1984/09/11City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRES ENT:
ABSENT:
PRES ENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR: John Roche
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: Father 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: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
"Cystic Fibrosis Week in Anaheim", September 16-22, 1984
"Constitution Week in Anaheim", September 17-23, 1984
The Cystic Fibrosis Week proclamation was accepted by Barbara Boyle, Executive
Director for the Greater Los Angeles/ Orange County Chapter of the Cystic
Fibrosis Foundation, who was accompanied by the local poster child, four-year
old "Katy". The Constitution Week proclamation was accepted by Marllyn
Skinner.
119: SERVICE AWARDS: Mayor Roth presented Service Awards to Councilwoman
Miriam Kaywood who completed 10 years of service on April 16, 1984 and
Councilman Ben Bay who completed 5 years of service on May 15, 1984.
119: MANAGEMENT INNOVATION AWARD: Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council,
presented City Manager Talley with a plaque signifying his being the recipient
of the Management Innovation Award given by the International City Management
Association whose judges cited the extensive use of city employees as internal
consultants as a most noteworthy aspect of Anaheim's Productivity Improvement
Program.
City Manager William O. Talley accepted the award and in so doing stated there
were approximately 12 people in 1983/84 who contributed their time and energy
to the program beyond their normal assignments resulting in excess of
892
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - S.eptember 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
$.5 million in either savings or new revenues of benefit to the citizens, but
at no additional cost to the City. He was proud to be involved with a
management team that would give of themselves to that extent.
119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to James Ruth,
Assistant City Manager, on his leaving the employ of the City.
119: PRESENTATION - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM: Mr. Bill
Zaun, Program Manager, Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA),
first stated that at a previous Council meeting, Mr. Ken Smith of the EMAmade
a presentation regarding the technical aspects of the subject program (see
minutes of January 24, 1984). He (Zaun) was present today to give an overview
of the program as well as its present status. At its public hearing of
July 25, 1984, the County Board of Supervisors adopted policy statements that
the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) had previously adopted.
There were three in number, the first relating to the need for the several
transportation Corridors (Eastern Foothill and San Joaquin), the second that
development fees were a necessary part of a funding mix for financing and
implementation of those Corridors and the third, that the facilities were by
their nature, regional type facilities but their implementation, planning,
financing and construction required cooperation amongst the Cities, Counties,
State and Federal Agencies. At the conclusion of the July 25, 1984 hearing,
the Board continued the hearing until October 3, 1984 at the request of
Supervisor Riley to give an opportunity for staff to communicate with the
various cities to solicit input with respect to the policy statements and most
importantly to solicit input from them regarding how they felt it would be
appropriate for them to participate in the process, not only relative to the
fee, but also in the administration of those programs. Mr. Stan Oftelie and
he were ready to answer any questions. They wanted input from he Council as
to their concerns regarding the need for the Corridors, whether development
fees were appropriate to the mix of financing strategies and how they felt it
was appropriate for them to collectively proceed in the decision making
regarding the Corridors.
MAyor Roth first emphasized that he and the Council were strong supporters
most especially of the Eastern Corridor and there was no question that
Corridor was a vital necessity. He expressed his concern, however, relative
to additional fees, pointing to the fact that the County no longer wanted to
share any ad valorem taxes on new developments with regard to sanitation
sewers and hook ups, and large fees to be encumbered on the newly Formed
Sanitation District 13, thereby compounding fees on new developments.
Mr. Zaun answered he realized new developments were being asked to share in
the cost of facilities and that this is a new situation. The subject fees
were not proposed in conjunction with other fees or in lieu of other fees but
only for transportation costs.
The Mayor then asked to hear from developers and landowners who were present
in the Chamber audience.
893
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Tom Winfield, Attorney representing Kaufman and Broad, gave input and
recommendations relative to the proposed fee and concluded that the County's
proposal was well meaning but totally unworkable. There was no commitment to
ever build the roads but to collect the money.
Mr. Doug Gfeller, Gfeller Development, felt there was no such thing as a
developer fee. Developers did not pay any; it was another increase in the
cost of new housing for an item that would benefit all who were present today
but only paid for by new homeowners. The impact would be on the growth of new
housing and the ability to attract new businesses, industries, and new
shopping centers since they would be at a competitive disadvantage. He urged
the Council to consider the matter carefully.
Bob Reese, Board of Directors, Building Industry Association (BIA), Orange
County Chapter, stated the Association had a long discussion relative to the
issue. The point that BIA did not like the fees was true. They had to
basically support it and they were doing so because it was part of the
solution. The opportunity was now presented for all eleven cities to get
together and work out a responsible approach to the solution.
Mr. Stan Oftelie, OCTC, stated he talked with the Executive Director of BIA
John Erskine, this morning who thought the Council already received a letter
today indicating BIA's support of the proposal. The BIA did not like fees but
in this case they did not believe any other option was available. Mr. Oftelie
emphasized that what was before the Council today was the conceptual view of
whether or not the City should support the Eastern or Foothill Corridor and
the idea of a developer fee being part of a mix - not as the only means of
financing available. The first step was to look at the idea of a developer
fee as an acceptable mix. If so, the cities should come together and play a
significant role and see what the approach should be. Those were points the
Council might want to discuss as the next step.
Mayor Roth emphasized that the Eastern Corridor was a number one priority for
Anaheim and the City could not wait 25 years for it to become a reality. The
Council should reaffirm the City's position on the Eastern Transportation
Corridor and encourage the County to continue working with the ideas of the
BIA and other people in trying to find the best source of providing revenue to
offset costs. It was necessary that there be alternatives and everyone
working together in harmony to determine how best to finance the needed
Transportation Corridors.
Councilman Overholt stated he would like to in3ect into the City's
recommendation that the question of fair share be determined so that the
people who would benefit from the improvement were the ones who would pay for
it. The County should continue to search out the most viable means of
financing the improvements giving credence not to the best source, but where
the respective sources would each share their fair burden of the costs.
Extensive discussion followed as well as questions posed by Council Members
during which additional input was given by Messrs Zaun, Oftelie and Winfield
and Planning Director, Ron Thompson (see Mr. Thompson's report to the City
Manager/City Council dated September 10, 1984).
894
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
At the conclusion of discussion, Mr. Oftelie clarified that the Board had not
adopted a fee but three policy statements as follows:
Based on existing and future traffic volumes and emerging development
patterns, the Board of Supervisors supports the concept and acknowledges
the need for the Eastern, Foothill, and San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridors.
Considering the financial constraints facing roadbuilders today, the
Board of Supervisors recognizes that transportation development fees paid
by land developers are a necessary and appropriate part of a financing
mix for construction of the Eastern, Foothill and San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridos.
The Eastern, Foothill and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridors are
regional in nature and must be planned, financed, and constructed as a
cooperative effort by cities, the County of Orange, the OCTC, state and
federal governments, landowners, developers, and other responsible
representatives of the private sector. The Board of Supervisors agrees
to play an active part in this regional transportation effort.
Mr. Oftelie also stated that that County plan imposed a fee on the cities
indicating how much the cities should charge. The City had no requirement or
responsibility to adopt that program but a responsibility to have a discussion
on how those programs should be financed.
Councilman Overholt stated he had no problems with those three policy
statements and moved to approve the policy statements if that was what Mr.
Oftelie was looking for.
Councilman Bay wanted to see the policy statements in writing.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay asked for clarification relative
to the first motion; the City Clerk stated it was to approve the three policy
statements articulated by Mr. 0ftelie.
Councilman Pickler suggested that action be taken at the following meeting.
Councilman 0verholt thereupon moved to continue his motion for one week.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth surmised that the reason for the
continuance was to give an opportunity to put some data together on the issue
including the remarks by Supervisor Riley as well as presenting the three
policy statements in writing and any other information Mr. 0ftelie might want
to submit.
Councilman Overholt stated in the event the motion on the floor carried, he
would also move the following: That endorsement by the Council did not imply
approval of any specific plans presently under consideration particularly with
reference to formulas of participation on a fair share basis.
895
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler stated he felt that motion was premature at this time and
should be considered at next week's meeting after discussion of the motion of
endorsement.
The latter motion died for lack of a second.
A vote was then taken on the motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
119: 1984 MASTER PLAN - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT: Presentation By Joseph E.
Irvine, Executive Director, Community Airport Council.
Councilman Roth moved to continue the presentation one week since Mr. Irvine
was not well and unable to be present today. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held June 12, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,393,169.91, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 84R-348 through 84R-355, 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 Beverly G. Zaharson for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to low voltage at 246 Brentwood Place, on or about
June 29, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by William Brooker and Susan Moreno for personal
injury damages sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the
City, on or about May 22, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by David W. Johnson for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to brownout at 1803 Redwood Avenue, on or about
July 16, 1984.
896
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
d. Claim submitted by Southern California Edison Company for failure to
pay on the part of the City, on or about June 1, 1984.
e. Claim submitted by Anita Jean Ellis for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to failure to notify on the part of the City and
crediting wrong account in Utilities, on or about July 12 through 13, 1984 and
July 27 through July 30, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Kenny Wayne Trammel for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident caused by malfunctioning traffic
signal on La Palma at its intersection with Kraemer, on or about June 18, 1984.
g. Claim submitted by Chester C. Karson for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to power surge at 2251 West Coronet Street, on or
about July 8, 1984.
h. Claim submitted by David G. & Susan Lucero for indemnity based on
Superior Court Case No. 432-441, Josephine Thomas and Rosalind Schultz vs.
David Lucero and Susan Lucero.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of August 15, 1984.
b. 173: Notice of Application (No. 84-08-075) for Fare Adjustment
Airport Service, Incorporated. (on file)
3. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by
Manuel Gomez, for Anaheim Dance Promotions, to hold a dance at the Anaheim
Convention Center on September 15, 1984, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in
accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the Digital Equipment Corporation at a
monthly cost of $1,853 for service on computer equipment used in connection
with Circulation Control System for a period of one year, and authorizing the
Library Director to act on the City's behalf.
5. 140/106: Accepting the reimbursement for lnterlibrary loans in the amount
of $1,577.22 from the State, and appropriating the funds to the Library
Department to partially offset the costs of the interlibrary loan operation.
6. 140/106: Approving a decrease in account no. 01-370-7133 from $70,200 to
$57,250 and a decrease in revenue account number 01-3301 from $130,400 to
117,450 to reflect a revision in the Placentia Library District's proposed
book purchases budget.
7. 123: Authorizing a letter agreement with Judge H. Warren Knight at a fee
of $150 per hour for arbitration services.
8. 123: Accepting Orange County revenue sharing funds in the amount of
$35,000 for the West Anaheim Senior Citizens Center located at Trident
897
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Community Center and authorizing the Mayor go enter into an agreement with the
County to receive said funds.
9. 106: Approving $5,165,339.48 of reserve appropriations from Fiscal Year
83/84 to be expended in Fiscal Year 84/85.
10. 180: Accepting the offer of Rollins Burdick Hunter, Broker of Record, to
place the City's order for public officials excess liability insurance, at an
additional annual premium not to exceed $20,000.
11. 165: Postponing to September 18, 1984, award of contract for the Patt
Street Area Block Wall, Account No. 25-214-6772-PATT.
12. 144: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-348: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVINGAND CONCURRING IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN. (in connection with the Nejedly-Z'berg-Dills Solid Waste
Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972)
13. 113/156: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-349: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION, BY ERASURE OR OTHERWISE, OR
RECORDED TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMMUNICATIONS MAINTAINED BY A CITY DEPARTMENT
WHICH RECORDINGS ARE MORE THAN 100 DAYS OLD. (destruction of Police
Department records over 100 days old)
14. 124: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-350: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALI.
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND AI.L UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL
WORKNECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER ARENA BOX OFFICE PARKING AREA, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 64-957-7107. (R. A. Wiest Construction, contractor, and
authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
15. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-351: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE EMPIRE STREET STORM DRAIN, LINCOLN
AVENUE TO BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 01-791-6325-E1370 AND
51-606-6329-02260. (Schuler Engineering Corporation, in the amount of
$223,909)
16. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-352: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 16-INCH DIAMETER
WELL AT THE DAD MILLER GOLF COURSE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
61-512-7107 AND 64-308-7107. (Water Well Supply, in the amount of $47,500)
17. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-353: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER IMPROVEMENTS
IN WEIR CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 54-613-6329-00512.
(Albert W. Davies, in the amount of $313,586)
18. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-354: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
898
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
19. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-355: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (83-21A) (Declaring intent to abandon a
portion of a former Southern California Edison Company public utility
easement, located south of Lincoln Avenue, east of State College Boulevard,
Abandonment No. 83-21A; and setting a date for the public hearing. (suggested
date: October 2, 1984)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-348 through 84R-355 duly passed and
adopted. MOTION CARRIED.
144: TAX EXEMPT FINANCING - GFELLER DEVELOPMENT - LINCOLN BEACH PROJECT:
City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on report date September 4,
1984 from the Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest,
recommending the subject project for inclusion in the Orange County Tax Exempt
Mortgage Revenue Bond Issue with restrictions on income level adjusted by
household size, sales prices calculated in accordance with typical
underwriting criteria for those income levels and resale controls if units are
sold below appraised value; and, authorizing the Executive Director to execute
a letter of approval.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated this was a one time unique project where there was
no possibility of creating a precedent and even the existing developer would
never take on such a project again. Since it was so unique, she felt the
Council could accept the County requirements under the circumstances but just
this one time. However, she maintained there would have to be resale controls
to preclude the possibility of a first buyer receiving a windfall profit.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Lincoln/Beach project for
inclusion in the Orange County Tax Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond Issue imposing
resale controls only.
Before any action was taken, Mr. Doug Cfeller, 242 West Main Street, Tuztin,
Cfeller Development, stated he would like to see the Council require some of
the same affordable housing controls as required by the County which
requirements differed from those of the City. The exception to that would be
the City's resale requirement. In discussions he had with City staff, he felt
that Gfeller Development could live with the City's resale control
requirements, one which was not required by the County. Mr. Gfeller then
briefed the contents of a letter he previously submitted outlining his request
in detail. (See letter dated August 30, 1984 from Mr. Gfeller to the
Community Development Department - on file in the City Clerk's Office).
After Mr. Gfeller's presentation, Councilman Overholt asked for clarification
that, in essence, he was asking what Councilwoman Kaywood requested, that City
resale controls be the only restriction imposed; Mr. Gfeller answered "yes".
899
City Rall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler seconded the foregoing motion.
Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest stated what they were
looking at was a project write down by a unique form because of unusual
circumstances on the part of the developer. Every such project would be
brought before the Council in the future unless staff was directed otherwise.
The housing staff could not say that a family of one making $43,000 a year was
in need of assistance for affordable housing. In that respect, they did not
agree with the County. At the same time, they recognized the sizable problems
that had been incurred with regard to the subject project and he did not
believe it fit the general description of affordable housing. It was a one
time affair and in any such future case, they would reevaluate the project and
not give a blanket approval. Such instances should be handled one at a time
and separately in the future.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion with resale controls being the
only restriction imposed. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CONSULTING AGREEMENT - HEKIMIAN VAN DORPE ASSOCIATES - EVALUATION OF
PROPOSED SOLID WASTE TRANSFER RATE: City Manager Talley briefed report dated
August 28, 1984 from John Roche, Director of Maintenance, recommending that
the Council authorize the execution of an agreement with Hekimian Van Dorpe
Associates (HVDA) not to exceed 325,000 and to waive Council Policy No. 401.
Mr. William Taormina, Executive Officer of Anaheim Disposal, had submitted a
list of 7 points to be considered by the Council when addressing the item
attached to which was a copy of his letter dated August 9, 1984 addressed to
Mr. Roche (on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Mayor Roth noted Item No. 6 of the 7 points addressed by Mr. Taormina
questioning the need for the consultants.
City Manager Talley stated he did not believe it was the duty or
responsibility of the City's contractor to decide how the City was going to
audit or review his (Taormina's) request. Inasmuch as HVDA were the people
retained by the City to evaluate the original agreement entered into the
original construction costs, the City needed their expertise to evaluate
whether or not, now that the construction had been accomplished, that the
rates were appropriate. Mr. Taormina was asking the City of Anaheim to pay
for his capital outlay. He (Talley) believed it was appropriate as part of
looking at the new rates to review that part of the rates.
Councilman Bay stated he had other questions. He felt that Mr. Taormina was
questioning the consultant that was going to be looking at the operation. He
referred to the August 9, 1984 letter to Mr. Roche wherein Mr. Taormina noted,
"Hekimian Van Dorpe Associates is presently under contract to design and
secure operating permits for Orange Disposal Service for a transfer station in
Orange, within two miles of my business." The proposed consultant was working
with a potential competitor to the subject operation. Further, Mr. Taormina's
operational records were extremely confidential and available to the City
auditor and his CPA Firm. The concern of Anaheim Disposal was the consultant
the information was passing through to the City and the possible conflict of
interest of the consultant.
9OO
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
City Manager Talley stated if the accusation was that HVDA was either
unethical enough to release information or that they were not to be trusted as
a consultant by the City, Mr. Taormina should make that statement.
MOTION: Councilman Bay stated he would like to see some answers from staff on
the letter submitted by Mr. Taormina.
He thereupon moved to continue authorization of the consulting agreement and
request for waiver of Council Policy No. 401 for one week. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, John Roche, Director of Maintenance explained that
after he received the August 9, 1984, letter, he discussed the matter with Mr.
Taormina and at that time he (Roche) was fairly certain he had responded to
the concerns expressed. He was, therefore, surprised when he saw the latest
communication because he thought it was a "dead issue". He assured Mr.
Taormina before any study was undertaken by a consultant they would sit down
and set parameters on what type of information the City was interested in. He
reiterated, he thought the issue was resolved.
City Manager Talley requested that it be a three week continuance since he
would not be present next week. Since they were talking about millions of
dollars, he wanted to be sure staff was doing what the Council wanted on
recommending rates since it was the consumer who was going to pay.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amended to a continuance of
three weeks to October 2, 1984. MOTION CARRIED.
115/106: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO COUNCIL CHAMBER SPEAKER PODIUM: Accepting
"Concept C" (side podium concept) from the proposed revisions to the Council
Chamber speaker podium and authorizing the expenditure of $5,000 from the
Council Contingency account to fund this improvement.
In answer to Councilwoman Kmywood, Director of Maintenance John Roche
submitted three enlarged drawings showing the three alternative concepts "A, B
and C". Concept 'C" would move the podium from its present location to the
side of the Chamber where the Storer TV camera was located at the present time.
Council discussion then followed relative to relocating the podium wherein the
Mayor, noting the cost o£ the alternatives (A, 310,000, B and C $,000) stated
he could not support spending over 35,000 to make the change.
Councilman Pickler maintained as he had in the past that the present set up
was fine and to spend 35,000 would not change some of the problems they had
with the present podium location.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not agree that the set up was fine but he
did not see that any of the proposals would improve the situation.
MOTION: After additional discussion, Councilman Overholt moved to table the
matter indefinitely. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
901
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
175: REVISION OF ELECTRIC RATES: Mayor Roth first asked the Public Utilities
General Manager for a comparison of the City's rates vs. Southern California
Edison's (SCE) rates at the present time.
Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager answered, the City's rates were
approximately 8.8 percent higher at the moment than Southern California Edison
(also see report dated September 4, 1984 from the Public Utilities Board with
attachments which discussed the recommendation for revision of electric rates
in detail - on file in the City Clerk's Office). However, taking into
consideration the fact that the Utilities had already received $8.7 million
this year and were presently holding approximately $7.75 million which was
accumulating interest waiting for some litigation to close, rates would be
approximately 8 to 12 percent under Edison for the year 1984.
Council Member Kaywood and Bay left the Council Chambers. (12:15 p.m)
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-356 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-356: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
71R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 83R-433.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt moved to recess for three
minutes. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Bay were temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. (12:16 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (12:19 p.m)
Councilman Bay stated he understood the increase including the base rate and
the increase in the fuel cost factor was based on a 16 percent increase by
Southern California Edison in wholesale rates. He wanted to know what
justified a 16 percent increase in the wholesale rate from SCE which
automatically brought City rates 8 percent above Edison's retail rates and
what the Utilities were doing about protesting the increase of 16 percent.
Mr. Hoyt stated he did not believe the increase was justified and the City was
contesting it at the ~ederal Energy Regulatory Commission level, the ~ederal
Agency which regulated wholesale sales of electricity. He then explained the
procedure FERC followed when an increase was filed with that Commission.
Councilman Bay stated he received calls from ratepayers in the City and was
trying to explain to them the reasons for the rate increases, but he felt it
was necessary to publicize to the utility customers the "box" the City was
caught in with regard to charges from SCE and that, in fact, some action was
being taken on the part of the City.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
902
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-356 duly passed and adopted.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11305 (REVISION 1) EXTENSION OF TIME: Anacal Engineering
Co., requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 11305, to
establish a 2-lot, 104-unit condominium subdivision on RM-3000 zoned property
located north and east of the northeast corner of Wilken Way and Harbor
Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission recommended that a one year extension of time be
granted for Tentative Tract No. 11305 (Revision No. $) to expire September 29,
1985.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to grant a one year extension of time for
Tentative Tract No. 11305 (Revision No. 1) to expire September 29, 1985.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned with
the long delay. It had already been two years and she wanted to know why
another extension was being requested.
Mr. Frank Lowry, Attorney with Farano and Kievit, explained that the property
was almost completely empty and only five people were still residing in the
mobilehome park. There were still some trailers which could be moved at any
time. The project was presently going through a complete reevaluation and
attendant costs had made the condominium project almost unworkable. However,
they were not willing to abandon it at this time and were filing a new
application with the Planning Commission which was scheduled to be heard on
October 1, 1984. He clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that recreational
vehicles were not moving into the park regularly.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION~ The City Manager requested a Clo~ed Se~ton to
discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated; the
City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential
litigation with no action anticipated.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the
City's attorneys concerning pending or potential litigation.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:36 p.m)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:40 p.m)
903
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Chairman Roth reconvened the An_aheim
Redevelopment Agency, all Agency Members being present for the purpose of
conducting a Joint public hearing with the City Council. (1:47 p.m.)
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL - EDUCATIONAL
AND SUPPORT FACILITIES - RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: To consider
payment by the Agency to the Placentia Unified School District and Orange
Unified School District of the costs of certain educational and support
facilities in connection with the Agency's River Valley Redevelopment Project.
The Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest referred to staff
report dated September 4, 1984 listing the Department's recommendations and
discussing the proposal in detail (on file in the City Clerk's office).
The Mayor/Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Council/Agency Member Pickler offered Resolution Nos. ARA84-23, ARA84-24 and
84R-357 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA84-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM .REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING AN INITIAL STUDY WHICH FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED SALE
AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA
WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THAT A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEED NOT BE PREPARED.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA84-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN REAL AND CHATTEL PROPERTY IN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA; APPROVING THE PROPOSED DISPOSITIONAND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SAID
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood,
None
None
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. ARA84-23 and ARA84-24 duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-357: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MARY
FERGUSON, DEVELOPER; FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE
PROPERTY THEREUNDER IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS
AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE; AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY
AND SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
904
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-357 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Agency Member Pickler moved to approve the construction drawing
submitted by Mary Ferguson, Developer. Agency Member Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Roth moved to adjourn.
Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:42 p.m)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-33~ CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2582 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by
Atlantic Richfield Company, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL on
Portion A, approximately 0.2 acre on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and west
side of Gilbert Street, to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and
off-sale beer and wine on Portion B, on the 0.5 acre located on the northwest
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street (lll North Gilbert Street).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-124, 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, and further, granted
Reclassification No. 83-84-33, subject to the certain conditions.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-125, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2582.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Wallace R. Davis,
Attorney and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of
August 21, 1984 to this date. (See minutes of August 21, 1984, where
discussion and input took place).
The Mayor asked if Mr. Davis was present.
Wallace R. Davis, Attorney representing Arco, 540 No. Golden Circle Drive,
Santa Aha, reported what had occurred during the three-week continuance.
Several meetings had been held with Traffic Engineer Paul Singer in trying to
solve the concerns about the traffic and driveways. Mr. Davis then referred
to the revised plan posted on the Chamber wall and, working from that plan,
explained that the building was moved back changing the islands providing for
one driveway on Gilbert Street and one on Lincoln Avenue, and as one of the
options Mr. Singer indicated that it was acceptable to him. The plan was
acceptable to the company, but the company would prefer to have the two
driveways on Lincoln Avenue. In the meantime, he also met several times with
Councilman Pickler with regard to the property immediately to the north.
Working from another posted map, he explained the location of the property
Arco owned. Discussion and dialogue took place relative to what could be done
905
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
by Arco to help resolve the problems on Gilbert Street. The resolution they
came to was as follows: In exchange for allowing the two driveways on Lincoln
Avenue, the applicant would not only install sidewalks on the lot they owned
immediately to the north, but also would continue the sidewalk on the next lot
or 75 feet, providing the City could get the consent of the owner. It would
be optimum to do that at the time the workmen were at the site. Further,
relative to the driveway closest to the intersection on Lincoln Avenue, it
would be moved 12 feet to the west and the other driveway would be staggering
the subject property and the adjacent property.
The Mayor asked Mr. Davis if there was any other testimony he would like to
provide; Mr. Davis answered "no".
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he 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. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked since Mr. Davis in the past had reported that beer
and wine represented only a small portion of the sales, why they could not do
without it; Mr. Davis answered the 12 to 15 percent sales in beer and wine
represented a significant difference relative to profitability, as necessary
to have as milk and bread sales.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-358 for adoption, granting
Reclassification No. 83-84-33, subject to City Planning Commission conditions
and 84R-359 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2582, reversing
the findings of the City Planning Commission but subject to the following
conditions and authorizing the two driveways on Lincoln Avenue with the
closest to the intersection to be moved 12 feet to the west and that sidewalks
be provided as stipulated.
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, primary water main fees
shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office
of the Utilities General Manager for that portion of subject property
described as Portion "A" on maps filed in the Planning Department of the City
of Anaheim. ~
2. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee for tree planting purposes along Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street in an
amount as determined by the City Council.
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for new commercial buildings.
906
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL P_INUTES - September liT 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
4. (a) That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along
Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans
and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks,
street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other
appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and
in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer;
and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of
credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim,
shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of said
improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City prior to approval
of improvement plans, to guarantee the installation of the above-required
improvements prior to occupancy.
(b) That off-site engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim
along Gilbert Street from the north boundary of subject property northerly for
a distance of approximately 130 feet to a point approximately 320 feet north
of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, including preparation of improvement
plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or
other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer
and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the City
Engineer; and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit,
letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of
Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory
completion of said improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City
prior to approval of improvement plans, to guarantee the installation of the
above-required improvements prior to occupancy.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. (a) That street lighting facilities along Gilbert Street shall be
installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that
security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or
cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the
above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim prior to approval o£ ~mprovement plans. The above-required
improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy.
(b) That off-site street lighting facilities along Gilbert Street,
from the north boundary of subject property northerly for a distance of
approximately 130 feet to a point approximately 320 feet north of the
centerline of Lincoln Avenue, shall be installed as required by the Utilities
General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of
Utilities General Manager, and that security in the form of a bond,
certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements.
Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to approval of
improvement plans. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior
to occupancy.
907
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCI.L MINUTES - September 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
7. That the existing most southerly driveway on Gilbert Street shall,be
removed and replaced with a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping;
the existing most easterly driveway on Lincoln Avenue shall be relocated as
shown on Revision No. 1 of Exhibit 1 on file in the Planning Department of the
City of Anaheim.
8. That all driveways shall be designed to accommodate ten (10) foot
radius curb returns as required by the City Traffic Engineer.
9. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
10. That in accordance with the City Fire Marshal, the following minimum
standards shall apply:
a. That dispensing devices shall be located a minimum distance of ten
(10) feet from a property line and so located that all parts of a vehicle
being serviced will be on private property.
b. That dispensing devices shall be located not less than ten (10)
feet from any building which is not fire resistive construction. Such devices
shall also be located so that the nozzle, when hose is fully extended, shall
not reach within five (5) feet of any building opening.
c. That dispensing devices shall be protected against physical damage
from vehicles by mounting on a concrete island a minimum of six (6) inches in
height. Alternate methods of providing equivalent protection may be permitted
when approved by the Chief.
d. That dispensing of gasoline into the fuel tank or into a container
shall at all times be under the supervision of a qualified attendant.
e. That the attendant's primary function shall be to supervise,
observe and control the dispensing of gasoline.
f. That the dispensing of gasoline shall not be into portable
containers unless such containers are of approved material and construction,
having a tight closure with screwed or spring cover, so designed that the
contents can be dispensed without spilling.
g. That it shall be the attendant's responsibility to control sources
of ignition and immediately handle accidental spills and fire extinguishers if
necessary.
h. That emergency controls shall be installed at a location
acceptable to the Fire Department, but controls shall not be more than 100
feet from dispensers.
t. That instructions for the operation of dispensers shall be
conspicuously posted.
J. That remote preset-type devices are to be in the "off" position
while not in use so the dispenser cannot be activated without the knowledge of
the attendant.
908
City Hall~ Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
11. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
12. That ail air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from
view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
13. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the CL
Zone, unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
14. That a six (6) foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed along
the north and west property lines.
15. That any proposed parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted
with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be
directed away from adjacent property lines to protect the residential
integrity of the area.
16. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion
of Reclassification No. 83-84-33, now pending.
17. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 583 to the Planning Department.
18. That the property owner shall by recorded deed irrevocably offer to
dedicate to the City of Anaheim, the on-site and off-site right-of-way,
variable in width, as required by the City Engineer along Gilbert Street over
and across the area referred to in Condition Nos. 4(b) and §(b) of this
resolution with the exception of the northerly 78 feet thereof not owned by
the property owner which 78 feet of right-of-way shall be acquired by the City
of Anaheim at its sole cost and expense. Notwithstanding any other provision
hereof, property owner's obligation to install improvements over said
northerly 78 feet of right-of-way and the approximately 50 feet of off-site
right-of-way along Gilbert Street as set forth in Condition Nos. 4(b) and 6(b)
hereof (which areas are identified by orange and red cross-hatch marks on
Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1 on file in the Planning Department) shall not
accrue until following notice to property owner by City that City has acquired
the northerly 78 feet of right-of-way along Gilbert Street as herein provided.
19. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision
No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3. The placement of all
driveways shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
20. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs
first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 17 and 18, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted
in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
909
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Californ~a - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
21. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 5,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15, above- mentioned, shall be complied with.
22. That there shall be a minimum of two (2) employees on site whenever
both the gasoline dispensing and convenience market are open to the public,
one (1) of whom shall be responsible for supervising, observing and
controlling the gasoline dispensing, as specified in Condition No. 10 herein.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-358: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-33.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-359: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2582.
Before a vote was taken, Assistant Director for Zoning Annika Santalahti,
explained that Condition No. 18 would be modified to reflect the new revised
Exhibit No. as well as placing the location of the driveways under the Traffic
Engineer's approval. Additionally, Condition No. 4 would be added to include
the approximate 75 foot wide frontage along Gilbert Street of the property to
the north of the subject property as stipulated. She also asked if that was
intended to include street lighting.
Councilman Pickler answered if that was a standard requirement, it should be
included. His concerns revolved around the sidewalks and he also wanted
assurance that youngsters were not allowed to congregate at the facility.
Mr. Earl Keil, Arco Representative, stated in some instances where they got a
rush of people in their mini markets, they would control it by not allowing
all in at one time. They did not have ali the video games or the like and
thus it was not a loitering type of business.
Councilman Pickler asked the Traffic Engineer to comment.
Paul Singer Traffic Engineer, stated he was rather disappointed with the offer
Arco had made because there was going to be substantial improvement made on
Gilbert Street in exchange for that additional driveway.
Councilman 0verholt asked for clarification that Mr. Singer felt that 75 feet
of sidewalk, curb and gutter was not a good trade-off; Mr. Singer reiterated
that was the property Arco was going to acquire and the cost for the total
construction of that portion from the existing service station to the existing
sidewalk was ~30,000 and involved approximately 200 feet rather than 75 feet
and that had been discussed with Mr. Davis.
Councilman Pickler asked, after putting in the service station, how much
property was left without the property Arco already owned; Mr. Singer answered
there were two and a half lots - one that Arco had acquired, one that they
were intending to acquire, plus one other before the sidewalk. Then, there
were three complete lots between the high school and the existing sidewalk and
for that improvement it would cost approximately $35,000.
910
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Keil explained that Arco owned the house on Gilbert adjacent to the Arco
property. There was a second house 75 feet wide by 132 feet deep and if they
owned that, it would square up the property. It involved a 90 year old lady
whose son had offered to sell the property. They were looking at what
amounted to two and one half lots of sidewalk property they were going to
develop for the AM/PM Mini Market. They owned another house that was 78 feet
wide and then the other house where the 90 year old lady lived. In order to
get approval, they would pay for what they owned including the house they
owned and the next house that they might purchase in order to square off the
property. They would pay for the sidewalk completely, not partially. There
was one more house between the subject property and then an adjacent duplex
that had a sidewalk already.
Councilman Overholt stated if he was offering to do everything except that one
house, it would be more than 75 feet; Mr. Keil stated there was one house in
between.
Councilman Overholt asked the estimate of cost of putting curb and gutter and
sidewalks in front of the property Arco did not intend to acquire if it were
done in conjunction with Arco's installation; Mr. Singer answered,
approximately $12,000. Miss Santalati then clarified a point referred to by
Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the issue of having two attendants on the
property. With reference to Condition No. 10e, the Fire Department's intent
with this condition was, when there was a substantial amount of retail
operation on the property that had nothing to do with the sale of fuel, that
there be two attendants, one of whom shall at ali times be aware of what was
going on with the dispensing of gasoline. She would like to add a 21st
condition to clarify that point.
Councilman Pickler stated he was appreciative of the cooperation of Arco and
he would like to see the City resolve the problem all the way up to the curb
if it could be worked into the budget.
Mr. Singer stated it would not solve the entire street problem and would still
leave three additional parcels that would be unimproved that would cost an
additional $35,000 or a total of some $47,000.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions with modifications to the
conditions of approval as articulated by Miss 8antalahtl as well as the
stipulations made by the applicant relative to the driveways and sidewalks.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-358 and 84R-359 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2597 AND REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN
TREES: Application submitted by Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., to construct a
46-foot high, 131-room senior citizens retirement facility on CL(SC) zoned
911
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
property located at 380 South Anaheim Hills Road, with removal of 9 (nine)
specimen trees, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number and type
of parking spaces, (b) required site screening, subsequently deleted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-148, 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, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 2597, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee for tree planting purposes along Anaheim Hills Road and Canyon Rim Road in
an amount as determined by the City Council.
2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, primary water main fees
shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office
of the Utilities General Manager.
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate park and
recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
4. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
5. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of subject
property shall pay the appropriate drainage assessment fees to the City of
Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Engineer.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall
be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the
Chlef of the Flre Department.
9. That all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire
Administrative Order No. 75-01, shall be met. Such requirements include, but
are not limited to: chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor
openings, Class C or better roofing material and one hour fire resistive
construction of horizontal surfaces if located within 200 feet of adjacent
brushland.
10. That fire sprinklers and smoke alarms shall be installed in each
residential unit as required by the City Fire Marshal.
912
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
11. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
12. That the vehicular access rights, except at approved access points, to
Anaheim Hills Road and Canyon Rim Road shall be dedicated to the City of
Anaheim.
13. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from
view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
14. That in compliance with zoning Code Section 18.84.051.032, no roof
mounted equipment shall be permitted.
15. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the
residential units will be in conformance with Noise Insulation Standards
specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25.
16. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the
proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound
Attenuation in Residential Projects."
17. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the
CL(SCO) Zone, unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the
Planning Commission or City Council.
18. That all on-site landscaping shall be perpetually maintained and
irrigated in conformance with Code standards.
19. That any proposed parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted
with a maximum height of 12 feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed
away from adjacent property lines to protect the residential integrity of the
area.
20. That if any of the relocated specimen trees on subject property fails
to survive, each such tree shall be replaced with a tree from the replacement
tree list as required by the SC (Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone.
21. That the tenancy of subject facility shall be restricted to persons
sixty-two (62) years of age or older; and that a covenant shall be recorded by
the owners of the property in a form approved by the City Attorney so limiting
such occupancy.
22. That a minimum of two (2) units shall be provided and perpetually
maintained for use as handicapped units, as required by the Building Division.
23. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 through 12; provided, however, (i) that at least one elevator shall be
designed to accommodate a gurney in a horizontal position, (ii) that a maximum
913
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINU~ES - September liT 1984, 10:00 A.M.
of 131 units may be constructed, and (iii) that the minimum floor area of the
efficiencyunits (Suite A) shall be 310 sq. ft.
24. That in the event a parking deficiency occurs following occupancy of
the subject property (said deficiency having been demonstrated in a parking
demand study to be funded by the property owner at the request of the City
Traffic Engineer and to be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer),
additional parking (not to exceed 35 spaces) shall be provided in a manner
approved by the City Traffic Engineer; and that a covenant shall be recorded
in a form approved by the City Attorney's Office obligating the petitioner and
any future assignees to provide such parking if a deficiency is found to exist.
25. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 15, 16, 21 and 24, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be
granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was request by Councilwoman
gaywood at the meeting of August 14, 1984, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. George Hansen, Director of Planning Development, Senior Inns of America,
2699 White Road, Irvine, was present to answer questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the concerns she had revolved around the size
(minimum 304 square feet) and number of units and the fact that there were 131
rooms and only 30 parking spaces. She then posed a line of questioning to Hr.
Hansen relative to amenities included in the units as well as the range of
rates and what was included in those rates.
Mr. Hansen explained relative to the 30 parking spaces, within their lot area
and also within adjacent parcels, they had easements that provided sufficient
room to adequately meet the conditions set by the Planning Commission. One of
the immediate adjacent parcels several years ago split off of a portion of
what was ori£inally a part of the parcel on which they were located. ~en
that occurred, easements were drawn up between the parties and recorded by the
City to provide for ingress and egress for future needs and that was why those
areas were set aside. Further, theirs was not a totally new concept in the
City, except in terms of amenities. A similar facility was the La Palma
Royale at 525 West La Palms which was a congregate care facility with 95
suites and 22 on-site parking spaces. They evaluated and also photographed
the parking at that facility and the findings were also included in a parking
study submitted to the Planning Commission. Senior Inns had also conducted
their own studies over the past year and that facility was included. Their
findings showed only 50 to 72 percent use of those spaces over several
months. The high point was during vacation periods and the high peak hours
were from noon to 5 p.m. where vehicles did not actually park, but were used
for pickup and dropoff. They also evaluated some of the situations where
914
City Hall~ Anmheim~ C-1tformia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
some of the cars were left, stored and not parked and that was a problem that
had to be addressed by management. Most of the residents in such facilities
did not drive and that was their reason for living there. They found that on
average, the population consisted of 95 percent female and 5 percent male.
They also provided a transportation program which he explained.
Mayor Roth noted that the facility was close to an active shopping center with
a savings and loan, supermarket and a series of stores and medical offices;
Mr. Hansen stated that was one of the reasons why they selected to locate in
that area.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if someone had an appointment with a doctor or
dentist how would they get to those appointments; Mr. Hansen stated that
residents could make arrangements with the social director or administrator
for dropoff and pickup,
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. John Shanahan, 1215 South Empire, Chairman of the Senior Citizens
Commission, explained that at their July 12, 1984 meeting, Mr. Hansen gave a
slide presentation. Although there was no formal action taken by the
Commission, in informal discussions the Commission expressed that they were
very comfortable with the proposed project. They were influenced by the
amenities provided and particularly the transportation and the central
dining. While it would appeal to affluent seniors, provision had to be made
for seniors who could afford to live in such an atmosphere. The Commission
highly recommended the project.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-360 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2597, subject to Planning Commission conditions.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-360: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2597.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated part of the reason she
was offering a resolution of approval was due to the location and the
amenities immediately in the vicinity. She still had some concern with the
smallest units and the small amount of parking. She wanted the project to
succeed realizing there was a need for the type of living provided. If it
915
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
freed up a home that an older person was living in alone, it would assist the
entire community overall relative to housing needs.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-360 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3407: Application submitted by Cinderella
Motel, (Candy Cane Motel), to expand a motel complex on CR zoned property
located at 1747 South Harbor Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-149, 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, and further, granted Variance
No. 3407, subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for new commercial buildings.
2. That damaged and/or hazardous sidewalks shall be removed and/or
reconstructed along Harbor Boulevard as required by the City Engineer and in
accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the
City Engineer.
3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
$. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
6. That all driveways shall be redesigned to accommodate ten (10) foot
radius curb returns as required by the City Traffic Engineer.
7. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall
be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the
Chief of the Fire Department.
8. That if at a future date the City Traffic Engineer determines that the
proposed parking is inadequate to serve subject use, the central landscaped
916
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
area immediately east of the swimming pool shall be converted to parking
spaces. The number of spaces to be provided shall be determined by a parking
demand study paid for by the petitioner and reviewed and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer.
9. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from
view.
10. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the CR
Zone, unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 through 12.
12. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Variance No. 879.
13. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 1 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions
for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with
Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
14. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of August 14, 1984, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. John Swint, Agent for the applicant, was present to answer questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned with the requested parking
waiver and the proposed three-stories. The coffee 8hop, which wa8 quite
large, was going to serve three meals a day until 10 p.m. and she wanted to
know if there was going to be any kind of sign for the general public to
patronize the coffee shop. Mr. Swint first confirmed that they were proposing
a three-story building bringing the total number of units to 205. The
restaurant was primarily a service to their guests. Others would be served
but it would not be advertised as a restaurant. The sign would indicate food
was available but not a sign normally utilized for a restaurant. Relative to
the retail shops, those had already been spoken for. He then conferred with a
gentleman in the Chamber audience and stated that there would be no sign for
the retail spaces.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated those were her major concerns and if there was a
need for additional parking she noted space was available if landscaping was
917
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
removed; Mr. Swint confirmed that was correct and he had prepared a plan
showing that they could accommodate 28 additional car stalls. He also
clarified there were 129 units now, 53 were built 20 years ago which were now
obsolete and would be removed leaving 76 that were practically new and by
adding to the front would give 205 units which included a manager and owner
suite with two parking spaces for each one. There were no parking problems
now and Mr. Kazarian had owned the motel for 20 years with no problem.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution granting Variance No. 3407.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there would be a
need to have a stipulation that there would be no signs on the coffee shop
restaurant or the retail shop; Miss Santalahti answered the way the resolution
read, as approved by the Planning Commission, the signing shall be in
accordance with CR requirements allowing one free-standing sign and wall
signs. If the petitioner stipulated not to have any advertising to be read
from the street for the restaurant the Council could require that.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be concerned if people other than guests
at the motel started driving in to patronize the restaurant because parking
would be a problem. It was not a stipulation but a statement that there would
be no sign for either the restaurant or retail shops. She asked if the
applicant would stipulate to that.
Mr. A1 Kazarian, 3764 East American, Fresno, stated he had been in business in
Anaheim for 27 years and he never had a problem. He did not feel he should be
stopped from putting a sign up for the restaurant. He was not willing to
stipulate that there would be no signs.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would then have to withdraw her approval.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-361 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3407. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-361: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3407.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
918
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-361 duly passed and adopted.
179: REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2574AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application submitted by Carlos R. and Leonor Conant, to consider expansion of
a day care center to permit a maximum of 12 children on RS-7200 zoned property
located at 1321 North Moraga Street, with Code waiver of required loading and
unloading area for children, and revised plans.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-98, 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. A negative declaration was
adopted by the City Council at their meeting of August 14, 1984.
The City Planning Commission granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2574, subject
to six conditions as listed on Pages 2 and 3 of Resolution PC84-98.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
at the meeting of June 19, 1984, and public hearing scheduled and continued
from the meeting of July 24, 1984 to August 14, 1984 for full Council action.
(See minutes of July 24, 1984, where extensive discussion and input took
place). Conditional Use Permit No. 2574 was denied at the meeting of August
14, 1984 and an Affidavit of Merit for a request for rehearing was submitted
to the Council on August 21, 1984. A rehearing was granted by the Council on
August 28, 1984, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Carlos Conant, 1321 North Moraga, stated he submitted papers to the City
Clerk's Office for the Council this morning showing a map of the area with
additional signatures of people on Coronet Street and some on Alamo (made a
part of the record). The people would be coming to their home through
Falmouth, Minot and Coronet and leave the same way. The petition showed 22
families on Moraga in favor, 23 on Minor, 12 on Falmouth and 7 on Coronet
Street. If the traffic was traveling to the north, there was no way anyone
living on the south of Moraga Street, the 12 people in opposition, would be
bothered by traffic at all. Als0 submitted was a letter from the parent~ of
the infants confirming that they would be using Coronet Street. Also
submitted previously was a letter from Lois Bird who operated the day care
center across the street from their home stating that she would not ask the
City for a license or permit for 12 children and she was going to be moving in
June of 1985.
The Mayor noted from a letter received recently that a Gloria Aguirre at 1208
Moraga Street provides day care for six children. He wanted to know how many
more in that tract were caring for six children; Mr. Conant answered that Mrs.
Aguire was the ouly one, Lois Bird and themselves.
919
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- .September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth noted that Councilman Pickler had emphasized when the Council
received a request for approval of day care centers, it was necessary to know
how many were presently existing in an area.
Annika Santalahti Assistant Director for Zoning explained relative to the
addresses of other facilities licensed for six or fewer, the information was
technically available. However, the County would not release that information
because it was considered private and confidential under State Legislation.
The day care centers from 7 to 12 children were considered public
information. There were somewhere under 200 day care centers licensed for six
or fewer in Anaheim at present and she was not aware of any zoning or nuisance
type complaints on any of them. There were approximately 7 licensed for 12 to
7 children. Two were not in operation, two were in the County area and two
appeared not to meet zoning regulations, i.e., they were operating without a
CUP and zoning would be investigating those two cases. There were none up to
12 children within one quarter of a mile of the subject premises.
Councilman Pickler noted that 63 were in favor (Mr. Conant corrected that
number to 66) and 12 were opposed. He felt it was amazing with approximately
200 such day-care centers operating in the City that no complaints had been
received. He also felt the residents in the area had shown that they wanted
the day-care center. The City had control of ekpansion to 12 children but
everybody on Moraga Street, Minor Street, and Alamo Street could have a
day-care center for six or under and nothing could be done about it. He did
not want to saturate the area with day care centers for 12 children. The
traffic route proposed should alleviate the problem.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay stated his concern was relative to the social engineering
coming out of Sacramento and he was especially concerned that the State could
approve a license for up to six children, a commercial business in a
residential area of the City, and the City did not even have the right to find
out where they were. He questioned what other commercial function would be
allowed in the City whether wanted or not. Within one block that was actually
two blocks long, there were three commercial operations. A great deal of
protection was provided in the City's ordinances to keep commercial operations
out of residential neighborhoods, anything that would draw traffic, the intent
being not to draw automobiles and customers into residential areas. If the
Council started allowing 12 children in day-care centers, they would be
expanding a situation, the scope of which was not known. Those were the
reasons for his opposition plus the 12 dwellings on Moraga Street who were
still in opposition.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked about the 63 who approved; Councilman Bay stated
they did not approve, they said they had no objection.
Councilman Overholt stated his concern was that Moraga Street was a
residential street and the residents had a right to enjoy the privacy and
amenities of their residential property. Mrs. Conant was attempting to carry
on a commercial business in that residential neighborhood by a license from
920
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
City Government which would give the right to add more children to her
day-care center. He was all for day care centers and alcoholic recovery
centers but was not one who was going to impose that on a significant number
of residents who were in opposition.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-362 for adoption again denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2574, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-362: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2574 (REHEARING).
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from Mr. Conant
who had wanted to add something.
Mr. Conant stated they had been baby sitting for seven years and there had
never been a complaint. Other people were also baby sitting and no one had
complained. The map he submitted showed that the traffic was not going to
bother anyone.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the increase to 12 would actually mean an increase
of three more children because the Conant's had three children of their own;
Councilman Overholt stated that was immaterial to him. He did not want to
vote to permit the commercial venture to be expanded in the subject
residential neighborhood.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of denial:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay and Roth
Kaywood and Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-362 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4543 - ESTABLISHING HF~NG PROCEDURES FOR EXTENSIONS OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES: City Attorney William Hopkins briefed
report dated August 27, 1984 from his office recommending approval of the
proposed ordinance and resolution establishing a hearing procedure for request
for extensions of conditional use permits and variances and establishing a fee
for such applications. He then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood the
procedure was not intended to cover the indefinite CUPs or Variances where
someone had not completed all conditions but, for instance where Council
approval included a two-year review and when that two years was reached, that
would be the time for advertising and rehearing the issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted the way such situations were handled at present
depended on whether or not any complaints were received during the time
period; Mr. Hopkins stated no public hearing was held and those were instances
where neighbors would not have an opportunity to voice their objections.
921
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that double staff might be needed; Miss Santalahti
explained that staff reports were prepared for all extensions in any case and
the major difference would be the cost involved in advertising. Her
Department would keep track of the cost over the next year and if the $50.00
was not adequate, a higher fee could be considered. They would advertise in a
manner to make it clear it was a continuing operation and not a new one.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4543 for First Reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4543: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SUBSECTION
.060 OF SECTION 18.03.091 AND ADDING SECTION 18.03.093 TO CHAPTER 10.03 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-363 for adoption, establishing a
$50.00 fee for extensions of Conditional Use Permits and Variances pursuant to
Section 18.030.093 of the Code. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-363: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR EXTENSIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND
VARIANCES PURSUANT TO SECTION 18.03.093 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-363 duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTEE TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: Approving the
recommendation of the Magnolia School District Board of Trustees to appoint
Ray Morales to represent the District on the Park and Recreation Commission
for the term ending June 30, 1985 (Louise H. DiMarco).
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the subject recommendation but
questioned whether the address had been verified as being within the City;
Mayor Roth stated that it was, in fact, a County number but he did not think
the appointee to the Board had to live in the City.
City Clerk Sohl stated she would verify whether the address was in the County
area or in the City and further clarified that it was necessary for the
appointee to live in the City.
By general consent, the subject appointment was continued one week for
verification of address.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held August 20, 1984, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
922
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2607: Application submitted by Anaheim City
School District, to permit a church on RR-1200 zoned property located at 412
East Broadway, with Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-169, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2607 and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2613: Application submitted by John Kocyla, to
permit a semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale beer and wine on CL zoned
property located at 406 West Vermont Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-172, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2513 and granted a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2610: Application submitted by Orangewood
Associates, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL
'zoned property located at 2054 "B" South Euclid Street, with Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-173, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2510 and granted a negative declaration status.
4. VARIANCE NO. 2823 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted by Florence
E. Hammond, requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 2823, for the
establishment of a recreational vehicle storage yard on CH zoned property
located at 1730 South Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance
No. 2823, to expire July 7, 1992.
5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-14 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted
by Edward A. Struthers, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 82-83-14 to construct a six-unit apartment building on RM-1200 zoned
property located at 522 West Vermont Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 82-83-14, to expire January 10, 1985.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1787 - TERMINATION: Application submitted by
R. S. Hoyt, Jr., for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1787, to permit
a retail supply store on ML zoned property, as a condition of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2561.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-175, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1787.
7. VARIANCE NO. 221 - TERMINATION: Application submitted by R. S. Hoyt, Jr.,
for termination of Variance No. 221, to permit a service station on ML zoned
property located at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon
Street.
923
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-176, terminated
Variance No. 221.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2612: Application submitted by Edward L. and
Patricia B. Scanlan, to expand an existing board and care facility for a
maximum of 15 adults on RM-1200 zoned property located at 328 North Vine
Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-170, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2612 and granted a negative declaration status.
City Clerk Sohl announced that the Planning Commission recommended that
Conditional Use Permit No. 2612 be set for a public hearing to consider the
modification or deletion of Condition No. 8 of City Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC84-170. The CUP would, therefore, be scheduled for a public
hearing at a later date.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2609: Application submitted by Karcher and
Associates, to expand a drive-through restaurant and add an outdoor dining
area on ML zoned property located at 3110 East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-171, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2609 and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2608: Application submitted by A. G. and Doris
K. Richter, to permit on-sale alcohol in a proposed restaurant and cocktail
lounge on CL zoned property located at 1086 "A" North State College Boulevard,
with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-174, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2608 and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler and therefore a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
179/151: SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT - ANAHEIM MARRIOTT: City Clerk Sohl announced
that letter dated September 10, 1984 had been received from David Gletm,
Director of Convention Services, Anaheim Marriott, requesting a Special Events
Permit for the Telocator Convention to be held at the Marriott on September 19
through September 21, 1984. Mr. Gleim was present to answer any questions.
Mr. David Gleim stated that only two Special Events Permits were allowed per
applicant per year and they had already requested two. American Telephone and
Telegraph (AT&T) one of the major exhibitors at the subject convention was
sponsoring an outdoor reception in the north parking lot of the Marriott and
needed the permit to construct a tent. The parking spaces that would be
displaced would be accommodated on the lot on the north side of the building,
the east lot had approximately 350 spaces and their parking garage had 636
spaces. Approximately 1,000 spaces would be available for their guests. They
924
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1984, 10:00 A.M
had done the same thing two times before and experienced no shortage of
parking spaces. Ten to 20 percent of their guests were local and would be
driving, but the majority would be arriving by plane.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve a Special Events Permit as requested
by the Anaheim Marriott to allow construction of a tent in their north parking
lot during the Telocator Convention September 19 to 21, 1984. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated she had spoken with
someone at the Marriott previously about this being their third request for a
Special Events Permit in one year. The reason Zoning was unwilling to grant
the permit was not because it was the third request, but because she was told
there was a likelihood the Marriott was going to ask regularly throughout the
year to use the parking lot for such events and, if so, they should look into
processing a conditional use permit.
142/114: ORDINANCE NO. 4541: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4541
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4541: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION
1.12.100 TO CHAPTER 1.12 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING. (Rehearing before the City Council)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4541 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4542: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4542 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4542: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE REIATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4542 duly passed and adopted.
149: PARKING RESTRICTION ORDINANCE - FRONTERA STREET EAST OF KRAEMER
BOULEVARD: Councilman Bay offered the revised ordinance for first reading
which he requested to be changed when it was proposed at the meeting of
August 28, 1984 (see minutes that date). The revision would allow two-hour
parking limited on the north side and solid no parking on the south side of
Frontera Street. Since no vote would be taken until next week, if the Council
925
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984~ .10:00 A.M.
decided on any change after they received the staff report, there could be an
amended First Reading. Otherwise, the Ordinance could be adopted in one week.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like a staff report and she had a
problem with it being off agenda. As discussed previously, the method of
enforcement would present a problem in the fact that police would have to be
stationed in the area to enforce the two-hour restriction.
City Manager Talley, noting that he would not be present at the next meeting,
stated that he had contacted the Police Department and they would recommend
against the ordinance as introduced. They were fearful, and he would also
state, it was going to be drawing City staff into a neighborhood feud. The
City presently did not have time-restricted parking outside of the central
business area enforced by the Police Department. If the ordinance was
adopted, it would be enforced but staff was fearful the people in the area
would be doing vigilante-type patrolling and reporting of cars that were
parked for more than two hours because the two businesses did not get along.
If he had known the ordinance was going to be introduced today, he would have
prevailed upon the Police Department to have their staff report today.
The Mayor questioned why it was necessary to have parking restrictions at all
in the eastern portion of Frontera Street that went nowhere and stopped at a
piece of county property.
City Manager Talley stated he would prefer that suggestion. The experience
with the individuals involved was that they could keep a good watch on
themselves and it would give them an opportunity to draw the City into the
problem. He was predicting numerous calls to enforce the parking
restrictions. Other than in the downtown area, there were no limited time
parking zones and in this case, it would require the police to proceed to the
location and mark the cars on a continual basis.
Councilman Bay stated there was an alternative such as the method used on
La Palms Avenue which he was not opposed to. Between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
it was possible to park on La Palma, but if parked there at 3:45 or 8:30 p.m.,
a vehicle would be cited. The idea of limiting the north side of Frontera
Street was to discourage people working in the area from all-day parking.
Other than that, if they wanted to leave parking wide open on the north side
he did not care.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that this was a controversial issue and felt it
was improper to offer first reading at this time since they still did not have
a complete report. She moved to continue the first reading one week.
Councilman Bay recalled that instruction from the Council to the City Attorney
when it was discussed (see minutes of August 28, 1984) was to submit an
amended ordinance. His intent was merely to propose it today so that if the
Council decided it was the way they wanted it, next week it would save a week
in flow time; Councilwoman Kaywood stated except that such items were never to
come up off agenda and this was off agenda.
926
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer reported that the signs were still up to the
property line of WCS but easterly of Newkirk Road there were no signs. Nobody
seemed to object to that situation. He had discussed the matter with Mr.
Adams and he seemed to be satisfied. He (Singer) did not know of any
objections at this time. He clarified for Councilman Bay at present there was
no parking posted between Kraemer Boulevard and Newkirk Road and no signs were
posted at all from Newkirk Road easterly except for two signs at the end of
the barricade.
Councilman Bay read from a memorandum to the City Manager/City Council from
the Engineering Division as follows: "The Traffic Engineer contacted the two
businesses located on the subject street. Mr. George Adams, of WCS,
completely agreed with Councilman Bay's proposal. Mr. Fred Stevens of Lincoln
Building Materials Company agreed with the "No Parking At Any Time" on the
south side and the two hour limit on the north side with a 200-foot red zone
access directly from his business driveway."
Mr. Singer stated, in essence, the net result was that it was going to be the
same as now. There would be two-hour parking on the north side except for
that portion directly adjacent to Newkirk Road; Councilman Bay stated he did
not disagree with eliminating the two-hour parking because it was not
practical to enforce but he wanted to be sure the two businessmen were happy.
Mayor Roth suggested that they hold off on any action; Councilman Bay withdrew
his first reading proposal.
Mayor Roth asked the Traffic Engineer to contact George Adams and ask if he
was happy with the situation at present and also Mr. Fred Stevens. If not, he
(Roth) wanted to know.
Mr. Singer stated an ordinance would be needed covering the parking signs that
were presently posted.
No further action was taken by the Council at this time.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be
held to consult with the City Attorney. (3:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4~30 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:31 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
927