was
originally at 33 feet from that boundary. The unit count
remained the same with the style of architecture and design
changes slightly. Subterranean parking remained the same.
Mr. Mel McGaughy, 9110 South Western Avenue, (next door to the
property). He met with the architect and can go along with the
revised plan. He asked for confirmation that the lO-foot wall
was still going to be built since it was not shown on the
temporary plans. He had no other concerns except if it had been
possible, he wanted to see a one-story project.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that
Condition No. 19 as recommended by the Planning Commission
called for a 6-foot block wall along the east and southerly
property lines and a lO-foot block wall along the northerly
property line.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED: None
IN FAVOR: No one was present to speak in favor.
IN OPPOSITION: No one was present to speak in opposition.
CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION/COUNCIL CONCERNS: None
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, Councilman Pickler was absent, the City
Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered
the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
36
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 85R-30 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3419 (Readvertised) in accordance with revised plans, Revision
No. 2, Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, and subject to all City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3419.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-30 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 84-3A: In accordance with application
filed by Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, public hearing was held on
proposed abandonment of a former former Southern California Edison Company
public utility easement acquired by the City, as successor, located north and
south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Weir Canyon Road, pursuant to
Resolution No. 84R-482, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices
thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated November 15, 1984 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if any one wished to address the Council; there being no
response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 85R-31 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 84-3A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A FORMER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENT ACQUIRED BY THE CITY, AS SUCCESSOR, LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF SANTA
ANA CANYON ROAD, WEST OF WEIR CANYON ROAD. (84-3A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-31 duly passed and adopted.
37
City Hall~ Anaheim. t California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE~ TENTATIVE TRACT
NOS. 10980 AND 10982:
APPLICANT: Kaufman & Broad Development Group
11601 Wishire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA. 90025.
REQUEST: Waiver of the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance relating
to location of slopes within tract boundaries in connection with Tract Nos.
10980 and 10982, located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Weir Canyon
Road, within Bauer Ranch area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend approval of the requested waiver.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 3, 1985.
Posting of property January 4, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 4, 1985.
STAFF INPUT:
Report dated January 2, 1985 from the City Engineer.
APPLICANT'S None
STATEMENT:
PUBLIC DISCUSSION/0PPOSED/IN FAVOR: None
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED: None
COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilman Roth moved to approve the request of Kaufman & Broad, waiving the
requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance relating to location of slopes
within tract boundaries in connection with Tract Nos. 10980 and 10982, located
south of Santa Aha Canyon Road, west of Weir Canyon Road, within Bauer Ranch
area. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 187:
APPLICANT:
Richard A. Wallace, et. al.,
P. O. Box 11626, Santa Ana, CA. 92711
LOCATION/REQUEST: approximately 325 acres bounded on the north by the Bauer
Ranch and Santa Aha Canyon Road, east by the Irvine Company property, south by
the Oak Hills Ranch, and west by the Anaheim Hills Development Corporation
property and the Bauer Ranch. Amendment to the Land use element of the
general plan, alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including, but not
limited to Hillside Estate Density Residential, Hillside Low Density
Residential, Hillside Medium Density Residential, General Commercial, and
General Open Space.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC84-241 recommended adoption of
General Plan Amendment No. 187, Exhibit "B". Recommend certification of EIR
No. 264 as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
38
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:.00 A..M.
(CEQA) and adoption of a statement of overriding considerations in connection
therewith.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 3, 1985.
Posting of property January 4, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 4, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated November 26, 1984 briefed by Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate
Planner. In concluding, Mr. Tashiro reported that the Planning Commission
recommended approval of Exhibit "B" and, if acceptable, staff recommends that
the applicant stipulate to the four provisions identified on Page 3-h and 3-i
of the Addendum to the Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 29, 1984.
ADDITIONAL STAFF INPUT AS A RESULT OF QUESTIONS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Joel Fick, Associate Director of Planning.
The Environmental Impact Report under CEQA is required hy law to
consider the most intense case scenario and that is why the
project disposition represents the maximum dwelling units so
referenced in the EIR document.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
Staff is in agreement with the traffic study presented by the
developer and concurs with the findings. The General Plan
Amendment (GPA) also takes into consideration the Eastern
Corridor as being a fact prior to construction of the
development. Ail traffic impacts have taken the Eastern
Corridor as a factor when calculating those impacts. With
regard to a stopping point in the development of Oak Hills and
Wallace Ranch, the key will be the volume capacity at the
intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. The
same type of condition is going to occur at Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Imperial. When that capacity approaches saturation on
approved tracts, the stoppage will be effected.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Jared Ikeda, Planning Consultant, representing the owners of
Wallace Ranch. Traffic has been studied and they are aware of
the necessity for providing the Eastern Corridor to enable the
transportation system to work. With the Eastern Transportation
Corridor, the interchange at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir
Canyon Road operates at 86 percent of capacity. Without the
Transportation Corridor, the capacity would be exceeded. Their
traffic consultant prepared a monitoring program which enables a
step-by-step approval of development and awareness of how each
would impact traffic levels. They understood the stipulations
made by staff and the fact that this is a General Plan Amendment
and they are setting an upper limit from zero to 1,119 units.
It allows for overall coordination of planning, knowing that a
maximum of 1,119 is going to be in the Wallace Ranch with no
additional development beyond that. Relative to the fiscal
39
9
City Hall} Anaheim} California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
impact, their analysis showed an approximate ~36,000 surplus to
the City. Subsequently, the revised land use plan reduced that
net surplus to ~16,000.
In the Hillside medium density, there will be multiple family
housing and some will be stacked units. About one quarter of
the area is very steep. One third of the area will be dedicated
to open space. The remaining land is developable and there is
approximately 25 percent of the property that is relatively flat
where there will be higher densities. The Wallace Ranch is not
the developer. This is for General Plan Amendment purposes and
there could be a variety of different types of products.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
OPPOSED- None.
IN FAVOR: None.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Councilwoman Kaywood:
The original General Plan Amendment shows a maximum of 738
dwelling units. A large amount has been given to Anaheim Hills
above and beyond the General Plan of development for that area
and if the trend continues, it will be difficult to say no to
others requesting higher densities. There are so many
imponderables that the $16,000 positive fiscal impact could be
easily wiped out. With a possibility of 78 percent being
apartments or 877 units, if the developer comes in with that
amount, it would also be difficult to deny that because approval
will already have been given. The existing general plan is 738
dwelling units which will now increase to 1,119 or an increase
of 52 percent and that is her concern.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 264 - CERIFICATION WITH STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by
Councilman Overholt. The City Council finds that EIR No. 264 is in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City and State CEQA
Guidelines; that economic, social and physical considerations make it
infeasible to eliminate all of the significant environmental impacts of the
project which have been identified in EIR No. 264; that it will be necessary
to complete planning and provide for funding of a system of arterial highways
having adequate capacity to serve this project and other future developments
in the region prior to approval of zoning the property for development;
however, the benefits of the project have been balanced against the
unavoidable environmental impact and, pursuant to the provisions of Section
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the occurrence of the significant
environmental effects identified in EIR No. 264 and as set forth above may be
4O
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar.y..15, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
permitted without further mitigation due to the following overriding
considerations: 1) the project will provide a balanced residential community
to fill a need for housing an increasing population; 2) the project is
compatible with surrounding land uses; 3) mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project to reduce the environmental impact to an
acceptable level. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-32 for adoption, approving General
Plan Amendment No. 187, Exhibit "B", and stipulations by the applicant
identified on Page 3-h and 3-i, November 26, 1984 - addendum to the Planning
Commission Staff Report dated October 29, 1984. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATED AS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 187, EXHIBIT "B."
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickier
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-32 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (3:05 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
41