1984/04/03City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - A.pril 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRE SENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Don Dexter, First Presbyterian Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickier led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119.: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Private Property Week in Anaheim, April 8-14, 1984
Child Abuse Prevention Month in Anaheim, April 1984
Cancer Awareness Week in Anaheim, April 2-8, 1984
National Consumers Week in Anaheim, April 23-30, 1984
Day of the Teacher in Anaheim, April 10, 1984
Mr. Walt Forsythe accepted the Private Property Week proclamation; Captain
Bill Franklin, the Child Abuse Prevention Month proclamation; and Elsie Reed,
the Cancer Awareness Week proclamation.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
~aive the'reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
Waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMakN-DS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,542,260.93, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Pickler, 'the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
391
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 84R-126 through 84R-132, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
1. li8: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management.
1. Claim submitted by Steve Scott for personal injury and property
damages sustained purportedly due to an accident on Nohl Ranch Road, on or
about November 28, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by Mrs. Marry Wilson for damages sustained purportedly
due to an accident on Nohl Ranch Road, on or about November 28, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Lina Morris for personal injury damages sustained
purportedly due to exposed electrical cable in the Stadium Parking Lot near
Gate 6, on or about October 14, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance, subrogation rights under Julie ~
Spaeter, insured, subrogate for property damages sustained purportedly due to ....
an accident in which the City was involved at Bali and Walnut, on or about
November 11, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Hermon O. Dargatz for personal property damages to ~'
car sustained purportedly due to an accident caused by a City-owned vehicle
and City driver on Turin Street, on or about December 2, 1983.
6. Claim submitted by Michael G. Oprian for personal injuries sustained
purportedly due to negligence of the City in maintaining the alleyway between
Chestnut Street and Broadway Avenue, west of Harbor Boulevard, on or about
January 24, 1984.
7. Claim submitted by Michael Anthony Carlson for personal property
damages to car sustained purportedly due to rocks bouncing out of a City-owned
vehicle at the interchange of the northbound 55 freeway to the westbound 9i
freeway, on or about February 16, 1984.
8. Claim submitted by Christopher Mark Noble for personal injury and
property damages to car sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police
Officers at 600 South State College Boulevard, on or about February 3, 1984.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of February 29, 1984.
3. 123/174: Authorizing an agreement with Hope House Corporation and Sylvia
Hammond for a CDBG subgrant in the amount of $12,300 to make structural
improvements to a residential facility located at 714 North Anaheim Boulevard
used for the treatment of young adult substance abusers.
392
Ci.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
4. 123: Authorizing the City Manager to execute a lease/purchase agreement
with De La Rue Printrak, Inc., for acquisition of System 300, Model 10,
computerized fingerprint analysis system, lease price one dollar a year,
option to purchase at $50,000, a card conversion at 80 cents per card, and for
a term of 18 months.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Magnolia Elementary School District at
a cost of $7 per day for the use of one classroom at Dr. Jonas E. Saik School
for an Extended Day Care Program; term commencing March 26, 1984 and ending
June 30, 1985; and authorizing the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Director to execute same.
6. 175/123: Waiving formal bidding procedures and authorizing the Acting
City Engineer to negotiate a letter agreement with Sanderson/J. Ray
Development Company in an amount not to exceed $85,000 to construct a water
main to serve the Anaheim Auto Center on Ball Road at Route 57 Freeway.
7. 123/170: Authorizing an agreement with the City of Orange to allow
connection to and use of Orange sewers in Nohl Canyon Road by the developer of
Tract No. 10474 at a cost of $10 per year per unit (25 units) due July 1 of
each year with reimbursement by the property owners association, effective no
later than July 1, 1984.
8. 160: Accepting the bid of Sorensen-Christian Industry in the amount of
$16,639.88 for two portable push-button electric/hydraulic basketball
backstops, in accordance with Bid No. 4080.
9. 160: Accepting the bid of Cai Quip Company in the amount of $15,894.44
for one portable trash compactor, in accordance with Bid No. 4085.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Universal Truck Body in the amount of
$21,689.72 for two 8-yard dump bodies, in accordance with Bid No. 4088.
11. 123: Authorizing a Continuing Rental Agreement with Standard Aero
Limited to provide helicopter engines at no operating cost during maintenance
of the Police helicopters.
12. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-126: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSARY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TO WIT:
CITRON STREET, LA PALMA AVENUE TO NORTH STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, STREET,
SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENT, ACCOUNT NOS. 01-793-6325-E3730, 11-790-6325-E0460
AND 5i-606-6329-17380-34340. (bids to be opened on May 3, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
13. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-127: 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: YORBA REGIONAL PARK SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-819-7105. (Creative Lighting & Maintenance,
contractor)
393
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
14. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-128: 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: UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER MATERIAL STORAGE AREA PAVING, S/O SOUTH STREET,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 51-699-6329-0957M-3710A AND
55-6329-0957M-3900A. (R. J. Noble Company, contractor)
15. 174/150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-129: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION
FUNDS FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLES PARK EXPANSION PROJECT.
16. 103: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-130: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR LA PALMA-RED GUM
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND FIXING A TIME, DATE AND PLACE OF REARING
OF SAID PROPOSED ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 35220 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE
OF' THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (suggested date: May 15, 1984, 1:30 p.m.)
17. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-131: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-387 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS SUPPORT AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
(creating the job classification of Safety Administrator, X SR05, effective
March 23, 1984)
18. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-132: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolutions No. 84R-126 through 84R-130, both inclusive,
and Resolution No. 84R-132 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 84-131:
AYES;
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-131 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HELIPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR CONSULTING
SERVICES: City Manager William Talley briefed joint memorandum dated April 2,
1984 from Planning and Intergovernmental Relations and announced that they had
a request by Mr. Furman Roberts to address the Council.
394
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Furman Roberts, City Attorney, City of Orange, stated on behalf of his
City, he was requesting if the grant funds were accepted, that the City of
Orange be informed of the hearings and information gathered and be able to
participate in discussing those matters since they might have some impact on
Orange.
Mayor Roth agreed and stated he appreciated Mr. Roberts being present today.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Manager to accept a grant
offer from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the amount of ~133,650
to fund a public heliport feasibility study to and appropriate said funds into
Account No. 17-3130; and directing the Planning Director to process a Request
for Proposal to obtain consulting services for said study, as recommended in
joint memorandum dated April 2, 1984. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
i39: SB1850 (KEENE) AND AB3108 (ROBINSON) - PENDING STATE LEGISLATION TO
CHANGE THE FUNDING OF LOCAL TRIAL COURTS: City Manager Talley briefed joint
memorandum dated' March 30,' ~984 from the Intergovernmental Relations Office
and Police Department relative to the subject bill which staff recently
learned would be coming up for a hearing on April 9 and 10, 1984. In summary,
the bill proposed a raid on local government financing and could cost local
governments throughout California, if adopted and fully implemented, $150
million with no replacement revenues proposed. It would cost Anaheim
approximately $2.2 million under certain conditions. He felt it was
reprehensible for State legislators to take money from the cities without
applying any type of remedial financial assistance. If Council felt it
appropriate, they could advise their local Assemblymen who could help, as well
as the County Board of Supervisors.
Mayor Roth stated he was supportive, but would add one more item. He knew
that certain Council members had good relationships with certain Assemblymen,
and he asked that his colleagues make personal calls especially to Assemblyman
Robinson to indicate the problem they had with the bill.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to oppose SB1850 and AB3108 in accordance
with the recommendation of the Intergovernmental Relations Office and Police
Department in their report dated March 30, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Cindy Cave, Intergovernmental Relations Officer, elaborated
on the subject bills basically briefing the extensive discussion contained in
the March 30, 1984 report. She subsequently answered questions posed by
Councilwoman Kaywood.
PUBLIC REQUESTS - CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the
following items in accordance with the recommendation of the Zoning Division.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
1. 166: REQUEST: Approving a request submitted by T. D. Cramer, Autonetics
Strategic Systems Division, to fly a 10-foot balloon 100 feet in the air, in
conjunction with a "Spring Cleaning" campaign to be held April 23-27, 1984 at
the facility located at 3370 East Miraloma Avenue.
395
City Hal.!, An.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MIN~dTES - Apri% 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
2. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 2566 - EXTENSION OF
TIME: Submitted by Salkin Engineering Corporation, granting a one-year
extension of time to Reclassification No. 73-74-28 and Variance No. 2566,
proposed RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoning, to establish an 18-lot subdivision on
property located southeasterly of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road, to
expire March 14, 1985.
Councilman Bay abstained from voting on the foregoing Item No. i. MOTION
CARRIED.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015 - TERMINATION: Mc Clellan, Cruz,
Gaylord & Associates, requesting termination 0f Conditional Use Permit No.
2015, to permit a commercial office complex with Code waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces on property located at 1211 South Harbor Boulevard.
The Zoning Division recommended termination of the Conditional Use Permit, as
outlined in the memorandum dated March 21, 1984.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned with a five-story hotel to be
constructed on the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Bail Road which was probably
one of the worst access points in the City and she was going to vote "no". If
there was any kind of parking waiver, she felt that the project should come
back to the Council.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated there were no parking
or any other waivers on the property and the project would not be coming back
to the Council. The developer had pulled building permits and met all the
requirements of City departments.
Councilman Bay felt that the situation was a surprise to the Council to the
extent that when they cleared the RV Park from the property and went through
the hearing process, all the talk at that time was for a commercial office
building. Now suddenly the project was an additional hotel and this was their
first official notice because of the request for termination of the former
CUP. His question was a follow-on to Councilwoman Kaywood's concern, how did
they get something like this before them when they were concerned about
another hotel being developed on that location.
Miss Santalahti explained that the property along with all the area around
Disneyland was under a 1967 zoning action resolution of intent which basically
had conditions that pertained only to payment of fees and dedication of street
rights of way. If they satisfied those conditions and got their zoning, they
could then pull the permit under the existing zoning.
Mayor Roth stated they were going back to the zoning of the property and
meeting ali standards. If the Council wanted to change that, they would have
to have a general plan amendment and change the zoning of ail vacant property
around the Disneyland area. Perhaps if the Council wanted to review ail that
vacant land and have a moratorium and not build any more hotels in the area,
it was necessary to talk about the whole general area, rather than just this
specific piece of property.
396
City Hall, Anaheim, .~a!if.ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Miss Santalahti stated, in terms of traffic, an office use would have peak
hours activity, whereas a hotel would have a distribution of traffic
throughout the day and hopefully would have a lesser impact on traffic. It
was still not an optimum, but better than an office activity.
Councilman Pickler wanted to know if in the future there was some way they
could be alerted to such major developements in the area, so that the Council
could first look at it.
Miss Santalahti stated that projects could be brought before the Council but
there were no ordinances that would allow the Council to review them assuming
that professionally the project satisfied the City standards. In this case,
the developer had worked with the City and also Cai Trans had been interested
and involved.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to see a new study of the entire
area to see what they were doing and what was going in by right without any
knowledge of the Council.
Miss Santalahti explained this was an unusual situation where a five-story
building was involved because, in fact, they tended to see a lot of variances
from the Code. They had seen many parking waivers and this had none. It was
also meeting permitted height, Code regulations, and parking. She did not
know if the plan was for the full development of the site or if they would
come back later for a restaurant or something else which might generate the
need for a parking waiver where the Council might see it in connection with
such a waiver.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-133 for adoption terminating
Conditional Use Permit No. 2015. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-133: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2015 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-596 NULL AND VOID.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to vote
"no" on terminating the Conditional Use Permit as a protest vote. The area
was a triangle in a "dreadful" spot.
A vote was then taken on the forgoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-133 duly passed and adopted.
114: REQUEST FOR LIAISON MEETING WITH VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU:
Councilman Bay explained that he had received numerous comments about the
commercial-recreation area on the subject of hotels. He would like to call a
397
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Liaison meeting with the Visitor and Convention Liaison, Councilwoman Kaywood
and himself. It was time they had such a meeting relative to the comments he
heard regarding the question of overbuilding of hotels in that area. If there
were concerns along those lines, he felt it perhaps was time they had such a
meeting.
Mayor Roth asked if one of the items of discussion was going to be a
moratorium on building; Councilman Bay stated he did not know if that would be
an item of discussion, but he would like to open up those communication lines
between the people involved and the Council, since they had not yet had a
Liaison meeting.
Councilman Overholt stated he would concur even though he was not part of that
Liaison committee. However, he did not think it should be interpreted to mean
that anyone felt that a moratorium was in order.
City Manager Talley asked, since they never had a Liaison meeting, who would
Councilman Bay want to have a discussion with; Councilman Bay answered, the
current Chairman of the Visitor and Convention Bureau and whoever else the
Bureau would like to have meet with the Council and staff to open up
communications.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt a committee of the major hotel managers
would be in order as well.
Mayor Roth felt they were going to be walking on a delicate area. They would
be talking with people who already had built their facilities. It was
difficult when touching on land control or the concept of moratoriums and they
were getting into an area that he was gravely concerned about.
Councilman Bay emphasized that he had not used the word moratorium, but he was
talking about opening up communication lines between representatives of the
Visitor and Convention Bureau and Council. He wanted to hear what they had to
say about anything and everything in the C-R area from whomever they chose to
represent them in a Liaison meeting.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9602: Developer, Canyon Heights of Orange; Tract
is located south of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Meats Avenue and contains 49
proposed RS-HS-10,OOO(SC) zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was ~ound to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final
Map Tract No. 9602 as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated
March 26, 1984 subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a covenan~ against the property agreeing that a 6-f6~t high,
open decorative wall shall be constructed at the top of slope on the north and
northwest tract boundary separating Lots Nos. 1-12 from Nohl Ranch Road. Said
covenant to be of a form approved by the City Attorney's Office and to be
recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
398
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
2. Payment of appropriate water assessment fees to the City of Ansheim.
3. Approval of a covenant against the property guaranteeing that reasonable
landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in ali
parkways adjacent to slopes maintained by the Homeowners Association, said
covenant to be of a form approved by the City Attorney's Office and to be
recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
4. Approval of a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to the
following: maintain parkways adjacent to Association-maintained slopes,
indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless for damages resulting
therefrom, and maintain liability insurance for said parkways naming the City
as an additional insured, the form of said covenant to be approved by the City
Attorney's Office and to be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
Evidence of the required insurance and a bond guaranteeing the performance of
the developer's obligation to install and maintain the parkway landscaping
shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office.
5. Approval of CC & R's by the Engineering Division and the City Attorney's
Office, said CC & R's to be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10474: Developer, Vista Nohi Townhomes Ltd.;
Tract is located on the east side of Villareai Drive, south of Nohl Ranch
Road, and contains 26 proposed RM-3000(SC) zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overhoit, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final
Map T~act No. 10474, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated March 26, 1984, subject to appoval of the CC & R's by the City
Attorney's Office and the Engineering Division. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9601 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Lind-Hillerud, Inc.,
requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 9601, to establish a
9-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located at the northeast
corner of Canyon Rim Road and Fairmont Boulevard.
The extension of time was approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting
of March 19, 1984, to expire June 28, 1985.
The item was submitted for informational purposes only. No action was taken
by the Council.
179: AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT IN SUPPORT OF A REQUEST FOR REHEARING: Request
submitted by Floyd L. Farano, Attorney representing the applicant, for a
rehearing on C.U.P. 2461, Riviera Mobilehome Park, to permit two 14-story,
200-foot high office complexes on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 300
West Katella Avenue (Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 was granted by the
Council on March 27, 1984, see minutes that date), for deletion of certain
conditions of approval.
399
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he would like to trail the matter to later in the
day. He did not understand the request for a rehearing or what Mr. Farano had
in mind because they had discussed the matter at great length at the previous
meeting. He did want Mr. Farano contacted, as suggested by the City Clerk.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated Mr. Farano wanted to exclude the construction of
the road as discussed at the previous~ public hearing and she thereupon moved
to deny the request for a rehearing.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt moved to trail the matter
until later in the meeting to obtain further claification relative to the
request for rehearing. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he felt Mr. Farano should
be present to make a request; CounciLman Bay stated he did not have a problem
understanding what Mr. Farano wanted since it was clearly stated in the
Affidavit. He was saying he had additional information and some of the issues
that were assumed to be resolved were not resolved. He had no problem with
the request, nor trailing the matter as long as they were going to get to it
today.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to trail the matter. MOTION
CARRIED.
Later in the meeting (li:O0 a.m.) Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney representing
Riviera Mobilehome Park, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, stated as set forth in
the Affidavit, they believed that the Environmental Impact Reports on both the
Riviera project and the Anaheim Stadium clearly placed the Riviera project
outside of the proposed assessment district. They believed that insufficient
information was presented to the Council at the time especially in view of the
complexity of the project. They were not sure the Council was fully cognizant
of ail the facts portrayed in the EIR and felt it should be carefully
presented to the Council ahead of time, so that they could study it and then
further discuss it in a public hearing. He also believed the EIR of the
Riviera project, especially the traffic report on pages 102 and 107 clearly
showed that the Riviera project was not the prime mover of the traffic
congestion in the Harbor-Katella intersection. It was clear that there was a
problem with that intersection at this time, but it was existing and not being
introduced by the Riviera project. They favored Riviera contributing its fair
share but to impose the requirement to acquire the title to real property and
dedicate it for a street to solve a preexisting traffic problem was unjust.
The third reason involved the notion that the manner in which the assessment
district was going to be created and what it was going to accomplish, by the
admissions of City staff, were nebulous and uncertain at this time. His
understanding was that the proposed assessment district created, as a result
of Anaheim Stadium developments, cut down the middle of the Riviera project,
down Clementine. He did not know that to be a certainty and there was no
evidence in either of the environmental impact reports to justify including
the eastern half of the project in the assessment district.
4OO
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ap,ril 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that when the initial hearing was held on the
852-room hotel and condominium towers that the EIR's were discussed at length
and specifically and they were the same EIR's that covered the office
buildings. The City's Traffic Engineer clearly stated that without the
construction of the road, there would be no office buildings. She asked Mr.
Farano if he had other information that would be different from what they
already heard. She knew they disagreed, but that did not mean new information.
Mr. Farano felt it was new and different information in that in no
presentation that had yet been made before the Council to his knowledge had
the interaction and relationship between the Stadium EIR and the Riviera
project ever been discussed and interrelated.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to grant a rehearing on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2461 on Tuesday, May 15, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4492: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4492 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4492: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
149: REVIEW OF CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Councilwoman Kaywood asked for
a review of the new parking requirements as she felt that they were totally
inadequate when not based on the number of bedrooms involved.
Miss Santalahti stated they were preparing a report and that subject was
included.
114: UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG): Councilman Pickier stated he understood the City no
longer belonged to the United States Conference of Mayors or SCAG. He would
like the Council to another look at the possibility of the City again joining
these two organizations to be discussed at a future meeting.
172: LOARA-DOGWOOD AREA REPORT: Councilman Pickler referred to the copy of
the study they received on the subject area. He felt it was something the
Council should discuss and be agendized for a future Council meeting.
Councilman Overholt recounted that both he and Councilman Bay had broached the
matter at the meeting of March 27, 1984 (see minutes that date). However, he
would like to have more time to study the report before giving direction. He
felt they all agreed that the area deserved concentrated attention.
The Mayor suggested that the matter be agendized for the Council meeting of
Tuesday, April 17, 1984.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation, labor relations and a personnel matter with no action
anticipated; The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated.
401
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES~- April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:16 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:45 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2523
(READVERT!SEp): Application submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company, (Arco
Service Station), to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and
off-sale beer and wine on ML zoned property located at 1801 South State
College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution PC84-9, 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 affect on the environment and further, denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2523.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Wallis R. Davis,
Attorney for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled and continued from
the meeting of March 13, 1984 to this date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts, announced that a petition had been received from the
applicant under letter dated April 3, 1984 containing approximately 1,000
signatures supporting the application which had been copied for the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the signatures were all Anaheim people; Mrs.
Roberts answered that the signatures had not been verified (petitions made a
part of the record).
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Wallis R. Davis, Stokke and Davis, Suite 300, 540 North Golden Circle,
Santa Aha, representing Atlantic Richfield, first stated that several
representatives of the company were present in the Chambers audience in the
event there were certain questions raised. He referred to the petitions that
were submitted that morning which included names of residents in the
surrounding area (short forms) and those taken by the local businessman at the
subject site (long forms). A review of those would indicate that 60 to 70
percent of the people were Anaheim residents and 30 percent or so were people
from surrounding areas, the significance being that the petitions were an
indication and further proof that AM/PM Mini Markets were a tremendous
convenience to the citizens and visitors of Anaheim. He then submitted two
copies of brochures that depicted their typical AM/PM operation (made a part
of the record).
Mr. Davis also explained that they already had some markets in place and they
were dealing here with a good corporate citizen of Anaheim and Orange County
who had been in the City in excess of 30 years, that being the Atlantic
Richfield Company. They were ready,to invest $200,000 to have a first-class
402
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
facility at the subject location. They were high-class operations that
created a minimum number of problems with maximum convenience for citizens.
He then elaborated upon some of the items that were broached at the meeting of
March 27, 1984 when the Council approved a mini-market and gasoline station at
the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Bail Road (see minutes of March 27
1984 re; Conditional Use Permit No. 2538 approved by the Council). There was
no complaint concerning the existing Arco mini-market in the City and the
closing of access ways closest to the intersections, in fact, improved traffic
flow. That experience should assist the Council in making their decision
today because it applied to the subject situation. Further, the site at State
College Boulevard and South Street, an AM/PM operation, created a 100 percent
improvement in the appearance of the area. The franchise agreement had a
tight procedure that required the operator to have an orderly and clean
operation. In addition, the sites were inspected on a regular and continual
basis.
Mr. Davis then briefed and highlighted the following: "Petition to approve
request for convenience mini-market on existing service station site" (13
pages), Re C.U.P. No. 2523, 1801 South State College Boulevard (Arco Service
Station) which previously was made a part of the record. He also referred to
his letter dated February 10, 1984 listing eight items as the basis for their
appeal. Relative to the S,,mmary of Issues, page 2 of the petition, Mr. Davis
stated the point was that the proposal would be an upgrade for the area.
There were three service stations on that corner and this would be the best
looking one. After his extensive presentation, Mr. Davis pointed out that the
closing of the driveways closest to the intersection would provide a better
flow and overall it would be a much better looking site. He urged the Council
to approve the application.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak either in favor or
in opposition; there being no response, he asked Mr. Davis to make his
summation.
Councilman Overholt first referred to the letter of opposition received from
Hartman Corporation and asked Mr. Davis if he wanted to respond to that.
Mr. Davis answered that upon receipt of a copy of the letter, he called Mr.
Quarre to find out his real concerns, but he was unable to reach him the first
time. He asked his office investigator to ~alk wi~h him. They found out that
the Corporation that sent the letter did not have an office at the location,
but at 536 West Lincoln Avenue. They wanted to know what kind of project was
going to be built to see if there was anything Arco could do to assist, and
were told there were no specific projects in mind. He found it difficult to
contend with something that did not exist. There was an existing office
building next to the company's vacant lot and those people had not objected to
the proposal. He spoke with Mr. Quarre and asked about the commercial
development mentioned in the letter and was told there were no plans
whatsoever for that. He (Quarre) said there were problems with trash, but
other than that there was nothing specific.
Councilwoman Kaywood, referring to the petitions, noted that the locations
were from different states all over the country or ail over California and
every city in Orange County. She did not know how those signatures related to
the specific Anaheim neighborhood involved.
403
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickier stated traffic flow was a big concern to him since the
location was one of the busiest corners in the City. He noted that Mr. Davis
mentioned that 22 percent of the customers at mini-markets arrived on foot or
bicycle. He drove around the area and had yet to see any people walking and
no bicycles. They were going to get customers by car. He had voted for some
conversions to mini-markets in the past, but in areas where they were not
going to create problems. When there were games at Anaheim Stadium, it was
going to accentuate the problem.
Mr. Davis stated that he had spent a lot of time in the area. If the station
remained as at present, it would be going against the City Engineer's
recommendations. The two driveways nearest the intersection would remain open
and based on Mr. Singer's recommendation, if the project went forward, those
would be closed and the landscaping installed, resulting in better' access. In
addition, the canopy would be arranged in a different manner.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he anticipated that there would be
additional flow into and out of the service station because it would not only
be servicing motorists, but also would have a convenience market and he
anticipated some increase in usage of the driveways. However, that would be
substantially offset by the improved traffic flow characteristics at the
intersection, because the closest driveways were the ones creating most of the
problems at any service station and specifically at the subject busy corner.
He than referred to the collision diagrams submitted to the Council comprising
three years of collisions that had taken place and there were eight collisions
dealing with the driveways closest to the intersection. If they could
eliminate even a few of those collisions, then they would have made a
substantial improvement in the area.
Councilman Bay asked Mr. Singer if, with his traffic expertise, he could
condense his answer from a traffic standpoint to support the project because
he saw the improvement of closing the driveways as substantially improving the
traffic condition at that corner; Mr. Singer answered "yes".
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Davis wherein he reported
that the average sales on beer and wine for such locations was 10 to 15
percent and that they would not be willing to make the conversion without the
sale of beer amd wine because they would be sufficiently hurt economically if
they removed it.
Councilman Overholt asked if they would be willing to stipulate to a one-year
C.U.P. if granted which meant, if they wanted to have it extended, they would
have to file again after one year.
Mr. Davis, after consulting with other representatives, first corrected an
earlier figure by clarifying that their investment was going to be $427,000
and perhaps as high as ~500,000 in improvements at the site and for that
reason could not agree to a one-year permit. Ten years would be necessary to
amortize the investment.
404
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated if the applicant was willing to stipulate to one year, they
would be under a C.U.P., and the Council at any time could always have an
Order to Show Cause hearing why the C.U.P. should not be revoked if there was
a blatant violation or traffic problems caused by the use.
Mr. Davis then explained, and answered to an issue broached by the Mayor
earlier, that they would be amenable to working out a reasonable provision for
policing the area and they had discussed that. He was certain that he and the
City Attorney could work out a fair provision that would allow for that.
Mayor Roth stated what he had observed with such markets was that they
enhanced the area because there were no longer used tires or parts in view or
cars waiting around for repair, but he saw this location as potentially adding
a problem.
Councilman Pickier stated that the location was a big factor in his decision.
He felt that State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue was a bad spot for a
mini-market, especially with the sale of beer and wine. When the Stadium was
in use, many of the patrons were drinking for two or three hours and many did
not park on the Stadium lot. He felt they would be enhancing the drunk
driving problem by allowing a mini-market with beer and wine sales in an area
where so many things were taking place. The Council had to protect its
citizens somehow. If there was no beer and wine sold at the location which
Mr. Davis stated amounted to approximately 10 to 15 percent of their sales, he
would consider the use. They had to look at the overall picture.
Mr. Davis stated, using that logic, then he supposed there should be no liquor
at the Casa Maria restaurant or in the hotel lobby or coffee shop next door
and as he stated earlier, if there was such a concern, it would follow that
they should not allow the sale of beer and wine at the Stadium. He then
referred to a staff report from another city (see minutes of the Norwalk
Planning Commission dated January 18, 1984 - previously made a part of the
record) which outlined the regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission
based on the Code and regulations that were tighter than the Code. It
outlined every single reason why there should not be beer or wine or any other
liquor license and there was nothing that stated such a license should be
denied because of the problem Councilman Pickier was suggesting. He felt it
was unfair to put the applicant or any applicant through a double scrutiny
where there was a State law system which addressed itself to that issue at the
time of the issuance of a liquor license.
Councilman Pickier stated he felt they had been lenient in allowing
mini-markets to come into the City, but felt this particular location was
wrong. The traffic was horrendous and would only become worse, and they were
going to be catering to people coming out of the Stadium.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her continuing concern in the fact that, due to
such conversions, that there would be no place for motorists to go to have
their cars serviced.
Mr. Don Davis, Arco, 300 West Glen Oaks Boulevard, then shared the experience
they had operating mini-markets adjacent to various sports stadiums such as
the Los Angeles Coliseum and the Jack Murphy stadium in San Diego where no
adverse problems evolved.
4O5
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to give his reasons why he was going
to vote against the C.U.P. He felt this was one of the most sensitive areas
in the entire City and there was no comparison with, for instance, the Los
Angeles Coliseum area. If it were for a short-term or on a trial basis, he
could support it, but it was a ten-year commitment. He was not willing to
commit to a ten-year use in that area. Mr. Davis was disregarding the
objections of the landowner across the street, but there were other developers
and landowners on the Stadium parking lot. His feeling was that the
mini-market at that location was going to add little to the community. It may
well save their gas station operation and close two driveways, but the basic
question was whether granting a C.U.P. to permit a mini-market at Katella
Avenue and State College Boulevard was the thing to do at this time. He did
not think it was. He could not support the project except on a short-term
basis.
Mr. Davis stated they would be willing to take a one-year C.U.P., but
hopefully there had to be ground rules as to what would be considered right or
wrong.
Councilman Overhoit stated if a ten or twenty-story building went up across
the street, their proposal might not be compatible at that time. Plans for
that area were in a state of flux and a permanent use was not an appropriate
use. He would rather see just a gas station and if they wanted to proceed for
one year, he would vote for it, but with no commitment that they would have an
obligation to extend the C.U.P. He felt they would be "crazy" to do it for
one year, and it would not make sense.
Mayor Roth clarified for Mr. Davis that if the Conditional Use Permit were for
one year, it would be without any ground rules and after one year, they would
have to start ali over again.
Councilman Overholt clarified what he was saying, if what they were doing was
worthwhile now, would they then be willing to give the Council the right on an
annual basis to determine whether their operation was still compatible with
what was going on in the area. That was why he was suggesting it, because
economically it did not make any sense in his opinion to invest one-half
million dollars for one year.
Mr. Davis, after consulting with other company representatives stated, the way
it was presented that they would be starting all over again after one year was
unacceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickier, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-134 for adoption denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2523. Refer to Resolution Book.
406
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-134: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2523.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated his concern was relative to
policing of the area and Arco was willing to take on that responsibility.
Further, the Traffic Engineer indicated in his opinion many of the accidents
at that intersection were caused by the driveways closest to the intersection
which, under the proposal, were to be closed. If he had the power, he would
rezone every single gas station and close those driveways closest to the
corner. The Anaheim Stadium Associates development was still down stream and
many things were going to change at that location. He was going to oppose the
resolution to deny the C.U.P.
Councilman Bay also speaking against the resolution stated he did not think
the Council needed to play "blue law" with the Alcoholic Beverage Commission
or use it for an excuse to restrict a proven business with a great number of
facts that such a business was not going to create an impact. The problems
were not happening and he did not see using that logic to deny the use at the
subject location.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler
Bay and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-134 duly passed and adopted.
134/179: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 190~ RECLASSIFICATION
NO. '83-84-17, VARIANCE NO. 3374 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application
submitted by Retirement Fund Trust Of The Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry
of Southern California, to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element from
the current low-medium density residential, and a change in zone from CG to
RM-1200, to construct a 250-unit apartment complex on approximately 9.6 acres
located on the south side of Wilken Way, approximately 615 feet east of Harbor
Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height,
(b) minimum floor area of dwelling units, (c) minimum distance between
buildings, (d) minimum dimensions of parking spaces, (e) required enclosure of
carports.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-31, disapproved
the negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an Enviroumentai
Impact Report on the basis that there would be significant individual or
cumulative adverse Environmental Impact Report would be required prior to
approval of this project and further, denied General Plan Amendment No. 190,
Reclassification No. 83-84-17 and Variance No. 3374.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Brown Development
Corporation, Agent and public hearing scheduled this date.
407
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Letter dated March 23, 1984 from Irene Jennings, President, and Kathy Ellis,
Secretary-Treasurer of the South Anaheim Neigborhood Council, requested that
the subject public hearing be continued to April 17, 1984 and possibly set for
an evening meeting. At their meeting of March 27, 1984 (see minutes that
date), the Council determined that on this date they would continue the public
hearing to April 17, 1984 at 1:30 p.m., but schedule as the last public
hearing on that date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present or if anyone
wished to speak; no one responded.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue public hearing on General Plan
Amendment No. 190, Reclassification No. 83-84-17, Variance No. 3374 and
negative declaration therefor to Tuesday, April 17, 1984 at 1:30 p.m.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:13 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, ali Council Members
being present. (4:30 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Council members Overholt and Pickler were absent. MOTION CARRIED.
(4:33 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
4O8