1984/12/04City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
(Councilman Overholt entered at 10:20 a.m.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CI,ERK: Leonora N. Sob/
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Tom Favreau, Hotline Help Center, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay 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:
"Bill of Rights Week" in Anaheim, December 9-15, 1984,
"Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness Week" in Anaheim, December 9-15, 1984.
Lt. Jim Thalman, Anaheim Police Department, accepted the Drunk and Drugged
Driving Awareness Week proclamation along with Mary Wentworth.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
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. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,553,013.31, in
accordance with the 1984-85 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-463 through 84R-467, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
1141
City ~a!l~ Anah.~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4558 for first
reading. Councilman Overholt was absent.
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 Daniel Dugan for monetary loss sustained
purportedly due to actions of Building Department, on or about August 6, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Mercury Insurance Group for property damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident caused by a City Crew, on or about
July 2, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Phoenix Computer Corporation for cancellation of
lease contract sustained purportedly due to actions of City employees, on or
about September 11, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by Wanda J. Garrett for personal injury damages
purportedly due to trip-and-fall accident at the front sidewalk of Humana
Hospital, Orange and Beach, on or about September 28, 1984.
e. Claim submitted by Betty L. Watson for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of City Crew at 719 South Citron, on or about
September 16, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Denise F. and Michael Gribbin for property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of City Crew at 723 South Citron, on or
about September 16, 1984.
g. Claim submitted by Janet Lucatero for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to accident on slide at Edison Park, 1145 North
Baxter, on or about October 14, 1984.
h. Claim submitted by Volt Information Sciences, Directory Division for
property damages sustained purportedly due to actions of City Crew at 3430
Miraloma, on or about October 16, 1984.
i. Claim submitted by Mercury Casualty Company for personal property
damages sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle
and City driver were involved at 535 South Clementine, on or about August 23,
1984.
j. Claim submitted by Hilda C. Sachet for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to a trip-and-fall accident on the steps of City
Hall, on or about October 11, 1984.
k. Claim submitted by Donald L. Bird for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to power surge caused by actions of City Crew at
2469 West Crescent, on or about September 6, 1984.
1142
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
1. Claim submitted by Eric L. Sahagun for monetary loss sustained
purportedly due to actions of Police Department and City Crew, on or about
October 24, and 26, 1984.
m. Claim submitted by Silberio Ciniceros Sarabia for personal injury
damages sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers on
Sycamore Street near the intersection of Century Street, on or about
August 15, 1984.
o. Claim submitted by Mary Robin Schneider for monetary loss sustained
purportedly due to failure of Police to notify, on or about September 19, 1984.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of November 14, 1984.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of November 1, 1984.
c. 156: Police Department--Crime and Clearance Analysis for month of
October 1984.
d. 105: Youth CommissionNMinutes of October 10, 1984.
3. 161: Receiving and filing the Annual Progress Report 1983-1984 for the
Redevelopment Agency.
4. 123: Approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the Housing Authority
for the 2nd Round Rental Rehabilitation Grant Program in the amount of
$172,000.
5. 106: Approving a budget amendment to Control Center 60, Housing
Assistance, in the amount of $80,000 for FY 1984/85 to add one full-time
Intermediate Clerk and one Housing Specialist to staff due to an additional 76
units of "ExistingH Section 8 Housing.
6. 174: Authorizing submission of an application for the 2nd Round Rental
Rehabilitation Grant Program, in the amount of $172,000 and authorizing the
Mayor to sign the necessary cover documents and certifications for transmittal
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
7. 128: Receiving and filing the Annual Financial Report for the year ended
June 30, 1984.
8. 123: Authorizing an Agreement for Exclusive Right to Negotiate with
J.R.H. Inc. to negotiate the lease of City owned property located on the
northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road, Shorb Wells.
9. 175/123: Authorizing the purchase of 125,000 pounds of natural uranium
concentrates (yellowcake) from Freeport Uranium Recovery Company in accordance
with its Uranium Concentrates Sales Agreement dated December 4, 1984, at a
price not to exceed $15.45 per lb; authorizing the Mayor to execute the
necessary agreements; and waiving Council Policy No. 306.
1143
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
10. 123: Authorizing a Landscape License Agreement with L. C. Smull for
landscaping and irrigation of City owned slope at the southwest corner of
Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue, with one-time City matching fund in the
amount of 31,650.
11. 150/155: Approving a negative declaration for the development of the
Canyon Community Center and parking lot to be located in the western section
of Yorba Regional Park near 7600 East La Palma Avenue, north of the Riverside
Freeway and east of Imperial Highway.
12. 160: Accepting the bid of Santa Ana Dodge, Inc., in the amount of
$32,892.04 for two mini station wagons and one mini van, in accordance with
Bid No. 4154.
13. 175: Approving Change Order No. 1 to the contract of Subgrade
Construction Corporation, in the amount of $38,934.40, for reconstruction of
the access road in connection with the Reservoir Roof Restoration and Water
Improvements on Well #14 Site Improvements, Account No. 51-619-6329-00310.
14. 175: Postponing the award of contract for Rehabilitation of Wells Nos.
106 and 128 and Demolition of Well No. 108 and Well at Marshall Park, Account
Nos. 53-619-6329-02375 for Well No. 106, 53-619-6329-02384 for Well No. 128,
53-619-6329-02398 for Well No. 108 and 51-619-6329-02404 for Well at Marshall
Park, until December 11, 1984.
15. 124: Postponing the award of contract for Anaheim Convention Center
Parking Lot Counter System, Account No. 24-307-7115, until December 11, 1984.
16. 107: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-463: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE
31ST DAY OF MAY 1984, FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF ANAHEIM AUTO CENTER, BALL ROAD AT
ROUTE 57, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-933-6325.
17. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-464: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESTR00M BUILDING
AT LA PALMA PARK, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 25-827-7105-27060,
16-827-7105-2712F, 16-827-7103-2712D, 16-827-7103-27160, 16-827-7105-27160,
16-827-7105-27080 AND 16-827-7105-2712G. (Awarding a contract to the lowest
and best responsible bidder, Gotham Company, Inc., in the amount of $156,188,
for La Palma Park Restrooms)
18. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-465: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAT.T.Y ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FULEAND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF
WORKNECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: WATER IMPROVEMENTS OF WELL SITE 39, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORANGE AND
WESTERN AVENUES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-619-6329-09029.
(Tennyson Pipeline Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice
of Completion therefor)
1144
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4t 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
19. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-466: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAT.T~ ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALT.
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL
WORKNECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: CENTRAL CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT, AREA BOUNDED BY SYCAMORE STREET, SABINA
STREET, CYPRESS STREET AND ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NOS. 25-793-6325-E3780AND 51-606-6329-00757. (Walsh Engineering Company,
contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
20. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-467: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
21. 156/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4558: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 4.74 OF TITLE 4, AND AMENDING SECTIONS
4.75.010 AND 4.75.120 OF, AND ADDING NEW SECTION 4.75.065. TO, CHAPTER 4.75 OF
TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TOWING AND IMPOUNDING
VEHICLES.
22. 123: Terminating existing Novation Agreement with DG Administrators
effective December 3, 1984.
123: Authorizing a Letter Agreement with ComCo Management, Inc., at a cost of
$10,333.33 per month to perform contract services for the administration of
the workers' compensation claims program, for the term December 3, 1984
through January 31, 1985.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 84R-463 through 84R-467:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-463 through 84R-467, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted. MOTION CARRIED.
175: STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1984/85 THROUGH
1988/89: Submitted was report dated November 26, 1986 from the Public
Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt to the City Manager/City Council (on
file in the City Clerk's Office) attached to which was the subject plan with
the recommendation from the Public Utilities Board (PUB) that the Council
approve the Plan.
Councilman Bay stated he removed the Item from the Consent Calendar because of
two concerns: (1) the Council had not had adequate time to thoroughly study
the Plan and (2) the parts he had studied involved the management organization
structure and some projections on utility increases that he was not convinced
had to be as high as projected. He would have to vote "no" on a motion to
approve the Plan but could support one to receive and file the Plan.
City Manager William Talley questioned why staff should go through the
exercise of spending hundreds or thousands of hours on the Plan and taking it
1145
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
through the advisory body to the Council only to have the Plan sit on a
shelf. Staff would prefer that some sort of dialogue take place and
subsequently have the Council decide where they wanted the organization to
go. Mr. Hoyt submitted the Plan but it did not necessarily mean it would be
implemented as presented. He (Hoyt) had taken it through the PUB and was now
looking for Council direction. He respectfully requested that the Council
schedule discussion on the areas of concern expressed by Councilman Bay. He
(Talley) would like an expression not only relative to the concept of the type
of document presented but where the Council wanted to go with the Utilities
Department.
Councilman Bay suggested if the Council was willing and there would be no
impact that a discussion on the Strategic Plan be continued to the middle of
January; Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, stated he would have
no problem if the matter were continued.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue discussion on the Strategic Plan
for the Public Utilities Department for 1984/85 through 1988/89, to Tuesday,
January 15, 1985. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley stated if Councilman Bay felt it
appropriate, it would be helpful to staff for him to express his concerns so
that they could be addressed and available for the January 15, 1985 meeting.
Mayor Roth encouraged the Council to review the Plan and also submit any items
of concern to staff so that those issues could also be discussed.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Overholt was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chamber. (10:20 a.m.)
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held November 14, 1984, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1, VARIANCE NO. 3427: Application submitted by Grand Care, Ltd., (Grand Care
Convalescent Hospital), to construct an entrance canopy on property located at
2040 South Euclid Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum structural setback.
Withdrawn by the applicant.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2599 (READV.): Application submitted by
Commonwealth Financial Corporation, requesting amendment to certain conditions
of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC84-147, pertaining to the
maximum structural height adjacent to single-family zoning, in connection with
Conditional Use Permit No. 2599, to permit a 7-story, 212-room hotel complex
and restaurants with on-sale alcoholic beverages on proposed ML zoned property
located on the southeast corner of Frontera Street and Glassell Street, with
certain Code waivers.
1146
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-232, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2599 (Ready.), and negative declaration previously
approved July 23, 1984.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3437: Application submitted by South Brookhurst Development,
to establish a vocational training school on CL zoned property located at 631
South Brookhurst Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-237, granted
Variance No. 3437, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2632: Application submitted by Angela L. K.
Liu, (Jobs Now), to retain an employment agency on ML zoned property located
at 620 North Brookhurst Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-238, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2632, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2106 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application
submitted by Ruth J. English, requesting an extension o~ time to Conditional
Use Permit No. 2106, to permit a bird aviary on RS-7200 zoned property located
at 2520 West Clearbrook Lane.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2106, to expire September 22, 1985, and previously approved a
negative declaration status.
8. VARIANCE NO. 2174--TERMINATION: Application submitted by Calder Hughes &
Co., requesting termination of Variance No. 2174, to establish a mobile home
sales facility on property located at 1221 North East Street, with Code waiver
of minimum required building setback, as a condition of approval of Variance
No. 3414.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-240, terminated
Variance No. 2174.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PER_MIT NO. 2631: Application submitted by Pacesetter
Homes~ Iuc.~ to permit a 19§-unit senior citizens apartment complex on RM-1200
zoned property located on the northeast corner of Santa Aha Street and Citron
Street (portion of former Fremont Junior High School Playfield), with Code
waiver of required type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-233, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2631, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilman Pickler requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
and, therefore, a public hearing would he scheduled at a later date.
179: SENIOR CITIZEN PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Councilwoman Kaywood also
commented that the legislature having changed the law calling "seniors" 55
instead of 62 years old as of January 1, 1985 would change the whole concept
of what the Council had talked about in the past, as well as causing chaos
with the parking
1147
Cit7 Ball~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984~ 10:00 A.A.
reductions allowed. Furthermore, only one of the residents would have to be
55 years of age with the other bein~ 21 or whatever the age might be. That
resident would then be able to remain a resident after the "senior" died or
left. She felt that the Council needed to look at the entire proposed
ordinance all over again under the circumstances. As far as she was
concerned, she would not give any parking waivers.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items.
182: CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN GUIDELINES: Central City Neighborhood
Council, requesting adoption Design Guidelines for the Central City
Neighborhood area and creating a Design Review Board to implement these
guidelines for a trial period of one year.
City Clerk Lee Sohl announced that the Community Development Staff requested a
continuance of adoption of the subject design guidelines to Tuesday,
December 11, 1984, and that the matter be considered at 1:30 p.m. One public
hearing was scheduled for that date at 1:30 p.m.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue adoption of the Design Guidelines
for the Central City Neighborhood area to Tuesday, December 11, 1984, at
2:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PROPOSED ORDINANCE - FAMILY DAY-CARE HOMES IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES: To
consider adding and amending various Subsections, Sections and Chapters, and
adding new Chapter 18.10, to Title 18 of the Code, relating to family day care
homes in single-family zones.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked where the ordinance discussed day care centers
being a minimum of 600 feet apart, in some areas, that would not be
necessary. She asked if that would mean an appeal to the Council.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated if an application was
submitted for something closer than 600 feet from another day care center, the
applicant could file a conditional use permit under the proposed ordinance.
Councilman Bay requested that there be an amended first reading noting that
Section 1.10.040.010, Planned Administrative Permits, provided for
notification to those within 100 feet which he felt was totally inadequate for
notification purposes. He asked that the notification area be changed from
100 feet to 300 feet. In many areas, particularly residential, 100 feet of
the property line of the applicant might only include one house on each side
at the most. He asked if there was anything that would prohibit notification
more than 100 feet.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, stated it was his opinion the ordinance
could be changed to provide a 300-foot notice even though State Law only
required 100 feet. The point he wanted to emphasize was that the permit that
would be issued if the ordinance was adopted was a non-discretionary permit.
Regardless of the number of people or homes notified, if the applicant
complied with each of the standards set forth in the ordinance, it would be
incumbent upon the Planning Department or if appealed to the Council to issue
1148
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
a permit. The only basis for reviewing the application and holding a hearing
would be to determine if the standards were met. With that understanding, he
saw no legal objection to changing 100 feet to 300 feet or to any other number.
Councilman Bay felt that it was perhaps the State's intent to move day care
operations into residential areas in all the cities of California and to do so
as quietly as possible. The specific intent of the law the way he was reading
it, the public should not be aware of where the State was allowing day care
centers, especially six children and under, and now there was going to be a
new State Law stating that the City should allow centers up to 12 on an
administrative permit regardless of the protest of the neighborhood if they
met the standards set forth. It was his intent to notify as many people as
possible because, (1) the residents had a right to know of commercial
operations in their neighborhood and, (2) they had a right to know the kind of
laws that were being passed in Sacramento that infiltrated their neighborhoods
with whatever social engineering Sacramento saw fit to pass.
Councilman Overholt first stated that he shared Councilman Bay's view and then
asked if the ordinance could be offered for first reading as amended with
final adoption next week; The City Attorney answered "yes."
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4559 for first reading as amended that
notification be changed from 100 feet to 300 feet.
ORDINANCE NO. 4559: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANANEIMADDING AND AMENDING
VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS, SECTIONS AND CHAPTERS, AND ADDING NEW CHARTER 18.10, ALL
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if someone was operating a day care center and
there were problems created in neighborhood such as noise, traffic hazard,
etc., would the permit then he revokable.
Mr. White answered "yes." If the applicant did not meet the standards, the
permit would be revokable and the City would be in a position to seek
appropriate criminal or civil sanctions. Regarding the 600-foot separation,
the ordinance was written in such a way that if the standards were not met or
could not possibly be met by the applicant, they would fall outside the
administrative action provision and would have to file for a conditional use
permit for that operation just as any other day care center and that would
mean a public hearing. That decision would be discretionary with the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Councilman Bay also asked for additional information to be provided to the
Council before their vote next week. He was interested in the requirement and
investigation performed by the State on people licensed for day care centers.
He had heard that there was very little investigation as to background -
moral, legal, or anything else.
Mr. White stated he would be happy to provide that information.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-468 for adoption.
Resolution Book.
1149
Refer to
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
000/179: RESOLUTON NO. 84R-468: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEES RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMITS PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 18.10 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-468 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4556 AND 4557: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos.
4556 and 4557 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4556: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclass. 84-85-3, RM-1200, 2546 West Lincoln Avenue)
ORDINANCE NO. 4557: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclass. 84-85-7, CL(SC), 5650 East La Palma Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4556 and 4557 duly passed and adopted.
175: LOBBYING FOR CHANGES TO FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)
PROCEDURES: Councilman Bay referred to the notice that accompanied the cities
last utility bill and extended his compliments to the Utilities Departments on
one of the best inserts he had ever seen. The insert discussed the unfairness
of the FERC hearin& process and the fact that 3 out of the last 4 years the
City ended up in lawsuits against unjustified raises of wholesale electric
rates hy Southern California Edison. He felt it was time that the Council
took more action to see if something could be done about that problem.
Councilman Bay thereupon moved the following: That staff be instructed to
initiate letters to be signed by all Council Members to be sent to the City's
Federal Congressmen and Senators lobbying for changes to the FERC procedures
that continue to allow Southern California Edison to chronically overcharge
Anaheim on wholesale electric rates delineating in those letters a rough
summary of the City's legal costs over the last 5 years and the delay time in
refunds eventually won. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay emphasized that the letters from the Council should demand that
either changes be made in the FERC hearing process or severe penalties imposed
for later-proven overcharges be assessed.
1150
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
101: FREEDOM BOWL -ANANHEIM STADIUM - DECEMBER 26~ 1984: Mayor Roth stated
he was delighted that the two teams for the subject bowl were now confirmed
and that Iowa and Texas would be playing in that game meaning that Anaheim was
hosting one of the top four bowl games in the country. He again commended the
Committee who worked so hard over the past two years to make the Freedom Bowl
inAnaheim a reality and a tradition that would continue over many years. He
encouraged a large attendance at the game to be played inAnaheim Stadium,
Wednesday evening, December 26, 1984, at 5:00 p.m.
JAIL AND DUMP SITE: Mayor Roth referred to a recent newspaper article wherein
it was reported that the County Jail Site Selection Committee ranked Black
Star Canyon as the No. 1 site and Gypsum and Coal Canyon as No 5. out of 8
sites considered. That was an indication that the Board of Supervisors in
first considering Gypsum Canyon were looking at the wrong site. He urged that
all Council Members continue to monitor the situation closely to preclude the
jail and or dump site from being placed in the Coal and Gypsum Canyon area.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss personnel matters 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 Attorney concerning personnel matters, litigation and potential
litigation.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood second the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:43 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:36 p.m)
129: PUBLIC HEARING - 1982 EDITION OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE: To consider
adoption of the 1982 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code with amendments thereto,
and amending Chapter 16.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Submitted was a
reported dated November 15, 1984 from the Fire Department, recommending that
the Council by ordinance adopt the Uniform Fire Code, 1982 Edition (on file in
the City Clerk's Office).
City Clerk Sohl announced that she was advised yesterday by the City
Attorney's Office that because of specific requirements, that there be first
reading of the ordinance today, and that the public hearing again be
readvertised and continued to December 18, 1984.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone was present to speak to the Uniform Fire Code;
there was no response.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4560 for first reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4560: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER
16.08 OF TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW CHARTER 16.08
1151
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1982 EDITION, WITH
AMENDMENTS THERETO.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the public hearing on the 1982
Edition of the Uniform Fire Code to Tuesday, December 18, 1984, at 1:30 p.m.
Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 83-22A: In accordance with application
filed by Seaboard Engineering Company, public hearing was proposed on
abandonment of Kitty Court, a proposed street on the east side of Kellogg
Drive, north of La Palma Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 84R-439 duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated October 23, 1984 was submitted, recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-469 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 83-22A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-469: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING KITTY COURT.
Roi1 Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-469 duly passed and adopted.
179: REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-6~ VARIANCE NO. 3420 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Euclid Development Partners, for a
change in zone from CO to CL, to construct a commercial retail complex on
property located at 1300 South Euclid Street, with the following Code
waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces (denied), (b) minimum
structural setback (in part), (c) minimnmwidth of planter strip (denied).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-186, 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
1152
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
have a significant effect on the environment, and further, granted
Reclassification No. 84-85-6, subject to City Planning Commission conditions
as listed on Resolution No. PC84-186, and further, granted, Variance No. 3420,
in part, subject to City Planning Commission conditions as listed on
Resolution No. PC84-187.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Overholt at the meeting of October 9, 1984, and public hearing scheduled
October 30, 1984. The Reclassification and Variance were denied by the
Council on that date (see Resolution Nos. 84R-434 and 84R-435). A request for
a rehearing by the applicant was granted at the meeting of November 6, 1984,
and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Floyd L. Farano, Attorney representing the applicant, stated at the
previous hearing the owners of the property to the south protested on the
basis that traffic, congestion, etc., would be disruptive and would
necessarily result in a detriment to the neighborhood. The matter was
discussed with the opponents and an offer was made to limit the property
against the following uses by a proper deed restriction: video arcade, liquor
store, sauna, turkish bath or massage establishment, pool or billards, bus
depot, butcher or poultry shop, mortuary, used furniture store or bingo
parlor. The attorney for the owner of the property to the south requested a
much more generalized restriction which his client had declined, the reason
being the property owner was seeking to encourage the very uses included in
retail.
Mr. Farano then narrated a slide presentation which included aerial
photographs of the neighborhood as well as slides of the surrounding community
and land uses including the Elementary School one-tenth of a mile from the
location which was referred to erroneously as Ball Junior High School by the
opponents at the last hearing. The proposed use would not increase foot or
vehicular traffic. He had also discussed the matter with Traffic Engineer
Paul Singer who had no problem with the proposal. Development of the property
and commercial-retail sales was not completely out of place and it was also
consistent with the City's General Plan.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor; there being no
response, he asked to hear from those in opposition.
Mr. Richard Dreyfus, Attorney, 980 West Seventeenth Street, Santa Aha,
representing the property owners at 1314 South Euclid Street, stated he had
not heard anything today undercutting any of the reasons which led the Council
to make what he felt was a wise decision in denying the Reclassification and
Variance on October 30, 1984. The proposal was an example of spot zoning and
the question of whether retail use would generate higher density traffic as
opposed to office went without saying. Relative to traffic on Palm Lane, a
narrow street dead-ending into an apartment complex, if the property was used
as a commercial-retail site, it would invariably increase the congestion and
traffic in the area. Mr. Farano alluded to the fact that the applicant
offered to restrict certain uses. What his (Dreyfus) client preferred were
1153
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
restrictions on uses such as a fast food restaurant or donut shop as expressed
in discussion that took place with the applicant. They discussed uses such as
medical laboratory, doctors, dentists, real estate broker, CPA, uses not
generally associated with high density traffic as opposed to a laundromat,
clothing store, donut shop, fast food restaurant, etc. They were unable to
reach an agreement because Mr. Farano's client was unwilling to restrict his
property in that way. If the applicant agreed to appropriate deed
restrictions, his client offered to help find tenants for the property. He
believed his client made a good faith effort to try and meet the owner of the
subject property half way. There was more than sufficient commercial-retail
space in the Euclid/Ball area. There was nothing in the rehearing that was
not previously discussed and considered carefully by the Council and
rejected. In the absence of some additional evidence that the use was needed
or would benefit the neighborhood, he suggested that the Council deny the
rehearing application as they did originally.
Councilman Pickier asked Mr. Dreyfus if his clients in negotiations with the
applicant told them they could go forward with the commercial development if
they sold the property to them; Mr. Dreyfus answered his client, Euclid/Ball
ASC LTD. purchased the 1314 South Euclid property last summer. His client did
not sell the property to the applicant. The doctors were part of the group
that sold the property to the applicant or tenants but had no interest in the
limited partnership that owned the property. They were not involved except
that they occupied space. Further, his client had no notice of any dealings
between the applicant and the persons his clients purchased from.
A line of questioning was then posed to Mr. Dreyfus by Council Members
relative to the purchase of the 1314 property by his client as well as the
sale of the subject property to Mr. Ghadir. Subsequently, Councilman Overholt
pursued the same line of questioning specifically asking if Mr. Dreyfus was
involved in the purchase of the property from Mr. Ken Johnson.
Mr. Dreyfus answered that he did not remember the name of the entity but Mr.
Ken Johnson's office was across the street from the 1314 property who was
acting as the principal. The Seymour property was purchased directly from
John Seymour and Associates.
After further discussion and questioning, Councilman Overholt asked if there
was any way to check whether the doctors who sold the property to Mr. Ghadir
were doctors represented by Mr. Johnson; no answer could be immediately
provided.
MOTION: Councilman 0verholt moved to recess into Closed Session.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:06 p.m.)
Before leaving the Council Chamber, Councilman Overholt asked that in the
meantime, Mr. Dreyfus and Mr. Farano contact the doctors who sold the property
to Mr. Ghadir to see if any were associated with Mr. Johnson.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:20 p.m)
1154
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated the Council would like to get permission from the applicant
and those in the audience to continue the matter for one week so that copies
of documentation on the limited partnership could be provided.
Councilman Overholt stated it was extremely important to know who bought the
property from whom and unless that information could be provided, he was not
in a position to act on the matter.
Mr. Dreyfus stated he did mot have that information at this time; however, he
did not see how it related to proper zoning of the property.
After further discussion on the issue with both Mr. Dreyfus and Mr. Farano,
Councilman Overholt then explained the reason for his extensive line of
questioning, that being the fact that as an attorney, he represented Mr.
Ken Johnson and if Mr. Johnson was involved in the sale of the property to
Mr. Ghadir then he (Overholt) was going to have to disqualify himself from any
participation or action in the subject matter. If Mr. Johnson was not
involved, then he would be in a position to act.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 84-85-6, Variance No. 3420 and negative declaration to
Tuesday, December 11, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. to give an opportunity for Mr.
Dreyfus to provide a Certificate of Limited Partnership in order to determine
if Mr. Ken Johnson was, in fact, involved in the sale of the property to
Mr. Ghadir. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-9, VARIANCE NO. 3426 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Bank of California, N.A.,
(Westwinds Trailer Lodge), for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200,
to construct a 134-unit apartment complex on property located at 2170 South
Harbor Boulevard, with Code waivers as follows: (a) maximum structural
height, (b) maximum number of bachelor units, (c) minimum landscaped setback,
(d) minimum number and type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-208, 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. 84-85-9, subject to City Planning Commission conditions
as listed on Resolution No. PC84-208, and further, denied Variance No. 3426,
pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-209.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Roth at the meeting of November 6, 1984, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Mayor Roth stated his concerns revolved around parking and the length of time
the project had been pending. He then asked to hear from the applicant or
applicant's agent.
1155
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney representing Westwinds Trailer Lodge, then gave an
overview and present status of the subject project consisting now of 130
apartment units (down from 134) consisting of 26 bachelor units approximately
560 square feet at $500 to $525 a month, one-bedroom units at 750 square feet
in the $600 to $625 a month range and two-bedroom units of 890 to 950 square
feet at $750 to $800 a month. The project would be a closed community with
identification needed to enter. Relative to parking which was discussed with
staff, Code required 320 spaces, 268 were being provided. A very extensive
parking study was undertaken by the applicant which he thereupon submitted to
the Council (see study entitled: Western National Property - Vehicle Parking
Availability/Utilization Study attached to which were survey sheets of various
complexes owned by that company with a covering letter of summary for
explanation dated October 12, 1984).
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and emphasized that the Planning Commission
denied the variance for parking and the City Traffic Engineer strongly opposed
the cut. She was also not that impressed with the survey. There was a
history throughout the city of apartments where there was a shortage of
parking. In this case, no on-street parking was permitted and she felt this
was a different situation.
Mr. Farano answered that was exactly his point. The study showed that the
parking requirements in the City under the most recent development standards
substantially exceeded the actual usage. The apartment units were anywhere
from 1 to 15 years old and the survey showed that the utilization was
substantially under what the City was requiring, 2.3 spaces per unit. The
actual utilization according to the study was 1.24 spaces and the highest was
1.67. The standards under the current Code were excessive and the City might
take another look at the parking being required of multiple-family complexes.
They were asking that the Council look at the parking requirements based upon
the study submitted and reconsider their projected utilization.
After additional discussion with Mr. Farano relative to parking, Councilwoman
Kaywood asked to hear from the Traffic Engineer.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated they verified the study presented by Mr.
Farano and found that the situation varied dependent on the company owning the
complexes. Staff checked three separate complexes in the morning and early
evening hours and verified the numbers. Staff found that there were more
spaces than utilized; however, that was an exception which he felt was related
to the particular companies operating those complexes. Other areas were found
to have serious problems. They had also determined that the parking for
bachelor units could probably be reduced from two spaces to 1.5 spaces. In
concluding, Mr. Singer stated he was concerned with the waiver of parking that
would cause a precedent and that was his major concern.
Councilwoman Kaywood surmised if leasing practices made the difference and the
client owned the property, there was nothing to guarantee that would be in
perpetuity and, therefore, there was no basis to change the City Code or to
create precedent or make an exception.
1156
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Farano stated, based upon Mr. Singer's remarks, he had calculated parking
at 1.5 for bachelor units which would require 299 spaces. They were proposing
268 or a difference of 31 spaces resulting in a 10 percent variance or a 90
percent compliance.
Councilman Pickler then expressed his concern relative to the landscaped
setback. The proposal showed parking right up to the street and he felt
landscaping was very necessary. He for one, wanted to see the Planning
Department, Planning Commission and Council in the future insist on more
landscaping in front of such projects.
Mr. Farano stated it would not bother him at all to eliminate two spaces in
order to landscape the area back to 20 feet bringing the parking to 266 and
possibly add another one or two spaces somewhere else.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Irene Jennings, 142 West Cliffwood, stated the residents were protesting the
construction of the proposed apartments. She thereupon submitted petitions
containing 156 signatures of residents in the area who were opposed (made a
part of the record). One hundred thirty-four units was too high density for
the project, they did not like not having a setback from two-story buildings
and mostly objected to the lack of sufficient parking spaces.
Frank McCormick, 229 West Bluebell, stated that the residents had fought the
proposed apartments on the White Front property for the same reasons he would
state today. There was too much crowding, traffic and crime from the renters
already in the area which was overly saturated with apartments. Safety and
the crime factor were his major concerns.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Farano
to make his s,,mmation.
After Mr. Farano countered some of the concerns raised, Councilman Pickier
noted that Mr. Farano stated he would furnish the setback. He also asked if
he would be willing to decrease the units from 130 to 114 to provide more
parking; Mr. Farano answered that anything below 130 would not be feasible.
Councilman Bay surmised that as a result of changes, waiver (b) would not be
necessary since Mr. Farano stated they reduced the number of bachelor units to
one below permitted from the original proposal of 30; the maximum structural
height was retained because of the two-stories within 55 feet of R-i, but
waiver (a) was still needed technically. On waiver (c), if they set back 20
feet, the project would then lose two more parking spaces; Traffic Engineer
Paul Singer stated they would only lose one parking space. Therefore, they
would be short 32 spaces.
Councilwoman Kaywood then read a letter dated November 20, 1984, from a Mr. &
Mrs. Don Thorpe, 2175 Madrid Street, who were concerned over two-story units
being built behind their single-family home.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
1157
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, 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.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-470 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-470: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMFaNDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Singer to
reiterate his feeling on what a parking waiver would create in the area.
Mr. Singer answered that a parking waiver in a multiple-family area would
create a precedent and should there be a parking problem, there was no place
to park because parking on Harbor Boulevard was eventually going to be removed.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
~aywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-470 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered a resolution to grant Variance No. 342§ with a minimum
number of parking spaces to 268 spaces.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler expressed his concern over the
requested parking waiver. He felt the applicant could decrease the number of
units and, therefore, was going to vote "no."
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern that if in the future someone
other than Western National Properties owned the development who did not have
a good track record, there could be a horrendous problem.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, granting Variance No. 3426
as offered by Councilman Roth and failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES'.
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Roth and Bay
Overholt, Pickler and Kaywood
None
Councilwoman Kaywood then offered a resolution denying Variance No. 3426.
1158
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Before action was taken, discussion followed relative to the concern over the
parking variance requested. Miss Santalahti explained that the Planning
Commission felt that the parking requirement for bachelor units was too high
but not the one or two-bedroom units currently at 2.5 for each unit. The
subject project was a majority of two-bedrooms. Under an anticipated
amendment of the Code, it was not expected that there would be a change other
than four bachelor units to 1.5 spaces per unit.
Councilman Bay clarified that a 16 percent variance was technically correct
but that actually was 10 percent because of the way the Code was going to be
amended. Mr. Farano stated if the Council was so inclined, he would be
agreeable to accepting an approval on condition that the Code would be
changed. City Attorney Hopkins recommended that the matter be continued
rather than to take an action depending on an ordinance which might not be
amended.
Mr. Farano stated he would be agreeable to a continuation.
Miss Santalahti stated that such a continuance should be at least 60 days
since the process would take approximately 6 weeks from today.
Councilman Overholt moved to continue the public hearing on Variance No. 3426
and the vote on the resolution of denial offered by Councilwoman Kaywood to
Tuesday, February 5, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the COuncil recessed for five minutes. (3:47 p.m)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:55 p.m)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2628 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Barbara A. Koonz, et al, (California
Refrigerated Service), to permit a truck repair facility on ML zoned property
located at 711 East Sycamore Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-215, approved
the nesatlve declaration upon findin8 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. 2628 and negative declaration for five years, subject to City
Planning Commission conditions as listed on Resolution No. PC84-215.
A decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Mayor Roth first asked for clarification that the major item of concern was
that a sprinkler system was required to be installed.
1159
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Tom Roberts, 721 East Trenton, Orange, representing California
Refrigerated Services, answered that was correct. The Planning Commission had
approved the parking waiver at their meeting of October 15, 1984. They were
the tenant and not the owner of the subject facility and were appealing the
fire sprinkler requirements. It was a shock to them to find out that it was a
requirement. They wanted to service their own vehicles and the subject
facility was a good location. Since they filed the appeal, they had been
contacted by letter by the owners of the property indicating that they wanted
the City Code upheld 100 percent. It was not cost effective for California
Refrigerated to install fire sprinklers. One estimate, just to bring the
water main from one side of the street to the other, was $1,000 a diameter
inch with an 8 inch main required. Unless the City Council would be willing
to grant a waiver on the fire spinkler system, his company would have no
choice but to search for another location ln Anaheim for a facility that would
already be within City Code requirements. Pending the outcome of the hearing,
they were asking for consideration of an extension beyond the January 26, 1985
date in which to move out of the facility or cease doing business as a repair
facility. Realtors were currently looking for properties for them.
The Mayor asked to hear from the Fire Department.
Garth Menges, Fire Marshall, explained that the first encounter with the
applicant was on October 5, 1984 at an interdepartmental meeting regarding
conditional use permit. They were advised at the time that the existing
occupancy in the building was a warehouse but by changing the occupancy
classification to H-4 according to the ordinance anything over 6,000 square
feet required a fire sprinkler system and they were advised of that fact
during meetings with the Department. It was brought out prior to the
applicant going to the Planning Comm~ssion.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Mr. James Roberts, 6062 South Highland, Yorba Linda, one of the owners of the
building stated that California Refrigerated had known for 90 days or more
what they were going to have to do to bring the building into compliance and
they said they were not going to do so. They were not going to install
sprinklers but they could use the building for storage instead of the present
use. The owners had no objection if they wished to change the use back to a
storage building.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Tom
Roberts to make his s-mmation.
Mr. Roberts stated the only reason he said he was surprised about the
requirement was the fact that he spent 90 days preparing the conditional use
permit and they were informed that the sprinkler system was required at the
staff meeting with the Fire Marshall held one week prior to the hearing with
the Planning Commission.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
1160
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-471, granting Conditional Use
Permit No. 2628, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission and
subject to all conditions imposed including the installation of a fire
sprinkler system. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-471: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2628.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-471 duly passed and adopted.
155/134/179: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 196.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-12 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. i636:
Application submitted by City of Anaheim, to consider an amendment to the Land
Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan, alternate proposals of
ultimate land uses including but not limited to General Industrial and General
Open Space, a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ML, to permit an automobile
sales center on property located at 2790 East Ball Road.
Environmental Impact Report No. 267 was previously certified by the Council on
October 23, 1984 (see minutes that date).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-234, recommended
to the City Council General Plan Amendment No. 196 Land use and open space
elements, Exhibit "A" changing the General Plan designation from general open
space to general industrial.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-235, approved
Reclassification No. 84-85-12, subject to City Planning Commission conditions
and listed on Resolution No. PC84-235.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant Resolution No. PC84-236, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2636, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, briefed the staff report to
the Planning Commission dated November 14, 1984, relative to the subject
property, a city initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current
general open space to general industrial with the intent to develop the study
area as an automobile sales center, the purpose being to obtain revenue for
the City without imposing additional taxes, fees or assessments. Revenues
received by the City from sales tax and the land lease would provide funds for
public services and facilities.
1161
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Fick then referred to memorandum dated April 4, 1984 from the Planning
Director to the City Manager/City Council, recommending that the Council make
findings concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed Anaheim Auto
Center which were identified in the staff report for the previously certified
EIR and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to which was a
Statement of Overriding Considerations dated December 4, 1984. The report
recommended the incorporation of the staff report of October 1, 1984 (also
attached to the report) as findings of fact and adopt the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished and, if possible, that there be
a spokesmen for each category of information to be provided noting the large
number of people present in the Chamber audience.
The following people spoke in favor of retaining the site in its present state
and opposing any change for the reasons stated:
Jeffrey B. Froke, 224 Cora De Coza, Trabuco Canyon, Western States Manager for
the National Audobon Society and also representing other Audobon Society
members. The site was a significant, valuable and viable wildlife and habitat
area. Other sites for the auto park should be considered instead.
David Ordlock, 5633 Vista Del Valle, Anaheim. He questioned where the City
proposed the sanctuary would be relocated and at what expense. The issue was
quality of life and consideration should be given to the fact that the
property was a natural area which could not easily be replaced.
Before proceeding with additional testimony, Mr. Fick reported on the other
sites that were evaluated by staff and addressed in the EIR as relocation
sites.
Donna Mackiewicz, 11361 Biscayne, Garden Grove, Conservation Chairperson for
Sea and Sage Audobon. Sea and Sage and the residents hoped that the project
site would be viewed as an integral part of a much larger picture, one that
would affect the future of the state.
Virginia Chester, 9731 Villa Wood Drive, Villa Park, submitted - "Statement to
the Anaheim City Council, December 4, 1984, Re: EIRNo. 267 - General Plan
No. 196" (made a part of the record) and read it into the record asking
reconsideration of the proposal to destroy the wetland.
Mel Lewis, 8181 Imperial, Garden Grove, stated that the area was
environmentally sensitive and it should remain as is. He also did not believe
the City of Anaheim or any governmental agency should be in the real estate
business.
Linda Pascoe, 2752 East Strong, Anaheim, submitted a petition signed by over
300 residents of the area surrounding the wetlands opposing the auto center.
Each resident she talked to had no idea what was planned for the area. They
had a traffic problem in their area. They did not want a concrete city. They
were asking the Council to consider the matter carefully and perhaps continue
it until more residents became aware of the situation.
1162
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Wilma Lazar, 1043 Hilda Street, Anaheim. The subject area was the last open
area the City owned in East Anaheim. She did not want to see it turned into
anything. The area had a traffic problem at present and it did not need more
congestion.
Cecelia Bebek, 1127 South Chantilly, Anaheim. She had personally contacted
many residents of the area and the overwhelming majority asked her to convey
their opposition to the draining and filling of the wetlands and construction
of an auto center.
Ken Maas, 1962 Cardiff, Newport Beach. The 10 acres involved would not
support any kind of major auto center and the streets were not big enough to
support the traffic. The property should be left as is.
Nancy Hollis, 1715 South Nutwood Avenue, Anaheim. Since the City did not know
how much it was going to cost to fill the site, she suggested that the matter
be continued until that was known. The Mayor reiterated that the City was not
that far along relative to the project; City Manager Talley explained that the
City could do that but it previously had a bid and because of the procedures
the City was having to go through, the dirt fill became unavailable and the
same thing could happen again. Dirt was only available for a certain amount
of time. It was going to cost $1.50 a yard at the time. He stated that the
subject area was a hole in the ground dug by somebody and it was not natural
at all. The City was just going to fill in the hole again.
Madeline Krpan, 1127 South Chantilly, Anaheim. She first pointed out that the
EIR stated that $2.2 million would be spent on the project. She maintained
that the area should be left as is.
Following the foregoing testimony, Mrs. Jane Hall, 1020 South Marian Street,
Anaheim, stated relative to wetlands, to the north across Ball Road there were
approximately 200 acres extending all the way to Lincoln Avenue that were all
wetlands and that was where the birds were located. She did not feel that
they were necessarily located in the 10 acres that were under discussion. The
200 acres had water all year long.
In response to the Mayor, Mr. Fick explained that the EIR had already been
certified and circulated. Staff's recommendation was that prior to project
approval, since the City did not know what the resolution of the issue was
going to be on the replacement sites, that the findings of fact and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted by motion.
The Mayor asked for clarification that even if the Council voted favorably
today that the requirements of the Fish and Game Department and the process
established by the State had to be met; Mr. Flck answered that was correct and
the City was subject to the Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit process and
without that permit, no fill could occur.
Councilman Pickler stated he had received many calls from people in opposition
to the auto center but not a concern over the area being preserved as
wetlands. He questioned if there would be an impact if the matter were
continued for 3 weeks or a month.
1163
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Fick stated he did not know if the City would have a resolution from the
Corps of Engineers in that period but several of the auto center operators
were present if the Council wished to ask what the impact might be on them.
The Mayor asked if there was anyone who would like to speak relative to the
possible impact of a continuation of the CUP to establish an auto center on
the property.
Mr. Rick Heinz, 5707 Seashore, Newport Beach, representing Anaheim Mazda and
what they hoped would be Anaheim Mitsubishi, stated they had been working on
the project for one-and-a-half years. The problem was with their
manufacturers who had done surveys in the area and felt that the subject
property was the best site, since at present they were not represented well in
the area. It was likely they might lose their franchise and other people
appointed in other cities. The pressure was on them right now.
Lincoln/Mercury was also present today and they felt the same way. They had
to have a "go-no-go" quickly. They were also concerned about the cost of the
fill. As the City Manager mentioned, there was a question as to the kind of
bid they were going to get. If that was a major factor, they should also
address that problem.
City Manager Talley recommended that the Council approve the General Plan
Amendment and Reclassification today and hold off on the CUP and let staff go
forward to see if they could mitigate the matter to the satisfaction of the
agencies that had literally asserted their authority over the City and then
come back and let the Council make a final decision and take any more
testimony they would choose to take at that time.
Councilman Bay asked if it was also his recommendation that Council adopt the
Statement of Overriding Considerations; City Manager Talley answered "yes."
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to incorporate staff report dated October 1,
1984 from the Planning Department as findings of fact and adopting the
Statement of Overriding Considerations relative to EIR No. 267. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated without the CUP, there would be
no tangible action until the mitigation in the EIRwas agreed to by Federal
and State Authorities.
Mr. Flck clarified that any mitigation that the Corps of Engineers might
attach to the permit would require action by the City Council in terms of
authorization in other areas.
Councilman Pickler surmised then that if the General Plan Amendment and
Reclassification were approved, the CUP had to come before the Council again
no matter what was going to be on the property.
Mr. Fick answered that was correct. If that item were continued, staff would
renotify not only those notified previously, but also anyone who wished to
leave their name and address with staff.
1164
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-472 for adoption, approving General
Plan Amendment No. 196, Exhibit "A." Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-472: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE
ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 196, EXHIBIT "A."
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth
Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-472 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-473, approving Reclassification
No. 84-85-12, subject to City Planning Commission conditions as listed on
Resolution No. PC84-235. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-473: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETF2LMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth
Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-473 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Overholt asked relative to the CUP if it was going to be continued
or left hanging in abeyance; City Manager Talley answered if the Council
continued the CUP to a time certain, it could not be determined whether or not
the mitigation efforts and discussions had been concluded. His inclination
would be to readvertise when they had all the necessary information.
Councilman Overholt noted that there would be no further hearings held without
notification and advertising.
City Manager Talley stated that would be the most effective way to go in
dealing with the people concerns so that they would not be unduly disturbed
but assured that the Council was going to hear the issue again.
Councilman Overholt then suggested that staff clarify for the people in the
Chamber audience what had taken place today.
Mr. Fick answered that a resolution was adopted which amended the General Plan
from general open space to general industrial. A second resolution was
1165
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
adopted changing the zoning from residential agricultural to general
industrial and a finding of fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
preceeded both actions. The conditional use permit for specific use on the
site was taken off the agenda and continued to a future date and those
involved and interested parties would be subsequently notified. Staff in the
interim would be working with the Corps of Engineers to resolve the permit
process.
Mayor Roth clarified that an auto center could not be built without a public
hearing on a conditional use permit.
Mr. Talley stated where the Council's "comfort zone" should be was in the fact
that the property was City-owned and, therefore, no one could do anything
without the City Council approving the use. He suggested that a motion be
made taking the CUP off the agenda.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that Conditional Use Permit No. 2636 be taken
off agenda. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler asked if someone could come in and build a project on the
property that tied in with the General Plan Amendment and Reclassification
and, if so, they would not have to appear before the Council.
Mr. Fick explained if the permit was obtained from the Corps of Engineers to
fill the site, then the site would be designated industrial and zoned
industrially. If someone had a project proposal in conformance with all City
Codes, the City could sell or lease the property.
129/123/153: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND BOB
SIMPSON: Councilman Roth moved to approve an agreement between the City of
Anaheim and Bob Simpson, Fire Chief, to provide ~7,$00 supplemental retirement
benefit for assuming the duties of Deputy City Manager in addition to his
services as Fire Chief. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(5:31 p.m)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:45 p.m)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:46 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1166