1984/12/11City Nall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December llf 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, 0verholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CITY ENGINeeR: Gary E. Johnson
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Dr. Bryan Crow, Euclid Street Baptist 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:
"Lungs for Life Month" in Anaheim, December 1984,
"Financial Aid Awareness Month" in Anaheim, January 1985.
Mr. Ron Nakahira accepted the Lungs for Life proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously
adopted by the City Council for the family of Jack Wrather. The Council
extended their sincere condolences on the loss of Mr. Wrather, assuring that
the citizens of Anaheim were most appreciative of Mr. Wrather's contributions
to make the Anaheim community the great City it was today.
MINUTES: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held September 11 and 18, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood abstained on the minutes of September 18, 1984 since she
was not present at that meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances amc 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.
1167
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,326,029.18, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-474 through 84R-482, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No.
4561 for first reading.
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 Carl Heinz for personal property damages sustained
purportedly due to electrical problems at 525 Pine Way, on or about
September 19 - October 16, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of City crew in front of 1000-10 South
Harbor, on or about September 25, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Elio Ronconi due to hole in street at the northeast
corner of Walnut and Cerritos, on or about August 3, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by Mervin Young for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of City crew at 522 South Santiago Way,
on or about October 10, 1984.
Applications for Leave to Present a Late Claim - recommended to be
rejected: ,
e. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim was submitted by
Frontier Adjusters for property damages sustained purportedly due to
malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of Tustin Avenue and La
Palma, on or about April 7, 1984.
f. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by West
American Insurance Company for property damages sustained purportedly due to
an accident caused by malfunctioning traffic signal at Walnut and Ball, on or
about November 11, 1983.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of September 26 and
October 24, 1984.
3. 123: Approving the conceptual design for Mito Square submitted by Kobzeff
and Associates.
1168
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
4. 153: Authorizing the Human Resources Department to solicit proposals for
consulting services in connection with the review of the clerical series
classification.
5. 153: Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the City Flexible Compensation Plan
to include full-time represented employees of the Anaheim Municipal Employees
Association, effective February 1, 1985.
6. 123: Authorizing the Commitment Agreement Modification with California
Housing Finance Agency for multifamily rehabilitation and new construction,
extending the date for sale of Bonds from December 17, 1984 to February 15,
1985.
7. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
three-month period ending September 30, 1984.
8. 123: Authorizing Cooperative Agreement No. 3692 with California
Department of Transportation for landscaping of embankment slopes at Wagner
Avenue and South Street on Route 57 Freeway, with City to provide certain
utility services at an estimated cost of $30,000 and future maintenance of
slopes at a cost of approximately 522,000 per year.
9. 170/123: Authorizing a special water facilities reimbursement agreement
with Anaheim Hills Development Corporation, relating to Tract No. 10996, 10997
and 10998 in Anaheim Hills.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of S & C Electric Company in the amount of
534,162.85 for two 15 KVAutomatic Load Transfer Units, in accordance with Bid
No. 4146.
11. 160: Accepting the low bid of McGraw-Edison Company in the amount of
5136,310.70 for five 69 KV, 1200 AMP, 350 KV BIL, Circuit Breakers, three for
Sharp Substation and two for Southwest Substation, in accordance with Bid No.
4150.
12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Ferranti-Packard in the amount of $17,786
for four each 69 k'V Potential Transformers for Southwest Substation, in
accordance with Bid No. 4151.
13. 160: Accepting the low bid of Utility Trailer Sales Company, in the
amount of 536,512.76 for three heavy-duty equipment trailers, in accordance
with Bid No. 4161.
14. 150: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Mc_Master
Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $5,820.65 for additional work in
connection with the Pelanconi Park streambed erosion control improvements.
15. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-474: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
LEMON STREET STORM DRAIN, COMMERCIAL STREET TO ANAHEIM BOULEVARD IN THE CITY
1169
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-791-6325-E1290, 17-791-6325-E1290,
51-606-6329-02264 AND EDA Project 07-01-02726. (opening of bids on
January 17, 1985)
16. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-475: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF WELLS NOS. 106
AND 128 AND DEMOLITION OF WELL NO. 108 AND WELL AT MARSHALL PARK, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 53-619-6329-02375 FOR WELL NO. 106, 53-619-6329-02384
FOR WELL NO. 128, 53-619-6329-02398 FOR WELLNO. 108AND 51-619-6329-02404 FOR
W~T~, AT MARSHALL PARK. (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best
responsible bidder, Pacific Machinery Corporation in the amount of $264,555)
17. 124: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-476: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER PARKING
LOT COUNTER SYSTEM ACCOUNT NOS. 24-307-7115 AND 64-307-7115. (Awarding a
contract to L M W Engineering Corporation in the amount of $61,625)
18. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-477: A P, ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND Al.?. UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMF2Cf, TO
WIT: PELANCONI PARK STREAMBED EROSION IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NOS. 16-809-7103-09SEWAND 16-809-7103-09080. (McMaster Construction
Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion
therefor)
19. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-478: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT
NO. 28 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(Authorizing CooperationAgreement No. 28 with the Redevelopment Agency in an
amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for the construction of right-of-way and
public improvements for Harbor Boulevard, Broadway, Clementine Street, and
Chestnut Street)
20. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-479: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANA/iEIM ~%PPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMF2~T
NO. 29 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(Authorizing Cooperation Agreement No. 29 with the Redevelopment Agency in an
amount not to exceed $2,350,000 for the widening of Anaheim Boulevard north of
the downtown area to Lemon Street)
21. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-480: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT
NO. 31 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(Authorizing Cooperation Agreement No. 31 with the Redevelopment Agency in an
amount not to exceed $2,860,000 for widening of La Palma Avenue between
Imperial Highway and Grove Street in the Northeast Area of Project Alpha)
22. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-481: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT
NO. 32 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
1170
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
(Authorizing CooperationAgreement No. 32 with the Agency in an amount not to
exceed $375,000 for construction of a master planned storm drain in Coronado
Street and Van Buren Street in the Northeast Area of Project Alpha)
23. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-482: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (84-3A) (Declaring its intent to abandon a
former Southern California Edison Company public utility easement acquired by
the City of Anaheim, as successor, located north and south of Santa Ana Canyon
Road, west of Weir Canyon Road, Abandonment No. 84-3A, and setting a date for
the public hearing therefor, suggested date: January 15, 1984, 1:30 p.m.)
24. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-483: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
25. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4561: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION .050 TO SECTION 14.32.153, AND ADDING
NEW SUBSECTIONS .2170, .2180 AND .2190 TO SECTION 14.32.190, OF CHAPTER 14.32
OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING AND STOPPING.
(Adding new Subsection .050 to Section 14.32.153 and new subsections .2170,
.2180 and .2190 to Section 14.32.190 of the Code, relating to parking and
stopping on Halliday Street, Sinclair Street and Stadium View, first reading)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 84R-474 through 84R-483:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, 0verholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-474 through 84R-483, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
172: REQUEST FOR ACCESS DRIVEWAY FROM IMPERIAL HIGHWAY TO THE ADJACENT
SHOPPING CENTER - BEARD AND HOSHAW INVESTMENT BUILDERS: Report submitted
November 30, 1984 from the City Engineer, recommending approval in concept of
a driveway ingress and egress to the Christian Brothers Market on Imperial
Highway south of La PalmaAvenue.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that there was to be no access designated from
Imperial Highway but currently there is ingress into the Canyon Plaza Shopping
Center from Imperial and now this request was being considered. She asked the
Traffic Engineer if the proposed access was going to increase the potential
for collisions on Imperial Highway.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer felt in this case they were shifting a problem.
Opening up the subject driveway would reduce the total number of collisions
and also divert traffic away from the congested intersection of Imperial and
La Palma which would be a net gain. It was intended to be a permanent
driveway and City Council action was required before the proposal would be
submitted to CalTrans as a first step.
1171
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve in concept an access driveway
requested by Beard and Hoshaw Investment Builders from Imperial Highway, south
of La Palma Avenue, to the adjacent shopping center (Christian Brothers
Market), as recommended in memorandum dated November 30, 1984 from the City
Engineer. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
000/108: ESTABLISHING FEES - NONCOMMERCIAL SOLICITATION PERMITS: Submitted
was report dated December 3, 1984 from the City Attorney, recommending
adoption of a resolution establishing the subject fees.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-484 for adoption, establishing
fees relating to applications for noncommercial solicitation permits pursuant
to Chapter 7.32 of the Code, in the amount of $10.00. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-484: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEES RELATING TO APPLICATIONS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL
SOLICITATION PERMITS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7.32 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-484 duly passed and adopted.
172: JUTTING OUT PARCELS ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS: Policy Statement for the
improvement of Jutting out parcels on arterial highways. This matter was
continued from the meetings of July 31, October 9, October 30 and November 27,
1984, to this date (see minutes those dates where discussion took place).
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, referred to the Supplemental Report submitted to
the Council dated November 24, 1984 based on questions posed by the Council.
It specifically referred to a statement of the present policy in the City and
a potential impact the proposed policy would have. The impact would be
limited to the Priority I group of projects totalling $579,000. (See reports
from the City Engineer to the City Manager/City Council dated July 18,
November 9 and November 28, 1984). Ba~ed on the accident history, only the
first three projects totalling $426,000 had a potential to be constructed
because those would be the only projects competitive with other capital
projects City wide.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to City Manager Talley stated the Council was
concerned at the outset with the impact the policy might have with property
owners. It seemed in revealing the City Engineer's reports that the problem
they contemplated may not be there. He asked Mr. Talley if he agreed.
City Manager Talley felt the policy was now very limited. It gave a place to
start the process but also clearly served notice to property owners that the
requirements for dedication and improvement to ultimate street widths would
remain in effect.
1172
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler was looking at the fact that the policy did not set a
precedent and it gave the Council an opportunity to mitigate hazardous
situations.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the Policy Statement for the
improvement of Jutting out parcels on arterial highways, as outlined by the
City Engineer in his memorandum of October 16, 1984. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11766 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted by
Robert D. Mickelson, Planning Consultants, requesting an extension of time to
Tentative Tract No. 11766, to establish a 21-lot, 97-unit, RM-1200 zoned
subdivision on property located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue
between Kellogg Drive and Post Lane.
The requested extension of time was approved by the Planning Commission at
their meeting of November 26, 1984 for one year to expire November 15, 1985.
This item was submitted for information only. No action was taken by the
Council.
108: HEARING - KAMPGROUNDS OF AMERICA~ INC. - APPEAL OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
TAX: Howard A. Schnee, Gronemeler & Barker, Attorneys for Kampgrounds of
America, Inc., appealing the decision of the Hearing Officer denying the tax
assessment per Audit No. 83638 on the Transient Occupancy Tax due on the
Kampgrounds of America, Inc.
Submitted was a reported dated December 4, 1984 from the Audit Manager and
Hearing Officer attached to which was Audit Report No. 83638 dated July 20,
1984. The recommended action was to uphold the findings and assessments of
the City Internal Auditors and City Hearing Officer.
Mayor Roth deferred to the City Attorney.
City Attorney Hopkins reported that letter dated December 4, 1984 had been
received from the Firm of Gronemeier & Barker, Mr. Howard Schnee, Attorneys
for ~-mpgrounds of America offering to pay the City $1,542.31 in satisfaction
of KOA's tax obligation. He (Hopkins) had been informed that this settlement
was acceptable to the auditors.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to accept the 31542.31 from Kamp§rounds of
America Inc., in satisfaction of their tax assessment obligation.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2474--0NE-YEAR REVIEW: Review of Conditional
Use Permit No. 2474, Blair Paving, Inc., to retain a portable asphalt concrete
plant at 1101 Richfield Road, in accordance with the conditions of approval by
Council on November 29, 1984.
Submitted was report dated December 4, 1984 from the Planning
Department/Zoning Division, recommending that the Council find Conditional Use
1173
City Nall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Permit No. 2474 in compliance with the original conditions of approval and
determine that further proceedings are not needed to review said permit,
Mayor Roth asked if anyone was present to speak to the CUP other than the
applicant; no one was present.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that Conditional Use Permit No. 2474 was in
compliance with the original conditions of approval and that no further
proceedings were needed to review said permit. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth commended Mr. Day who was present in the
Chamber audience for an impeccable record during the past year. He (Roth) as
a member of the Board checked with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District to determine if there were any complaints or problems associated with
Blair Paving and found there were none.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TRACT NO. l1766--FINALMAP: Developer Esperanza Villas of Tustin; Tract
is located on the north side of 0rangethorpe Avenue between Kellogg Drive and
Post Lane and contains 21 proposed RM-1200 zoned lots (97 units).
On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to
be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved
Final Map Tract No. 11766, as recommended by the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated December 5, 1984, upon finding that each of the tenants of
the project has been or will be given each of the notifications required
pursuant to Section 66427.1 of the Government Code and subject to revising
Condition No. 4 of the approved tentative tract map conditions to read as
follows: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the applicant shall
present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the
converted units are in conformance with Council Policy #542, Sound Attenuation
in Residential Projects. MOTION CARRIED.
156/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4558: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4558 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
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.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4558 duly passed and adopted.
1174
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4559: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4559 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4559: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND AMENDING
VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS, SECTIONS AND CHAPTERS, AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 18.10, ALL
TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification if a
second daycare center were requested within 600 feet of another and there were
no problems that the City Council could grant that daycare center as well.
Assistant City Attorney Jack White explained that the criteria for the
administrative use permit would require that the proposed location not be
within 600 feet. If one wished to apply within 600 feet of another, the
appropriate procedure would be through the application of a CUP in which event
the Council would review it with a public hearing as they would any other
CUP. In that situation, the Council would have the right and discretion to
either approve or deny it and not be under the State mandate. It was only if
daycare centers were a minimum of 600 feet apart that the administrative use
provision would apply. State law provided that the City may establish
distance requirements and the recommendation from the Planning Department was
that the distance requirement be 600 feet.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Ordinance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, 0verholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4559 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4562: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4562 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4562: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 70-71-47(33) ML, south side of Coronado Street,
west of Kraemer Place)
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4563: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4563 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4563: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE R~T.ATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 79-80-25(1) OS, south of the intersection Nohl
Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Road)
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4564 THROUGH 4566: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Ordinance Nos. 4564 through 4566, both inclusive, for first reading.
1175
City ~,11~ An,heim~ C-l{fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4564: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 72-73-48(3) RS-7200(SC), 6110 East Santa Aha
Canyon Road)
ORDINANCE NO. 4565: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RETATING TO ZONING.
(Amendin~ Title 18, Reclass. 70-71-47(34) ML, 5426 East Orangethorpe Avenue)
ORDINANCE NO. 4566: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE R~TATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 70-71-47(35) ML, east side of Lakeview Avenue,
north of La Pa/ma Avenue)
114: COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 2~ 1985: Councilman Bay stated the Council
should give staff direction as to whether there was going to be a Council
meeting on January 2, 1985 or not. He, for one, would prefer not to hold a
meeting on that date. A decision had already been made not to schedule a
Council meeting on December 26, 1984.
Councilman Bay thereupon moved that no Council meeting be held January 2,
1985. Councilwoman Kay~ood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt questioned what impact cancelling
two consecutive meetings would have on the workload of the City.
City Clerk Sohl answered that the Planning Commission items were going to be
submitted to the Council at the December 18, 1984 meeting. Also, memos had
been sent to all Departments requesting that they advise her office if they
anticipated any problems. It seemed that everyone was able to work around the
situation without undue difficulty.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: Mayor Roth acknowledged the outstanding
play of Los Angeles Rams running back Eric Dickerson this football season
culminating in his breaking the NFL single season rushing record on Sunday,
December 9, 1984 in a game played with the Houston Oilers at Anaheim Stadium.
He (Roth) requested that a Resolution of Congratulations be prepared to be
presented to Eric on his outstanding feat.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation and potential litigationwith no action anticipated and
also a personnel matter with action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a
Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action
anticipated and also a personnel matter with action anticipated.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held with the City's
Attorney to discuss litigation, potential litigation and personnel matters.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
and a lunch break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (11:00 a.m.)
1176
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:46 p.m.)
117/153/123: APPOINTMENT OF CITY TREASURER: Mayor Roth stated it was his
great pleasure to announce that Mary E. Turner, presently the City Treasurer
of Fullerton, would join the City of Anaheim in that capacity. Mrs. Turner
will have full-time employee status effective December 31, 1984, and had
already informed the Mayor of Fullerton of her decision.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to appoint Mary E. Turner to the post of City
Treasurer, effective December 31, 1984 and to approve an agreement relative to
sick leave. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED
unanimously.
Mrs. Turner thanked the Council for their support and confidence and for
giving her the opportunity to serve the City of Anaheim as its City
Treasurer. She stated that she would strive always to represent the City and
the professional image that it was so noted for, and very much looked forward
to working with the management team in the City of Anaheim.
113/114/153: APPOINTMENT OF CITY CT,RRX: Mayor Roth stated it was also his
pleasure to recognize Leonora N. Sohl, who approximately six months ago in her
capacity as Assistant City Clerk was called upon to take over the position of
City Clerk.
He thereupon moved to appoint Leonora N. Sohl to a full-time regular status as
City Clerk of the City of Anaheim effective December 11, 1984. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
Mrs. Sohl stated it was her pleasure to be part of the Anaheim team since it
had a reputation for excellence and she looked forward to the challenge.
161/123: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING -ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY
COUNCIL: To consider the proposed First Amendment to Disposition and
Development Agreement with Meyer Investment Properties, Inc., providing for
the sale and redevelopment of certain real property in the Redevelopment
Project Alpha, consisting of approximately 13 acres generally bounded on the
north by Lincoln Avenue, on the east by Clementine Street, on the south by
Broadway, and on the west by Harbor Boulevard, to provide, inter alia, for the
construction of the first phase parking structure by the Agency and the sale
of such structure to the developer on an installment sale basis. This matter
was continued from the meeting of November 27, 1984, to this date (see minutes
that date).
Submitted was a report from the Community Development Department dated
December 4, 1984, recommending approval by the Agency of the proposed sale of
real property and Redevelopment Project Alpha and approval by the Agency and
Council of the First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement with
Meyer Investment Properties, Inc. and also finding that consideration for the
sale of the property thereunder is not less than fair market value in
accordance with covenants and conditions governing such sale. Mr. Norm
1177
City ~11~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Priest, Executive Director of Community Development then briefed the
three-page report.
In concluding, Mr. Priest stated staff was recommending that the Agency
finance the parking structure from tax increment funds on an installment loan
basis to be paid back to the Agency with interest over a 10-year period with a
balance due and payable at the end of 10 years. In that way, the Agency would
not be out any money but would also recover administrative costs as well. It
was the kind of thing staff would bring to the Agency/Council as an
implementation agreement but this matter was of sufficient circumstance that
it should be in the form of a formal amendment and, therefore, it required a
hearing.
The Mayor/Chairman asked if there was any additional testimony to be given by
anyone, staff, members of the public or any of the representatives from Meyer
who were present in the Chamber audience; no additional testimony was
presented.
The Mayor/Chairman closed the public hearing.
Agency Member Roth offered Resolution No. ARA84-38 for adoption, approving the
proposed sale of real property in Redevelopment Project Alpha; approving the
proposed First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement with Meyer
Investment Properties, Inc., pertaining thereto; and authorizing the execution
of said First Amendment. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA84-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA;
APPROVING THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH MEYER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC., PERTAINING THERETO; AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID FIRST AMENDMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES .'
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, 0verholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor/Chairman declared Resolution No. A~A84-3§ duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-485 for adoption, approving the
proposed First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement between the
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Meyer Investment Properties, Inc., a
California Corporation, and finding that the consideration for the sale of the
property thereunder is not less than fair market value in accordance with
covenants and conditions governing such sale.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-485: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MEYER INVESTMENT
PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION
1178
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THEREUNDER IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor/Chairman declared Resolution No. 85R-485 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Roth moved to
adjourn. Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(2:00 p.m.)
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) minimum width 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
have a significant effect on the environment, and further, granted
Reclassification No. 84-84-6, subject to City Planning Commission conditions
as listed on Resolution No. PC84-186, and further, granted in part, Variance
No. 3420, 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 for
October 30, 1984. At that meeting the Council denied Reclassification
No. 84-85-6 and Variance No. 3420 (see Resolution Nos. 84R-434 and 84R-435
respectively). A request for a rehearing by the applicant was granted at the
meeting of November 6, 1984 and public hearing scheduled and continued from
the meeting of December 4, 1984, to this date. (See minutes of December 4,
1984 where extensive testimony was received).
Mayor Roth noted that under date of December 10, 1984 additional data had been
received from Mr. Dreyfus, Attorney for the property owners to the south at
1314 South Euclid Street. He asked to hear from the appellant.
Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant, first stated he would like to
have some indication from the Council as to how they wished to proceed since
at the meeting of December 4, 1984 Euclid/Ball ASC LTD. was to deliver
information to the Council relative to a possible conflict of interest of one
of the Council Members.
1179
City ~-11~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he had determined through the documentation
provided that he did not have a conflict of interest in the matter. His
representation of Mr. Ken Johnson (see minutes of December 4, 1984) and his
management company and of Prudential Investment, a limited partnership, with
respect to 1314 South Euclid was not in conflict with Mr. Ghadir's transaction.
Mr. Farano concurred in Councilman Overholt's conclusion since Mr. Johnson's
name had never been known to him or his client and as far as he was concerned,
that should be the end of that particular concern.
Mr. Farano then confirmed for the Mayor that he had not seen the letter from
Mr. Dreyfus but that they were ready to move forward. They did not agree that
the statement made by the proponents that their objection was legitimate and
his response to Mr. Dreyfus was two-fold. First on the basis of pure planning
considerations, Mr. Dreyfus's comments on behalf of his client's objections,
were not well taken. Secondly, the objections of the protestant were not
legitimate but calculated to not only exclusively bestow financial loss upon
his client, but also would bestow financial gain on the client of Mr.
Dreyfus. Mr. Farano then briefed the following document which was submitted
to the Council at the start of the hearing and made a part of the record
"Chronological Events, 1300 South Euclid, Anaheim." The three-page document
with attachments, Exhibits "A" through #G" were then briefed by Mr. Farano.
It was his client's contention that the project was being protested for
realizing benefit on the owners of 1314 South Euclid whether it would be to
the detriment of his client was not their concern. There were no studies done
that the subject development would produce any more traffic than the use his
client was proposing. It was clear there was an attempt on the part of Mr.
Dreyfus's client to selectively discard or limit uses of his client's property
for commercial-retail purposes. That was wrong and the uses proposed by Mr.
Dreyfus had as much foot and vehicular traffic as commercial-retail. Mr.
Farano then reiterated the uses his client agreed not to have on the
property. (See letter dated November 28, 1984 from Mr. Richard D. Dreyfus to
Floyd L. Farano, Exhibit "G" - made a part of the record). They were now also
proposing one other condition, if the Council deemed the use appropriate, they
would also limit the exiting traffic from the development onto Euclid to
right-turn only.
After questions posed to Mr. Farano by Council Members and to staff for
purposes of clarlflcatlon~ the Mayor asked to hear from those in opposition.
Mr. Richard Dreyfus, Attorney representing Euclid/Ball ASC LTD. owners of 1314
South Euclid and 1324 South Euclid, then rebutted some of the items raised by
Mr. Farano and which he did not feel were necessarily relevant to the
situation. Further, he did not think anything had been presented today that
would lead the Council to reverse their unanimous decision when the matter was
first heard. The concerns of spot zoning; that the neighborhood was
adequately served by a large volume of commercial-retail space; the concern
about congestion on Palm Lane, etc. To say that an office building had the
same potential inflow and outflow as a fast food restaurant, donut shop or
laundromat was not reasonable. Making a right turn only onto Euclid Street
might even make matters worse since vehicles would use Palm Lane as a means of
ingress and egress. The applicant chose to grade his property before having
1180
City R~]I~ A~heim~ C~]ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December lip 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
the zoning approved and that was a risk he took as a businessman. His client
was protesting a use of the subject property which would be detrimental to the
neighborhood and the area and he requested that the Council reaffirm its
original decision of denial. Mayor Roth stated relative to the question of
ownership, he felt it was a civil matter. The Council's decision had to be
based on land use. The adjoining property owner was questioning the effect a
change in zoning would have on the subject property. In the first hearing
before the Council (see minutes of October 30, 1984) he expressed his concern
over the effect the shopping would have at that location especially relative
to traffic that would be generated, specifically on Palm Lane.
Councilman 0verholt stated another detriment was that in reclassifying Mr.
Ghadir's property, the setback requirements would be eliminated that were
imposed on the medical building property. He then questioned Mr. Dreyfus
relative to the restrictions his client was requesting be placed on the use of
Mr. Ghadir's property and asked why he did not build on that list.
Mr. Dreyfus explained that was what they tried to do but Mr. Farano did not
agree and he did not think it would be possible to come to an agreement
because the uses his client felt were detrimental were ones which the
applicant did not want to give up. They would be willing to meet again and if
something could be worked out, they would withdraw their objection.
Councilman Pickler stated that Mr. Ghadir had taken care of his areas of
concern eliminating uses that had given the most problems. He was also going
to put up a wall and install landscaping and there was a limit to what they
could ask of the applicant.
Councilman Overholt recalled the first hearing where Councilman Pickler, for
one, was very vigorous in his concern about commercial on that corner. Now he
(Pickler) had said that he knew that Dr. Simon was the seller which was
brought out in discussions and that Mr. Ghadir's acceptable limitations were
ample. If the Council was going to approve commercial on that property, there
should be encouragement to have Mr. Farano and Dreyfus further negotiate to
try to come up with additional restrictions which would further protect the
1314 South Euclid Street property and yet not unduly restrict Mr. Ghadir. The
Council should be sure if they imposed commercial zoning they were not
undermining the original zoning to accommodate a difficult situation. He
wanted to see an expansion of the limitations and felt it could be done in a
way to provide further protection for the original zoned properties.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Dreyfus if he was satisfied with the landscaping
in between the property; Mr. Dreyfus stated that would help but the uses were
the key issue. They could probably live with the setback because the height
of the building was lower.
Councilman 0verholt felt that a recess would give Mr. Farano, Ghadir and
Dreyfus an opportunity to meet and come to an agreement.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to recess for ten minutes to give the principals
an opportunity to meet and confer to see if they could come to an agreement
relative to limitation of uses. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (2:52 p.m.)
1181
City ~11~ Anaheim~ Cml~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:05 p.m)
Mr. Farano reported the following uses that the owners of 1314 South Euclid
Street suggested that his client not have on the property: fast food
restaurant, donut shop, bakery, broadcast studio, business trade school, candy
store, conservatory and music store and grocery store. His client felt that
such restrictions bordered on being ridiculous. He reiterated that Mr.
Dreyfus's client was selectively choosing what were the best and most
compatible uses for them and their choices had no relationship whatsoever to
the amount of foot or vehicular traffic generated.
Mr. Dreyfus stated because of the inability to reach compromise, the burden
was on the Council whether or not to allow spot zoning.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Dreyfus if he agreed that the uses outlined in
his letter of November 28, 1984 to Mr. Farano and agreed to by Mr. Ghadir
should be restricted; Mr. Dreyfus answered "yes."
Councilman Bay asked the Traffic Engineer if there is great deal of difference
in automobile traffic between CO and CL.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated he would have to answer by use. A medical
office generated 75 trips per 1,000 square feet of building (all numbers were
based on 1,000 square feet of building). A 7-11 or convenience market
generated 550 trips; donut shop, 130; bakery, 50; broadcast studio, 20; trade
school, 14; candy store, 20; music store, 20; grocery store, 125. A
neighborhood commercial center would generate 80 trips per 1,000 square feet
of building as opposed to medical office which generated 75 trips.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-486 and 84R-487 for adoption,
the first approving Reclassification No. 84-85-6 'and the second granting
Variance No. 3420, subject to all City Planning Commission conditions
including limitation of the following uses: video arcade, liquor store, sauna
or turkish bath, pool hall or billiard parlor, bus depot, butchery, upholstery
shop, mortuary, used furniture store and bingo parlor. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-486: 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 AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES CODE
SHOULD BE CHANGED (REHEARING).
1182
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-487: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3420, IN PART (REHEARING).
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if the exceptions to the uses
included a beer bar; a beer bar was included as one of the restricted uses
along with the others articulated.
Councilman Overholt also stated he was going to support both resolutions.
After all was said and done, the use would be a minuscule increase over that
of a medical facility.
Mayor Roth stated although the fears of his colleagues may have been
diminished by the numbers, the Traffic Engineer stated that a 7-11 market
would generate 550 trips. He was also concerned as to the traffic that was
going to be generated on Palm Lane. He did not feel it was in the best
interest of the area.
A vote was then on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Overholt
Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-486 and 84R-487 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler clarified that uses on the property excluded those listed
in letter dated November 28, 1984 from Mr. Dreyfus to Mr. Farano, Paragraph 2,
also including a beer bar. He noted that Mr. Farano also stipulated to
signing the property for right-turn only egress onto Euclid Street and that
was also included.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had another item to be included that in the
event a 7-11 store was proposed that they would not be permitted to come in
for gasoline pumps; Councilman Pickler did not feel that was necessary.
182: CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN GUIDELINES: Central City Neighborhood
Council, requesting adoption of Design Guidelines for the Central City
Neighborhood area and creating a DesignReview Board to implement these
guidelines for a trial period of one year. This matter was continued from the
meeting of December 4, 1984, to this date.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed his
report to the City Manager/City Council dated December 3, 1984, recommending
approval of the Central City Neighborhood Design Guidelines directing staff to
prepare a resolution to adopt such design guidelines for the Central City
Neighborhood area and approving the formation of a Design Review Board to be
appointed by the Council upon adoption of the resolution or at a later date.
The report discussed how the proposal came about, culminating in the
presentation to Council today. The Design Guidelines were prepared by Van
Dell & Associates as a result of an agreement with that firm approved by the
1183
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Council at their meeting of April 10, 1984. Mr. Priest pointed out in
concluding that the Guidelines were proposed as Advisory Guidelines, not to
implement an additional level of regulation, but advisory to the Council,
Redevelopment Commission and Planning Commission and advisory as well to the
individual desiring to rehabilitate, in-fill or build new housing in the
subject area. The Design Review Board could be structured to offer advice to
the Council and also to those individuals bringing new developments into the
area or rehabilitating existing housing (also see memorandum dated December
11, 1984 from Mr. Priest to the City Manager/City Council which provided
information requested by Councilman Bay with reference to the Design
Guidelines - on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Mayor Roth then asked to hear from the Consultant.
Mr. Jerry Ramsey, 216 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Austin Ramsey
Architects, stated he did not have any comments to add to those already made
but would like to offer his input today not only as a consultant who helped
prepare the Guidelines, but also as a person who was currently serving on a
Design Advisory Committee, specifically for the Fifth District, County of
Orange, Capistrano Beach. The function of the Guidelines was advisory giving
the citizens a target as to what they were requesting and to give developers
an idea of the spirit of the neighborhood, i.e., a working forum. The
Advisory Committee in the case where he was serving looked at each case on an
individual basis from the concerns of the neighborhood and then simply offered
their recommendation which was a "soft" recommendation.
Mayor Roth, after Mr. Ramsey explained the process that would be followed
going through the Design Review Committee, stated he did not have a problem
with what was being proposed, but questioned why it could not be part and
parcel of the Redevelopment Commission responsibilities or some existing
activity in the City to preclude a new level of government bureaucracy.
Mr. Ramsey stated it would put the people on the Design Advisory Board in a
cross-fire but provide a closer more approachable level to individual citizens
where they felt less threatened.
Mayor Roth reiterated he was personally concerned with establishing another
level of government by the recommendation today. The Chamber of Commerce was
also becoming interested and citizens had been calling him asking what it was
all about. He was not prepared today to approve the recommendation of staff
and felt that it warranted a Joint Workshop with the Planning Commission,
Redevelopment Commission and Council with input from citizens, neighborhood
groups and the Chzmber of Commerce. It was too important an issue to be acted
upon today.
Extensive discussion and questioning followed wherein Council Members posed
specific questions and concerns, the main points being as follows:
Councilman Bay noted that this was to be an Advisory Board, but in the Rule
Section the term "shall" was used throughout. To him, shall was a mandatory
term rather than a suggestion. Before getting to the point of imposing the
type of control being proposed over such a large area, he wanted some
1184
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December liT 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
assurance that a great majority of people living within the total area truly
wanted that type of control. He wanted to know who the consultant talked to,
and the total number of people within the boundaries of the Neighborhood
Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know how long the process would take, the
schedule for having to submit documentation for staff and Planning Commission
review, and the amount of time the Review Board itself would have to spend
every other week to present the proposals and how long they would do so if
their recommendations were ultimately rejected.
After the question and concerns were addressed by Mr. Ramsey and/or Mr.
Priest, Mr. Priest stated that staff had a sense of some of the feelings of
the Council. He, therefore suggested that staff take the document back,
reflect the kinds of comments heard today and, in turn, schedule a workshop so
that those ideas could be expressed.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposal.
Diane Marsh, 321 North Philedalphia Street, explained the basis of the
original request and the time they devoted to it was that developers and
people who wanted to build would have something available in print to see what
would fit into the neighborhood. The basic idea was to give people/developers
an opportunity to see what was being proposed before it was built. She then
showed a set a pictures to the Council of the area behind the church she
attended as well as other areas in the Central City and also an area in Santa
Aha, showing the different types and styles of homes and structures in those
areas. The photos emphasized the diversity of building styles and some photos
also showed structures that were approximately four years old and already in a
deteriorating condition illustrating that new was not always better and that
was one of their concerns. The idea of the Design Guideline panel was
something they wanted for their community and they agreed with it. They were
basically concerned with the overall picture. The whole picture was bigger
than the Design Guideline Board. Mrs. Marsh then clarified for Councilwoman
Kaywood that it was felt people would be willing to go along with the Design
ideas if they really knew what people wanted or what would be acceptable in
the community and that was the main idea of the project.
Councilman Bay then posed questions to Mrs. Marsh as to how Neighborhood
Councils came to policy decisions. He then expressed his concern that there
was a danger that a few people who liked a certain style of architecture were
trying to impose that style on the whole area. He also assumed that Mrs.
Marsh was saying that a wide majority of the people in the area agreed with
the aesthetic conclusions reached in the study. In the redevelopment project
Area separate from the Neighborhood Council area, the preservation of the five
neighborhood areas had been in the plan for many years. Architectural review
and control presently existed within the Redevelopment Project Alpha Area. He
had no problems with Design Guidelines in talking about the Redevelopment
Project Area but in going outside of that area where there was no subsidy and
a large neighborhood was involved and trying to hold to some continuity of
design. He felt they were worrying about "frills" when there were basic
1185
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
problems in the Central City Neighborhood area and it was out of step with all
the major problems still existing in that area.
Mrs. Marsh stated she agreed that there were a lot of problems, but those who
wanted to work hard and upgrade the area and the people who made the
investment were concerned about doing so now before it was too late. They had
made large investments in time and money. They liked their lifestyle and
liked having older people as neighbors and wanted to do the best they could to
make the neighborhood better and not worse.
Mayor Roth stated everybody on the Council agreed with that statement and the
concerns were shared relative to retaining housing stock in the community and
doing something about redevelopment. It was important to have a mix. He
felt, however, that it was premature today to approve the proposal and to
wonder why they did so in five or six months. He reiterated, he was
interested in getting input from other Boards and Commissions, the Chamber and
Neighborhood Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Priest relative to the time
involved for those members serving on the Design Board; Mr. Priest could not
give a definitive answer but stated one of his concerns was that they may have
devised a process where the Board would be on constant call or risk holding up
the entire process. He would like to develop a process so that the Board
would have the opportunity to review the matter ahead of the actual permit
pulling.
The Mayor then asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Dinah Torgerson, 216 North Claudina, referring to Councilman Bay's question as
to how many people were consulted wanted the Council to be apprised that they
mailed out a survey to approximately 500 or 600 people in the Central City
area and received 200 responses.
Mayor Roth recommended that the Design Guidelines be referred back to staff as
Mr. Priest suggested so that staff could address the areas of concern
expressed by Council Members and then come back to the Council with a further
recommendation.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to refer the Central City Neighborhood Design
Guidelines back to staff to give staff an opportunity to address the areas of
concern expressed by Council Members. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth emphasized he wanted to be sure they were
not moving in a direction of government interference. They should not prevent
people from doing something they wanted to do and he encouraged individuals to
preserve their own properties.
Councilman Bay suggested that the Council should determine if they had agreed
upon objectives and goals and while they were looking at possible changes and
remarks from the Council, he had another suggestion - that the area between
Lemon and Harbor and Cypress and North Street be excluded from the
Neighborhood Council area. He did not believe it fit into the pattern of what
they were talking about.
1186
City H, 11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he would like the staff to consider that and come
back with a recommendation. He agreed with Councilman Bay's concern but
excluding areas he felt would have serious consequences. He was looking for
something positive and if not positive, how they could make it that way.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:14 p.m)
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. VILLAGE INN INVESTORS: Councilman Roth moved to
authorize the City Attorney to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No.
41-27-50, City of Anaheim vs. Village Inn Investors, and North Orange County
Municipal Court Case No. A-68289, City of Anaheim vs. Phelan Hotel Company, by
payment to the City of Anaheim of the sum of 350,000 in settlement of both
cases. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:15 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1187