1983/03/22City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRE SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER: Steven Swaim
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
UTILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES MANAGER: Darrell Ament
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--PLANNING: Joel Fick
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: A Moment of Silence was observed in lieu of the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION: A resolution was unanimously adopted by the City Council
extending to Mayor Wada and the citizens of Mito, Japan, Anaheim's Sister
City, a gift of living trees in appreciation for the gift of friendship they
had afforded the people of Anaheim.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Handicapped Awareness Month in Anaheim, April 1983.
Quiet Day of Reverence in Anaheim, Good Friday, April 1, 1983.
The Day of Reverence proclamation was accepted by O.G. "Tommy" Thomason.
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. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,142,206.47, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
203
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
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. 83R-101 through 83R-106, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims filed against the City were denied and referred
to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Michel Abiad for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to City tree roots plugging pipes at 3130 Olinda
Lane, on or about January 15, 1983.
b. Claim submitted by Mayo Ceballos for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of
Brookhurst Street and Hiawatha Avenue, on or about November 30, 1982.
c. Claim submitted by James S. Rudd for personal property damages to
tires purportedly sustained due to running over spikes as a result of poor
directions given by parking lot personnel at Anaheim Convention Center, on
or about December 28, 1982.
d. Claim submitted by Marc A. Reynolds for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to repair of water pipe in front of claimant's
house at 6572 Via Estrada, on or about January 15, 1983.
e. Claim submitted by Beverly A. Siefkes for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a power failure at 2660 West Sereno Place, on
or about November 30 through December 2, 1982.
f. Claim submitted by Samuel E. Post ("Skip") for personal injuries and
personal property damages purportedly sustained due to an attack on
claimant during the course of his duties at Anaheim Convention Center, on
or about January 15, 1983.
g. Claim submitted by John C. Lindenmeyer for personal property damage to
claimant's car purportedly sustained due to parkway tree falling on it at
1807 West Elm Avenue, on or about November 30, 1982.
h. Claim submitted by VISIM Corporation, doing business as CHIPS, for
loss purportedly sustained as a result of City's failure to pay for
services rendered, on or about November 18, 1982.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No.
83-03-14, Southern California Gas Company, Pacific Lighting Gas Supply
Company, Notice to Customers of filing of Application to increase rates by
$397,285,000 per year and public hearing therefor.
204
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of February 17, 1983.
c. 10'5: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of February 17, 1983.
d. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of February 10, 1983.
eo 105: Senior Citizen Commission--Minutes of February 10, 1983.
f. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of February 16 and
23, 1983.
3° 170.123: Approving the assignment of a special water facilities
reimbursement agreement with Phillip R. Sledge & Co. to Johnson Levine & Co.,
effective January 22, 1982; and reassignment from Johnson Levine & Company to
Arthur P. and Dorothy E. Williams, effective January 22, 1982, relating to
Tract No. 9133 in Anaheim Hills.
4. 170.123: Approving the assignment of a special water facilities
reimbursement agreement with Phillip R. Sledge & Co. to Johnson Levine &
Company effective January 29, 1982; and reassignment from Johnson Levine &
Company, to Incgro & Company, effective January 29, 1982, relating to Tract
Nos. 9134, 9135 and 9136 in Anaheim Hills.
5. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
seven-month period ended January 31, 1983.
6. 158: Authorizing payment of $3,412 to Joe Johnson for relocation of a
sign at 801 South Anaheim Boulevard, as required by the Anaheim Boulevard
Street Widening Project, Account No. 13-792-7101-E2580 (R/W 2800-20).
7. 160/124: Accepting the bid of General Electric Company in the amount of
~32,505.96 for six each single-phase voltage re§ulators, 125 KVA, for the
Convention Center Substation, in accordance with Bid No. 3955.
8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Haaker Equipment Company in the amount of
$17,204.86 for one 13-yard rear loading refuse packer in accordance with Bid
No. 3952.
175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING T~AT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
LEWIS SUBSTATION TROUBLESHOOTER BUILDING, 826 EAST CERRITOS AVENUE, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 50-424-6325-01770-31100. (bids to be opened
April 21, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
2O5
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FAIRMONT
SUBSTATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 55-665-6329-75800-36200.
(Grissom & Johnson, contractor)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN WORK IS OF URGENT NECESSITY AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO RECEIVE INFORMAL BIDS FOR REPAIR OF THE
HARBOR BOULEVARD SEWER, S/O KATELLA AVENUE.
123: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-104: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY COOPERATIVE EQUIPMENT SHARING AGREEMENT
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEmeNT FOR AND
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
123/161: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-105: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT
NO. 19 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. (in the estimated amount of ~50,000 for engineering and
construction of public alley and right-of-way improvements in the alley
between Harbor Boulevard and Helena Street, abutting Development Parcel la)
123/161: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT
NO. 20 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY. (in the estimated amount of ~200,000 for the engineering and
construction of public improvements for the Heritage Square Street Project
located north of Lincoln Avenue, south of Cypress Street, west of Vine and
east of the Santa Fe Railway tracks)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-101 through 83R-106,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123/174: ACCEPTANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY REVENUE SHARING FUNDS TO CONTINUE SENIOR
CITIZEN DAY CARE CENTER SERVICES: City Manager William Talley briefed report
dated February 22, 1983, from Christopher Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation
and Community Services, recommending that the City accept Orange County
Revenue Sharing funds in the amount of $11,700 to continue Senior Day Care
Center services, authorizing as a City match, the transfer of $14,725 in
Council Contingency Funds to Program No. 01-344, and appropriating $1,030 of
client fee revenues into Program No. 01-344, Community Services.
Councilman Bay stated he removed the subject item from the consent calendar
primarily on a trend that he opposed the socializing of City government.
There was no argument about the good of the program, but in the basic
206
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
principal of government trying to take on the needs of the world relative to
social programs. He opposed transferring ~14,725 from Council Contingency
Fund monies into the program. If community service functions such as the
subject program were going to occur, he wanted to see the funding restricted
to Revenue Sharing, Block Grant funds, or Federal funds specifically slated
for those activities.
Steve Swaim, Community Services Manager, then answered questions relative to
the subject program, which were posed by Councilman Overholt.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-107 for adoption, authorizing an
agreement with the County of Orange relating to Revenue Sharing Funds in the
amount of $11,700, to continue Senior Day Care Center services; and on motion
by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, authorized
appropriating the funds into Program No. 01-344, Community Services;
transferring $14,725 from Council Contingency Funds into Program No. 01-344 as
City match; and appropriating ~4,030 of client fee revenue into Program
01-344, Community Services. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RELATING TO REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR THE
SENIOR CITIZEN DAY CARE CENTER, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL~MEMBERS: None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-107 duly passed and
adopted.
123: INCREASED RATES FOR LEGAL SERVICES - LAW FIRM, ROURKE AND WOODRUFF:
Authorizing the Third Amendment to the agreement with Alan R. Watts, effective
April 1, 1983.
Mayor Roth noted in memorandum dated March 9, 1983, from the Public Utilities
General Manager that there was a three/three split vote by the Public
Utilities Board, with one member absent, on th~ G~n~ral Manager's
recommendation that the subject legal fees be increased by $10 an hour for
services performed by partners to ~85 an hour, and associates to ~70 an hour.
He asked the last time an increase occurred.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt explained that the last increase
occurred in April of 1981. The current proposed increase of 13 1/3 percent
represented a 6.66 percent increase over the two-year period.
2O7
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay stated he did not see any reason to support continually
spiraling charges by consultants when there was no real cost of living to
support such requests. There had to be a stop to spiraling costs, and he was
going to vote in opposition.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-108 for adoption, authorizing
the Third Amendment to the agreement with Alan R. Watts for legal services
provided to the City relating to power supply, increasing the compensation
therefor, effective April 1, 1983. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-108: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
WITH ALAN R. WATTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO CITY CONCERNING POWER SUPPLY
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT.
(increasing the compensation therefor, effective April 1, 1983)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-108 duly passed and adopted.
158: ACCEPTING DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
83R-109 for adoption, accepting Deeds of Easement. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-109: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (John M.
Redfield Jr., et al.; La Mancha Development Properties, Ltd.; Thomas B. Lane,
et ux.; Melvin Richard Wogomon; General American Life Insurance Co.; Gwen J.
Hoekstra, et al.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-109 duly passed and adopted.
123: INCREASED EXPENDITURE LIMIT ON R. W. BECK CONTRACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1982/83: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an increased expenditure
limit on a contract with R. W. Beck in the amount of ~109,000 for FY 1982/83
to. accommodate an increase in expenditures due to wholesale rate case
litigations and power supply activities, as recommended in memorandum dated
March 9, 1983, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
208
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
175/106: EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FUND TO HELP PAY FOR UTILITY BILLS:
Establishing an Emergency Assistance Fund to help pay the utility bills of
qualifying needy citizens of Anaheim, continued from the meeting of March 15,
1983--see minutes that date.
Mr. Bill Erickson, Chairman of the ad hoc Lifeline Committee, 301 East North
Street, stated if the Chamber of Commerce wished to speak first, he would
relinquish the floor. Otherwise, the Council had asked Mrs. McConnell to be
present again this week and she would then speak first.
Mrs. Helen McConnell, Emergency Aid Chairman, Assistance League of Anaheim,
explained that the League had been very much involved in emergency aid since
October 1, 1982, and had spent three times their budget. At that time, the
Orange County Community Development Council had spent all of their 1982 budget
for that purpose as well. Southern California Edison and Gas Company funds
did help, but they were for Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The Edison fund
would continue only until March 31, 1983, and the Gas Company fund was
depleted. They did not feel that an all voluntary program was going to be
enough to meet the need. The Assistance League helped only those who lived in
Anaheim and they wanted to see the Council vote a matching fund. They would
also like to see other service organizations in Anaheim such as the Elks,
Kiwanis and Ebell Clubs, as well as churches and businesses, come forward with
funds and have the City match those funds.
In concluding, Mrs. McConnell emphasized that the Assistance League would be
willing to staff an office and administer funds through their center on West
La Palma Avenue.' They also wanted to recommend that the Episcopal Service
Alliance and Lutheran Social Services have some input in establishing criteria
for the fund. She reiterated, she did not feel that an all voluntary fund was
going to be the answer.
The following representatives of the respective organizations then reported on
the services they provided, the need that was evident in the community, in
some instances an explanation of individual cases and problems faced by those
unable to pay their utilities, assistance rendered to Anaheim citizens, and
the need for additional funding. Each presentation was followed by questions
from Council Members: Yvonne Winston, 2522 Diana Drive, Lutheran Social
Services (LSS), Main Office, Garden Grove; Shirley Tripp, 709 South Janss,
Office Coordinator, Episcopal Service Alliance (ESA), office at St. Michael's
Episcopal Church; Mr. Alois Motil, 2929 Green Hedge, St. Anthony Claret
Church, St. Vincent de Paul Society; Julie Bonds, 701 North Clementine, St.
Vincent de Paul Society and FISH; Mike Elias, Director, Christian Temporary
~ousing.
Mrs. Eileen Anthony, member of the Community Services Board, in response to a
statement made by Mr. Elias, reported that the Community Services Board
allocated approximately ~12,000 to Christian Temporary Housing, who was one of
the groups soliciting a portion of Block Grant funds. Subsequently, the
Council approved the request and the City was, in fact, helping people in the
community. Mr. Elias had indicated that their funding efforts were all in
private donations.
209
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Herb Eggett, Vice Chairman of the ad hoc Lifeline Committee, 904 South
Bruce, was carrying with him a great deal of paperwork which he stated was to
give the Council an idea of what the Committee had been faced with for the
last four months. He confirmed that Mrs. Tripp gave a realistic picture of
the problems of the elderly in Anaheim. Further, he felt that they were not
getting anything done on the ad hoc Committee and explained some of the
problems with which they were faced and things they were not able to do. In
concluding his presentation, Mr. Egget submitted his resignation from the ad
hoc Committee effective today.
Mr. Bill Erickson then reported on the activities of the ad hoc Committee, as
well as his proposal, which he stated was defeated by a 4 to 3 vote on
March 16, 1983.
Mr. Walter Smith, Chairman pro tem, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Board of
Directors, stated they recognized the plight of the poor and those
distressed. They looked at giving help out of either public or private monies
and felt that it should be through private efforts. He recalled the serious
situation of the April 1982 fire where in a three-week period they raised
$37,000. More needed to be done in correlating the various groups involved in
providing assistance. The Chamber would be willing to assist to help raise
more funds, and they felt mailers in utility billings would be a way to
disseminate information. As indicated in a letter dated March 17, 1983, from
the President of the Chamber, the Board was opposed to the use of General Fund
money for lifeline subsidies, especially over the precedent that such an
action would set. Everything possible should be done to pursue the matter in
a private way. He confirmed for Councilman Pickler that they would offer to
give publicity to a campaign to raise funds.
Mr. Smith then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the Board did not
discuss the ad hoc Committee's recommendation in the light of funds coming
from the Utility Fund, instead of using General Fund monies.
Discussion then followed between Council and staff wherein questions were
answered by Darrell Amentf Utilities Management Services Manager, Gordon Hoyt,
Public Utilities General Manager, and City Attorney Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins
confirmed as stated in his memorandum of February 15, 1983 (on file in the
City Clerk's office), that Utility Funds were restricted by the City Charter,
and also by the Bond Covenants to a certain degree. He would not recommend
using Utility Funds to give assistance. Using the General Fund might be
permissible if the Council found a public purpose was involved.
Mayor Roth stated he strongly supported a volunteer concept; Councilman Bay
suggested that the City take an active part in the campaign to raise private
voluntary funding by adding to the Chamber's publicity to be included in the
Utility bills describing how and where the voluntary contributions could be
made. In the meantime, they needed someone working on who would handle
disbursement of that money, whether a specific unit such as the United Way or
another agency to handle case studies, etc. The makeup of that program would
be a combined effort with the private sector within the City and the City
working .with the Chamber to assist in any way in voluntary private fund
raising efforts.
210
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler stated he would feel better if the Chamber returned in one
week and indicated that they were able to back the project as they did when
the April 1982 fire occurred. It was going to take more than mailouts, and he
wanted to wait a week to get an answer from the Chamber° He wanted dollars
and cents help from the people who formed the Chamber.
Councilman Pickier moved to continue the matter for one week in order to get
an answer from the Chamber of Commerce. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked Councilman Pickler if he
was asking for a financial commitment from the Chamber to create the revolving
fund; Councilman Pickler answered "no," but a commitment that they would do
their utmost to help.
Councilma~ Overholt stated he did not feel that they had to delay a week to
set up the organization to accept contributions. They also had to address the
question of how the fund was going to be administered. The Assistance League
was the one totally local agency; they had been assisting and offered to
administer the program at no cost.
Mrs. McConnell then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that they had been
assisting people since the inception of the League in 1940, but this was the
first time they had been called upon to such an extent. They had the space
and the volunteers and would not have a problem screening the recipients. She
then explained for Councilman Bay how the screening process worked.
Councilman Pickler stated he still felt they did not have an organization that
was functioning as a group and that was something they could look into if they
postponed action for a week° Perhaps there were also other things that could
be done as a City°
Councilwoman Kaywood withdrew her second to the foregoing motion; Councilman
Bay thereupon seconded the motion.
Councilman Overholt stated he agreed with Councilman Pickler that they needed
another week if for no other reason than to have staff take into consideration
the views expressed by the Council in going with a private program, and at the
end of the week to come back with a recommended framework that would
accomplish the purpose intended.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, clarified as follows: To
continue action on the issue for one week in order to confirm a commitment by
the Chamber of Commerce, that staff submit a report on the items discussed, as
well as to supply information on the volunteer program instituted in Los
Angeles. MOTION CARRIED.
211
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
129: AWARD OF CONTRACT - ALPHA OMEGA CONSTRUCTION - FIRE STATION NO. 8
STORAGE BUILDING: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible
bidder, Alpha Omega Construction Company, in the amount of $57,062 for Fire
Station No. 8 Storage Building, Account No. 24-914-6325--continued from the
meeting of March 15, 1983.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that Mr. Terry Remey and James Hagelis were
present to speak to the issue.
Mr. Terry Remey, 1851 Tympany, Pasadena, reiterated as he did the previous
week that they were requesting the Council not to award the subject contract
to them due to a human error in their bid which resulted in a deficit of
$11,632 and, further, that their bid bond not be forfeited.
Mr. James Hagelis, General Manager, Alpha Omega, 460 South Aroura Parkway,
Pasadena, first gave a background on his company and their workmanship, which
was not new to the City of Anaheim. They were asking the Council not to award
them the subject contract because of the human error made. If they did so, it
would be financially detrimental to their firm. He then explained how the
error occurred and reiterated that he was appealing to the Council to relieve
them of their contract.
City Engineer William Devitt explained for Councilman Bay that as indicated in
his memorandum of March 2, 1983, he recommended that the contract be awarded
to the lowest and most responsible bidder, Alpha Omega Construction in the
amount of $57,062, and in the event they failed to enter into a contract, that
the City take their bid bond and award the contract to the second lowest
bidder, DLT Construction in the amount of $72,000.
Mayor Roth noted it would appear that the $72,000 should be adjusted by
$7,000, considering the amount of the bid bond, which would be forfeited by
Alpha Omega.
City Manager William Talley stated that the bid bond was ten percent of the
bid, or $5,700. They would sign another contract with DLT Construction in the
amount of $72,000 and the job would cost $66,300 if offset by the bond.
Mayor Roth stated the last time they forced a bidder to perform under a
contract under similar circumstances, the City was a loser in the final
analysis. He was concerned about the quality of the work to be performed.
City Engineer Devitt stated he had discussed the matter with the Fire
Department and they indicated to him if they awarded the contract to the
second lowest bidder, that they would provide the additional funds from other
programs. If all bids were rejected and the job readvertised, it was his
opinion it would not be to the City's advantage.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reject the bid of Alpha Omega and
accept the second lowest and most responsible bid of DLT Construction in the
amount of $72,000. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
212
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt questioned the City Engineer
relative to the purpose of the bid bond. At the conclusion of the discussion,
he stated that human error was a cost of doing business, and thus he could not
support the motion.
After further discussion, City Attorney Hopkins stated if they were intending
to relieve the bidder of his bond, there would be no problem; Councilwoman
Kaywood stated that was not her motion. It was to forfeit the bond.
Mr. Hopkins explained if that were done, they should then award the contract
to the low bidder, and if they failed to perform, the bond would automatically
be forfeit.
Councilman Roth stated that the motion had to be restructured. He thereupon
withdrew his second to the foregoing motion; Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion and stated he felt it should also be restated.
Mr. Talley stated if it was the intent to award to the iow bidder, and if they
refused to sign the contract, to take their bid bond and award to the second
bidder and proceed. If that were all included, they could then go forward
without coming back to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with the City Manager and restated her motion as
follows: That the contract be awarded to lowest and best responsible bidder,
Alpha Omega Construction Company, and should they fail to enter into a
contract, that the City take their bid bond and award the contract to the
second lowest bidder, DLT Construction, Inc., in the amount of ~72,000.
Councilman Overholt agreed in his second.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Bay and Roth voted
"no." MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickier offered Resolution No. 83R-110 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-110: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE FIRE STATION NO. 8 STORAGE BUILDING, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-914-6325. (Alpha Omega Construction
Company, ~57,062)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOE$:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler and Overholt
Bay and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-110 duly passed and adopted.
213
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
173: PLAZA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY: Councilman Roth moved to approve the
request of Monica E. Keppel in her letter of March 21, 1983, that the Magic
Carpet Motel, 1016 West Katella Avenue, be added as a stop to their present
jitney service, as recommended by the City Attorney's office in his memorandum
dated March 11, 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
167: PETITION REQUESTING INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC MARKINGS ON LA PALMA
AVENUE: A petition was submitted by Brian Rennie, Benchmark Photography,
requesting installation of traffic markings on La Palma Avenue, east of
Kraemer Avenue.
Mr. Brian Rennie, Benchmark Photography, 3148 East La Palma, explained the
traffic problem which had existed since Rockwell moved into the area.
Everyone in the area was overwhelmingly in support of having "Keep Clear"
pavement legends on La Palma Avenue, just east of Kraemer Avenue, on the
westbound lanes and the center divider, as evidenced by the petition
submitted. It was illegal to line up in the center section of the road, but
everybody from Rockwell did so. Since they were the first driveway, there was
no way to gain access to the road.
Mayor Roth stated that the Traffic Engineer indicated those types of legends
were never used to facilitate left-hand turns.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that the legends could be overused and
misused and he was recommending against the request, as outlined in memorandum
dated March 8, 1983, by the City Engineer, which he briefed (on file in the
City Clerk's office).
Discussion followed between Council and Mr. Singer relative to the problem
brought forth by Mr. Rennie wherein Mr. Singer reported on the long term plans
for the area, including a double on-ramp for westbound traffic to the freeway,
to be constructed by CalTrans. At that time, they could reinstitute the dual
left-turn lane on La Palma Avenue, which would alleviate the existing problems.
Mr. Rennie stated if the Council did not do something to solve the immediate
problem to assist the businesses in the area, then there should be stricter
enforcement of the law to prevent vehicles from illegally lining up in the
center lane.
Mayor Roth agreed and asked that Mr. Singer request that there be stricter
enforcement of traffic violations at that location.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
request by Mr. Brian Rennie for installation of traffic markings on La Palma
Avenue, east of Kraemer Avenue, was denied. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 11347: Developer, M. J. Brock and Sons, Inc.; tract
is located 650 feet west of Romneya Drive between Coronet Avenue and Falmouth
Avenue and contains 85 proposed RM-3000 zoned lots (69 units--16 open lots).
214
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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. 11347, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated March 11, i983, subject to approval of the CC & R's by the City Attorney
and the Engineering Division. MOTION CARRIED.
155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON ANAHEIM HILLS PLANNED COMMUNITY
AREA: A Planning Commission recommendation regarding an environmental impact
report on all the cumulative environmental effects present and future
development will have in the Anaheim Hills Planned Community Area, was
submitted, together with a report from the Planning Department indicating the
motion that was adopted by the Commission at their meeting of March 7, 1983
(see Planning Commission minutes that date), as follows: "That the previous
motion recommending that the City Council require an Environmental Impact
Report on the cumulative impacts of any increased density in the Anaheim Hills
area be rescinded on the basis that information has been submitted that
facilities are adequate at the present time and that additional information
will be provided as requests are made."
Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director--Planning, then explained for
Councilman Pickler what transpired at the Planning Commission meeting
resulting in their rescinding their previous motion recommending that
cumulative master EIR's be submitted prior to approval of any future projects.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the report from the
Planning Division. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TRACT NO. 8418, LOT NO. 78 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS: A request by
Jerry M. Shulman, for approval of specific plans for construction of a
two-story dwelling on Lot No. 78 of Tract No. 8418, to permit a 79-1ot,
RS-HS-10,0OO(SC) zoned subdivision on property located on the north side of
Forest Glen Road, abutting the southern portion of Peralta Hills, was
submitted to the Planning Commission at their meeting February 7, 1983. The
Planning Commission approved the specific plans. Review of the Planning
Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the March 1,
1983, City Council meeting, and the matter set for hearing this date.
Mr. Jerry M. Shulman, Advance Realtors, 4790 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 201,
Irvlne, first referred to eight letters signed by residents who were in favor
of the plans submitted to construct a dwelling on Lot No. 78 of Tract No.
8418. (Mr. Shulman later submitted the letters, which were made a part of the
record.) He pointed out that their request was unanimously approved by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of February 7, 1983. It was approved on
the grounds that the structure was not two stories. They did not determine if
it was single story, two stories, or whatever, because there was no definition
of one and one-half stories. They did have their height limit to under 25
feet, which was the single-story height limitation on the lot. The maximum
height was 22.5 feet. The garage complex was underground and fully
subterranean. The retaining wall was 7 fe~t high and there was no
interference in the privacy of Peralta Hills. There was no opposition from
the Rocky Point Community Association, Presley or from any other organization.
215
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, stated that he fought to preserve
low-density and country ambience in the area and provided considerable input
into the development of Nohl Ranch area. He wanted to protect what they had
worked so hard to achieve. He understood that a letter had been submitted by
Jerry Goodwin, President of the Peralta Hills Estate Improvement Association,
strongly opposing the variance (see letter dated March 17, 1983--on file in
the City Clerk's office, as well as Mr. Krueger's letter of February 1, 1983,
in which he explained the reasons for opposition). Further, he did not
believe Mr. Shulman was correct in saying that the Planning Commission decided
the house proposed to be built was a one-story development. There was never
any question in their minds that it was two stories. The proposed
construction plan violated several conditions of the development plan for
Tract 8418. They were asking that the Council abide by the decision of the
former City Council and maintain the integrity of the development agreement
that was negotiated in good faith by the original developer, Peralta Hills
residents, and the City of Anaheim. He thereupon briefed the terms of that
agreement.
Maureen Salis, 4439 Pepper Creek Way, and Koreka Kazanjia, 4443 Pepper Creek
Way, then spoke to the issue and expressed their opposition on the basis that
they bought their homes or property, knowing that only single-story homes
would be allowed.
Karen Yemans, 4404 East Orange Creek, representing the Board of Directors of
the Rocky Point Community Homeowners Association, stated she was not speaking
for or against. She wanted to clarify that the Association had architectural
control over all custom lots in Tract 8418. Mr. Shulman set forth the plans
that were reviewed by their Architectural Standards Committee, and they were
approved with a variance, that being a 10-foot setback from the curb. The
Homeowners Architectural Standards came from John D. Lusk & Sons, the original
developer. Ail the rules and regulations were met by Shulman's plan according
to the Committee's findings, and it did not appear to be a two-story plan.
They were led to believe the structure would appear to be a one-story home and
not infringe on the view of the people who lived on Pepper Creek.
Mr. M. J. Knitter, Architect, 4242 Campus Drive, explained an unusual lot was
involved containing 6,500 square feet of land with a buildable pad of less
than 4,000 square feet. He agreed that a two-story house should not be built
on the lot. However, there 'were no stairs going up because there 'was nowhere
to go. It was a one-floor house, an~ the garage was subterranean, the ma~n
reason being, it had to be level with the street. It was a one-story
structure, but slightly elevated to accommodate the two-car parking
requirement. They were also under the 25-foot height requirement, the
roofline height from grade being 22 feet, 6 inches. Also, they were not
regrading the site and they were not changing the rear slope, which was a
one-to-one slope. They were only going to add some fill in the back to bring
up the landscaping area and the screen wall in order to accommodate Mr.
Krueger.
216
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay noted in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
February 7, 1983, that Mr. Shulman posed the question, "What is single
story." He went on to state that the Uniform Building Code (UBC) provided
that if the roof was not any higher than 12 feet, it was not considered a
story. Councilman Bay asked if he was referring just to the garage or the
height of the roofline of the house.
Mr. Knitter answered that a one-story building would be a building that had a
roof that did not exceed 12 feet. They were working with an interpretation of
the UBC, the book was written for interpretation, they were working with the
requirements put together by John Lusk, stating not to exceed 25 feet, not to
exceed one story. They had a one-story building with subterranean parking and
were at 22 feet, 6 inches in height. They were not requiring a grading
engineer or changing the slope.
Mr. Shulman asked to show slides to clarify some of the points of his
presentation. He confirmed for Councilman Overholt that Mr. Krueger had not
seen the slides; Councilman Pickier suggested a continuation of one week to
give Mr. Shulman an opportunity to show the slides to Mr. Krueger.
Mr. Shulman asked that the matter be acted upon today. (Mayor Roth asked that
he continue his presentation then.) He then narrated a slide presentation
which showed the lot and the pad, how they planned to orient the house on that
pad, etc.
The Mayor asked Mr. Krueger if the slides and additional explanation
eliminated his fear; Mr. Krueger answered "no." They were looking to the
future and some day there was going to be another lot in front of Mr. Shulman
and his (Shulman's) lot would be looking down on it. There was a compromise
in the Lusk agreement that allowed a few one and one-half story homes, but
after those, the homes were to be all one story. The other problem and
unresolved issue was the matter of adding additional fill to the lot, thereby
changing the existing grading approved for the tract, as he previously
broached when reviewing the terms of the development agreement.
Councilman Bay asked if it was staff's opinion that the dwelling unit met the
development agreement signed many years ago.
Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, stated the agreement
provided for one story~ and one story meant everything was on the same level.
Councilman Bay asked then if in her opinion the dwelling did not meet the
intent of that development agreement; Miss Santalahti stated the one exception
would be if the proposal came in and the garage was truly subterranean as
viewed from the street or adjacent property lines, the garage being 50 percent
or more below those grades. If so, she could accept the one-story
interpretation.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was the only one on the Council at the time
and it was clearly designated one story. To her, the proposal for development
did not meet that provision.
217
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reverse the Planning Commission
approval and deny the request for approval of specific plans for construction
of a two-story dwelling on Lot No. 78 of Tract No. 8418 to permit a 79-1ot,
RS-HS-iO,O00(SC) zoned subdivision on property located on the north side of
Forest Glen Road, abutting the southern portion of Peralta Hills. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations, personnel matters, and potential litigation with
action anticipated. The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:05 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Chairman Roth reconvened the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, all Agency Members being present, for the purpose of
conducting a joint public hearing with the City Council. (2:35 p.m.)
161.123: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL -
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND AMIL SHAB: To consider a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement
with Amil Shab for construction of a two-story commercial building of
approximately 6,500 square feet on land located outside the Project Area
boundaries at the southwest corner of Chestnut Street and Harbor Boulevard.
Executive Director of Community Development Norman Priest briefed the
Council/Agency on his report dated March 15, 1983, recommending that the
Agency (1) adopt a resolution finding that the proposed sale of certain
surplus real property is categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopting a Notice of
Exemption, (2) that the Agency adopt a resolution approving the sale of
certain real property and approving the Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) between the Agency and Amil Shab, (3) that the City Council adopt a
resolution finding that the proposed sale of certain surplus real property by
the Agency is categorically exempt from CEQA, finding that the sale of certain
real property is not less than fair market value according to the terms of the
DDA between the Agency and the Developer, and approving the sale of the
property according to the terms of the DDA, and (4) that the Agency approve
the Basic Concept Drawings submitted by the developer. The site was the
Chestnut Street/Harbor Boulevard Parcel located outside of the Project Area
boundaries at the southeast corner of Chestnut Street and Harbor Boulevard,
consisting of approximately 14,736 square feet. It was presently owned in its
entirety by the Redevelopment Agency. According to the DDA, the developer was
going to construct a two-story commercial building of approximately 6,500
square feet on the site.
218
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
After Mr. Priest's presentation, the Mayor/Chairman asked if anyone wished to
speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. James Townsend, 808 North Pine, stated he was in opposition to the
proposed sale on the basis of what he termed common sense economics. It was
buying high and selling low. Also, his opposition to Redevelopment was
well-known.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor/Chairman closed
the public hearing.
Council/Agency Member Bay offered Resolution No. ARA83-15, ARA83-16 and
83R-111 for adoption, as recommended by the Executive Director. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FINDING THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE AGENCY
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION THEREFOR.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN SURPLUS PROPERTY WHICH IS OWNED BY THE
AGENCY AND LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES;
APPROVING THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING
THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-111: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY BY THE
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO AMIL SHAB, SOLE PROPRIETOR, PURSUANT TO A
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, 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;
AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY AND SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL/AGENCY ~[EMBERS:
COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS:
COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor/Chairman declared Resolution Nos. ARA83-15, ARA83-16 and 83R-111
duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Agency Member Bay moved to approve the Basic Concept Drawings
submitted by the developer, as recommended in memorandum dated March 15, 1983,
from the Executive Director. Agency Member Pickier seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
219
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, !0:00 A.M.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Bay moved to adjourn.
Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:47 p.m.)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 82-8A: In accordance with application
filed by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, a public hearing was held on
proposed abandonment of portions of certain alleys, Old Lincoln Avenue,
Claudina Street and Emily Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-76, duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated December 24, 1982, and a recommendation by
the Planning Commission were 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: On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council ratified
the determination of the Planning Director 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. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-112 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 82-8A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-112: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING PORTIONS OF CERTAIN ALLEYS, OLD LINCOLN AVENUE, CLAUDINA
STREET AND EMILY STREET. (82-8A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-112 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC WEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2405: Application by Centralia
gchool D~strlct, (C~ntralia Elementary School), to permit a private vocational
and business college in an existing public school facility on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 3301 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-27, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California
220
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Environmental Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative
declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for elementary school site land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the
Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual
or cumulative adverse environmental impacts due to this project, and further,
granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2405, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, along Lincoln
Avenue including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all
improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving,
drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as
required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file in
the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Lincoln
Avenue shall be installed as required by the Office of Utilities General
Manager, and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the
Office of Utilities General Manager; and/or that security in the form of a
bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the satisfactory installation of the above-mentioned improvements. Said
security shall be posted with the City prior to approval of improvement
plans. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to commencing
the activity authorized by this zoning action.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal
assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896), in an amount as determined by the City
Council, for commercial buildings.
4. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim.
5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No.
1; provided, however that a six (6)-foot high block wall and a twenty
(20)-f00t wide landscaped setback shall be provided along the western half of
the northerly property line for a distance of approximately 710 feet
separating the parking lot and residential uses in the City of Buena Park.
6. That ali proposed vehicular parking areas shall be improved with asphalt
paving, wheel stops, and striping to City specifications and standards.
7. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
221
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
8. That Conditions No.(s) 1 through 7, above-mentioned, shall be completed
prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this conditional use
permit.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Dr. Donald Hecht,
agent, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Jerry Buchanan, 7270 Crescent, Buena Park, President, Centralia School
District Board of Trustees, stated they were the party that had leased the
land to Dr. Hecht for purposes of a computer education school. They were
pleased that the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit, but
there were four items in particular, conditions placed upon them by the
Planning Commission, with which they had problems. At present, they could not
afford to sell the school site and wanted to hold it for at least the time of
the short-term lease (5 years). Three of the four items imposed on them
(Conditions 1, 3 and 4 of Resolution PC83-27) involved fees totalling ~66,124
as follows: Condition 1, Street Improvements, $39,000; Condition 3, Traffic
Signal Assessment Fees, $4,366; Condition 4, Water Assessment Fees, $2,758.
Further, relative to Condition No. 5 requiring a 6-foot high block wall and a
20-foot wide setback along the western half of the northerly property line,
they had made adjustments with the developer for the parking lot and moved it
back to an 80-foot setback, which would eliminate the need for a six-foot
block wall. Also, the neighbors preferred a chain-link fence instead of the
block wall, so that they would have visibility when their children were
playing on the school grounds.
Mr. Buchanan stated they were asking the City Council to look favorably on
waiving Conditions 1, 3 and 4 and not requiring a block wall with regard to
Condition 5 until such time as they entered into a long-term lease or sold the
site.
Dr. Donald Hecht, 1238 East Katella, stated he was president of Southern
California University CRISS Business College and the new technology center
they were planning to install at the Centralia school site. CRISS College had
been located in Anaheim since its founding in 1949. He then elaborated on the
type of school they were proposing to establish at the subject site. The
Planning Commission requested that all the requirements of the resolution be
complied with before occupancy. They wanted to have the opportunity to gain
access to that facility as soon as possible, since they had been paying rent
~ince January.
Planning Director Ronald Thompson stated he had reviewed the various fees with
all departments and the Traffic Engineer, and everyone responded that they
felt the fees could be deferred, not waived, along with the requirement for
the block wall, for a period of five years or if the property developed for
permanent use before that time, paid then.
222
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Ralph Dellinger, 8050 Carnation, Buena Park, Chairman, Community Advisory
Committee, Centralia School District, stated one of his main concerns was to
keep campuses open. Dr. Hecht's operation would be an asset to the City of
Anaheim and the Centralia School District. He endorsed both Dr. Hecht and the
District's request for modification of conditions.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Miss Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, stated that a new plan
had been submitted showing the proposed modified 80-foot setback relative to
parking along the western half of the northerly property line and, therefore,
it would be appropriate that Revision No. 1 be the applicable Exhibit.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for elementary school
site land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental
impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the
petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to
prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-113 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2405, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions, except that Conditions 1, 3 and 4 involving fees totally ~56,124
be deferred for five years, as well as Condition 5 requiring a six-foot block
wall. In the event the property should develop for permanent use before that
time, the assessments would then be due and payable and the block wall
installed. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-113: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2405.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-113 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 3321:
Application by Robin Hill Development Co., for a change in zone from
RS-HS-10,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC), to construct a 72-unit condominium complex on
property located on the north side of Big Sky Lane, southwest of Imperial
Highway, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b)
minimum number of parking spaces, and (c) required site screening.
223
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-34, stated that
EIR No. 218 was prepared in conjunction with Tentative Tract Nos. 10407,
10408, 10409 and 10410, and certified by the Planning Commission on August 28,
1978; however, the Planning Commission found that an update to said EIR would
be required to determine the cumulative effect of the increased density on the
streets, traffic, water, utilities, etc., of the entire area, and further,
denied Reclassification No. 82-83-20. The City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Resolution No. PC82-35, denied Variance No. 3321.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by American National
Group, and a public hearing scheduled this date. The City Clerk noted 10
letters in opposition and one in favor had been received and copies furnished
to each Council Member.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Martha Schnieders, 405 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, representing Robin
Hill Development, stated they were the developers of two separate tracts, the
first being recently completed. Subsequently, they applied for a change in
their product in the second tract to meet the needs and abilities of home
buyers in the Anaheim Hills area. Their request for the necessary change in
zoning was to permit development according to the density allowed in the
existing approved General Plan of five units per gross acre. The application
was heard before the Planning Commission on February 7, 1983, and was one of
the last items on a heavy agenda, and denied. She then briefed the reasons
why they felt the Planning Commission denied their request for
reclassification. (See letter dated February 16, 1983, from Mrs. Schnieders,
appealing the decision of the Planning Commission, minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting of February 7, 1983, where extensive discussion took place
and input received, and letter dated March 1, 1983, from American National,
Edmund F. Schnieders, Jr., President, requesting increased density in Tract
No. 10410 and explaining in detail the objections raised at the Planning
Commission hearing and their answers to those issues--made a part of the
record. )
One of the objections raised at the Planning Commission hearing was the belief
that they, as developers, made promises to the home buyers in the tract
already completed (10407) that the second tract (10410) would be developed
according to the original development plan. Mrs. Schnieders stated that at
the time of the hearing, she did not have in her hands the ~n~ormation she
needed to rebut. The homeowners cited certain sales ads containing a site
plan stating that it constituted promises by the developer that the new tract
would be developed for single-family homes. What was not stated was the fact
that as soon as they had given serious consideration to a new proposal last
July, they announced that at the sales office and ever since that time, the
site plans handed out were marked in such a way as to point out that future
phases might have a different product. They had advised every serious
candidate for purchase that they were looking at a different product and asked
each to sign a statement that they were so informed. With regard to
224
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
original buyers, they offered to buy back their homes for the full purchase
price plus extras if buyers had regrets after having purchased their homes and
were concerned relative to the proposed change for the second phase. She then
read the sales contract that both buyer and seller signed, at the conclusion
of which she stated there was no binding promise, yet they moved to protect
the home buyers by their re-buying agreement (see example of one such offer
attached to the March 1, 1983 letter from American National/Mr. Edmund
Schnieders).
Mrs. Schnieders then narrated a slide presentation, the major points of which
revolved around the following: The economic changes that had taken place in
the last few years; their homes, originally planned for those in the $40,000
to $50,000 a year income bracket could now only be bought by those making
~70,000 a year, or two percent.of the population, and thus their request for a
change in product; that even though not required, they provided Focus
Environmental Review for Revised Tract No. 11924 (formerly 10410), made a part
of the record, which covered density, sewerage, traffic, grading and view, all
the study showed that the requested increase from 38 detached dwelling units
to 72 attached units would have virtually no impact upon the aforementioned
factors. Theirs was a unique tract located on a shelf of land separated from
its neighbors. Their new product would fit in well with the beautiful product
already built, as evidenced by the slides, one of which showed a rendering of
the new product compared with an existing Robin Hill home. Their product met
the master plan criteria, it had been studied by the professional Planning
Department, and passed on to the Planning Commission without negative
comment. It also met all the requirements of the environment, ecology, and
aesthetics, and it made economic sense. She urged approval of the proposal.
Relative to the requested variances, only two would now be required and not
three, since the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces was withdrawn at
the Planning Commission meeting. Because of the tremendous vertical
differences, they were asking to be relieved of the setback requirement of 150
feet between zones and, further, because of that vertical separation, they
were also requesting that they be relieved of the requirement for a block wall
to surround the project.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in support, the Mayor asked
to hear from those in opposition.
Mr. J. T. Warring, 5673 Stetson Court, a director of the Canyon Polnte
Homeowners Association, stated that a large number of homeowners were present
from both Robin Hill and Canyon Pointe and asked that they raise their hands
(approximately 20 people were present). Their major concern was what they
considered to be a bad precedent for the Council or Planning Commission to set
in permitting a change in a plat plan that was approved in 1978 or thereafter,
upon which all of the homeowners acted in their decision to buy or not to buy
their present homes. That was the focus of their concern, since it would
involve a very major change in the ambience, general appearance and feel of
their neighborhood. If the Council were to permit the kind of a change
proposed at this time, it would set a bad precedent for the City itself
225
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
whereby other developers would seek to make changes to realize short-term
expediencies and in so doing, to the detriment of those people who already
made a substantial investment in the homes in those areas. Ail the homeowners
in the area relied upon the published and approved plans and they were
concerned that those plans might be changed. Mr. Warring also spoke to other
areas of concern relating to the density of the project, which would result in
increased traffic, air pollution, and the alteration of the views from below
should the change be permitted.
After Mr. Warring's presentation, the Mayor posed questions to him to clarify
some of the statements made. He also asked Traffic Engineer Paul Singer to
answer some of the concerns expressed relative to the traffic capacity of the
streets in the area.
The following people spoke in opposition: Mrs. Veronica Norris, 5500 East Big
Sky Lane. They relied on not only implicit representations made by the
developer, but also on expressed representations made by their agents and
which continued to be made past the signing of the contract. They felt that
doubling the population on the second phase would increase the density impact
and be detrimental to their interests. (Also, see letter dated March 16,
1983, made a part of the record, signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Norris,
elaborating upon their concerns.) After outlining additional concerns, Mrs.
Norris also broached the fact that they had been having a dispute over the
exterior of their house, which was deteriorating due to the rains, because of
major structural problems. They had been waiting over two months, and those
problems had not been resolved.
Mr. Ernest Chert, 5459 East Big Sky Lane. The Planning Commission had made a
factual finding, that being that Robin Hill Development acting either on its
own behalf or through its agents, promised purchasers of homes in Tract 1 that
Tract 2 would be developed in accordance with the original plan. Acting on
that premise, they proceeded to close escrow. (Also, see letter dated
March 15, 1983, from Mr. Chen and his wife, outlining their
concerns--previously made a part of the record.)
The following people also spoke in opposition, elaborating on concerns
previously expressed, specifically emphasizing what they considered a breach
of promise by the developer changing from single-family homes to attached
units, thereby increasing the density~ opposition to the requested variances,
noise level increase, and specific complaints in individual cases of harm to
their view, and additional complaints regarding structural problems: Marita
Pribble, 5631 Stetson Court; Ron Jensen, 2752 Harrison Street, Riverside (a
potential buyer presently in escrow); A1 Vokoester, 5560 East Big Sky Lane;
Barry Norris, 5500 East Big Sky Lane; ?hillip McFadin, 5520 East Big Sky Lane;
and Wallace Sarti, 5527 Stetson Court.
At the conclusion of public input, Mayor Roth gave Mrs. Schnieders an
opportunity to rebut.
226
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mrs. Schnieders reiterated that at the Planning Commission meeting, they
withdrew their request for a parking variance. Further, Canyon Pointe was
originally designed to be a 38 single-family subdivision and at one point,
eight lots were split off and that became Tract No. 10408. Canyon Pointe was
built on 11.3 acres with a density of five units per acre, exactly the density
allowed under the Master Plan. The Traffic Engineer had answered the concerns
relative to traffic; there was no structural difference in the proposed units
that would be noticeable, the swimming pool and other amenities had not yet
been drawn into the plans, since at this time they did not know what they were
going to add. She then spoke to individual concerns expressed by several of
the residents, specifically relative to their offer to buy the homes in the
first tract of those who might want to sell~ She also explained the masonite
siding problem they had experienced which was causing the structural problems
explained by some of the homeowners. That product was not performing well,
they were making every effort to correct the situation, and would continue to
do so. There were also problems with concrete work and they had replaced
three garage floors because of cracking.
After Mrs. Schnieders' summation, questions were asked of staff by Council
Members relative to height of the structures proposed. Questions were also
posed to Mrs. Schnieders for clarification with regard to offers made to
original buyers to buy back their homes, who signed the Buyer Acknowledgment
form which indicated that in the final phases of the development, Robin Hill
may/will elect to construct single-family attached homes in lieu of
single-family detached homes. During questioning, Mr. Chen gave additional
input at the request of Councilwoman Kaywood relative to his personal
experience in the matter. A Mrs. Nowrozzi, 5471 Big Sky Lane, and Mr.
Fredrick Miller, 5691 Stetson Court, also gave additional input.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler stated he felt the EIR sustained what the developer wanted
to do in the area. The development would not affect traffic, air pollution,
etc. They had to look at the economy and what was happening today. They
needed places for people who wanted to live in Anaheim. If they wanted to
keep the units to one story, the same should have been done in other tracts
built prior to this development.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Anaheim Hills was a Planned Community and
that being the case, things should not be changed. If they were, then
short-term changes in the market would result in permanent changes in the
area. A prestige area was involved, and it was not a separate city but a part
of Anaheim. She was also very concerned that there were misstatements and
misrepresentations made by the developer and even today, the sales office was
showing single-family models only. Further, Environmental Impact Report No.
218 certified on August 28, 1978, was approved for 38 RS-HS-10,000
single-family units.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution Nos. 83R-114 and 83R-115 for
adoption, denying Reclassification No. 82-83-20 and Variance No. 3321,
upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution
Book.
227
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-114: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD NOT BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN
ZONES SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED. (82-83-20)
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-115: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3321.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated the problem was fear of the
unknown. Economic trends caused product changes and the product had to sell.
To him, the density was not that different. He maintained that the fears of
the residents were an unknown factor and he was, therefore, going to oppose
the two resolutions.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt and Bay
Pickler and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-114 and 83R-115 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:03 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2373 (READVERTISED): Application
by Iberham Ali Ara, to permit the addition of a convenience market to an
existing gasoline service station on CL zoned property located at 1725 South
Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-26, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2373. An EIR Negative Declaration was previously
approved by the Planning Commission on October 4, 1982, and by the City
Council on November 2, 1982, in conjunction with the subject conditional use
permit when it was previously considered and denied.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by A1 Serrato, agent for
the applicant, and a public hearing scheduled this date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that three letters in opposition to the
readvertised CUP had been received and copies furnished to each Council Member.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
228
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. A1 Serrato, 2901 South Rene Drive, Santa Aha, first gave an historical
overview of the situation since their application was originally denied by the
Planning Commission on October 4, 1982, and subsequently denied by the City
Council on November 2, 1982 (see minutes that date, and also minutes dated
December 28, 1982, when a request for rehearing was denied). They went back
through the Planning Commission on February 7, 1983 (see Planning Commission
minutes that date), where they presented alternatives to the traffic
circulation and access to and from the property. Their petition was again
denied which, in their opinion, was on philosophical grounds, since the
Commission generally rejected most applications for a dual use. Secondly, an
objection to the dual use was made by MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) who
felt that drinking and driving would be a problem if the application was
approved. They did not believe that was a reason to deny their application,
since many such occasions presented themselves, i.e., a trip to the grocery
store where alcohol could be purchased and subsequently consumed while driving.
In concluding, Mr. Serrato stated that the recommendations as proposed were
workable as they related to traffic circulation, that the conditional use
permit merited ail requirements for approval, it was not the intent of the
applicant to create a liquor store, but to expand his retail activity. They
believed the project would be a major improvement to the area and requested
approval. Mr. Serrato then showed a rendering of the project as it would look
after the proposed improvements. He submitted pictures showing the existing
building on the subject property, along with pictures showing what the new
proposed station would look like if their application were approved (made a
part of the record). They now had signatures of over 2300 people who signed
their petition in support of the proposed mini-market/gasoline station,
including the various businesses in the general area.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many of the signatures were those located
within 300 feet, and how the signatures were gathered; Mr. Serrato stated that
he had not looked at each signature, but assumed that there were a substantial
amount within 300 feet. The signatures were gathered in the service station
and he believed that at least 70 percent were from Anaheim.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak, either in favor
or in opposition:
Melba Garvin, 650 Tamarack, Brea, representing Southern California College of
Medical and Dental Careers, 1717 South Brookhurst, the facility next door to
the existing gas station, stated they had several concerns relative to the
issuance of the requested permit. Mr. Barrett, owner of the property on which
the school was located, was not able to be present today, but was in
opposition. Their major concern related to a policy that the school
maintained that no student may have alcoholic beverages or be under the
influence of alcohol. With the convenience market, it would be difficult for
them to monitor what the students were buying during their breaks, and many of
them were under age. There were also concerns relative to the traffic problem
that might arise. The school presently shared the existing entrance with the
229
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
gas station and additional traffic through the lot would create a problem. To
the right was another entrance leading to the school, and if traffic backed
up, cars would use their entrance. The majority of the students were female,
and many attended night-time classes during which the market would be open.
Their concern was for the safety of the students, which might be threatened by
undesirable loiterers.
Mr. Lester Elbert, Montecedo Road, Los Alamitos, representing MADD, stated
that others from the organization were present but had to leave. He first
explained that none of the opposition saw the petitions in support. He would
venture to say that not even ten percent of the people were within 300 feet
and that 50 percent of those who signed it did not even live in Anaheim. He
then reported on neighboring cities who had denied conditional use permits for
mini-mart/gasoline stations. The City of Westminster had a six-month
moratorium on applications for the combined sale of gasoline and alcohol in
order to prepare an ordinance to prevent the sale on the same premises. He
maintained that every gas station would use the same argument and there would
be one or two liquor stores on every corner where there were gas stations.
Mr. Hany Amaral, H & C Market, 1701 South Brookhurst, asked if the Council
approved the dual use, would he be able to have a license to sell gasoline at
his business. His business, which he had owned for three months, was located
in the center just north of the school, close to the railroad crossing on
Crestwood Lane on the west side of Brookhurst.
Mayor Roth stated, with regard to Mr. Amaral's question, that was not the
issue today. He felt that he (Amaral) did not want the competition the
mini-mart would bring.
Ms. Garvin then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that Mr. Barrett was the
owner of Mr. Amaral's property as well, which was located on the same site as
the school in a group of five stores. That market sold all of the things the
applicant wanted to sell.
The Mayor asked if the school had made any attempt to eliminate the sale of
alcohol at that market; Ms. Garvin stated that she was not aware that they
sold beer and wine. He did not sell gas and was not creating a traffic
problem.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mr. Serrato
an opportunity to make his summation.
Mr. Serrato then answered the concerns expressed. He explained that their
major concern was one of restraint of trade. The landlord of the school and
the landlord of the shopping center, which included the liquor store (H & C
Market), were one and the same. He was protecting his interests in trying to
restrain competition from another source of retail activity. Before
concluding, he stated that the manager of the station wanted to make a few
comments.
230
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Ahmed Radwan, manager of Gas-N-Go Gas Station, then countered the concerns
expressed by the school relative to traffic. He further explained for
Councilman 0verholt that at present they were closing at i0:00 p.m., but were
thinking of closing at 8:00 p.m. because of the low traffic volume at night.
They were not selling gas and were hurting closing at 10:00 p.m. They were
trying to improve the land.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would consider having a market without the
sale of beer and wine; Mr. Radwan answered they might consider it, but would
prefer to sell beer and wine. It was to be only five percent of their store.
He drove to the people around the location himself and told them exactly what
they were going to do. Their proposal would increase traffic and business.
Mr. Serrato stated that he had spoken to the landlord and he had agreed if, in
Council's discretion it would be more appropriata not to have an ABC license,
they would withdraw their application.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Roth clarified that the applicant was now stipulating they would not
have beer and wine if the majority of the Council were not favorable. He
recalled that previously the CUP was denied on a 3 to 2 vote. He was still
supportive and felt that the applicant had shown good faith in cleaning out a
very undesirable station. He maintained that the new proposal would be an
added attraction for the area.
Councilman Pickler stated the last time he voted against the application.
Relative to undesirables, such a situation could be encountered anywhere.
With regard to the site, which he had visited, he believed it was large enough
for the dual use, that parking would be adequate, and the improvements
proposed to be made would be an enhancement to the area. He did not believe
the use would adversely affect traffic.
Councilwoman Kaywood, in reviewing the petition submitted, read off cities
where many of the signators were from. She felt that most of those people
could care less what was going to be occurring on that property. The
application was denied twice by the Planning Commission and once by the
Council for very good reasons. She was concerned with the dual use. If they
allowed the dual use on the property, she felt they would have difficulty
turning down gas pumps for the existing market. There was no hardship
involved with regard to the land, and the present use would never have been
approved if it had been requested today. The gas station was not on a corner
and the property was undersized even for a service station. She was pleased
to note that the beer and wine was to be eliminated.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit No.
2373, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission.
231
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated that the size of the
property had not meant anything in the past, as evidenced by previous
approvals for dual use on sites not as large as the subject site. They were
also taking care of the traffic circulation on the property and had been
working with staff. They had now answered his concerns.
Councilman Overholt stated he'was going to vote against the proposed
resolution, but first spoke to the concerns expressed by the Southern
California College. In concluding, he stated he felt there was as much a
problem with the other store on the property, since they sold beer and wine.
Thus, it would be unfair to restrict the ability of the applicant to increase
his revenue by restricting him to goods other than beer and wine.
Councilman Bay asked whether the resolution to deny was taking into
consideration the stipulation not to sell beer and wine; Mayor Roth stated the
resolution was to deny the application for a conditional use permit in its
entirety.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing proposed resolution and failed to carry
by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood
Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
Councilman Pickler thereupon offered Resolution No. 83R-116 for adoption,
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2373, reversing the findings of the City
Planning Commission, subject to the Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations as follows:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting
purposes along Brookhurst Street.
2. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the
issuance o£ a building permit.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for street lighting along
Brookhurst Street.
4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal
assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896), in an amount as determined by the City
Council, for commercial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. That a separate attendant shall be on duty at all times for the dispensing
of gasoline per recommendation of the Fire Chief.
232
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2 (Revision No. 1).
7. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior
to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year
from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the City
Council may grant.
8. That Condition No. 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
9. That the design and improvement of the existing and proposed driveways
shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-116: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2373 (READVERTISED).
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the resolution of
approval included the stipulation that there would be no beer and wine;
Councilman Pickier answered "no," that it included beer and wine.
Councilman Bay stated he would be glad to support the resolution if Councilman
Pickler added the stipulation of no beer and wine.
Councilman Pickler stated he felt as Councilman Overholt, that beer and wine
could be obtained almost anywhere.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ME~fBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Picker, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-116 duly passed and adopted.
142/149: ORDINANCE NOS 4402 THROUGH 4404: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance
Nos. 4402 through 4404, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4402: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SUBSECTIONS
.220, .470 AND .1090, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS .250, .600 AND .1040 AND ADDING NEW
SUBSECTION .2080 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC. (no parking at any time on
certain portions of Cerritos Avenue, Jefferson Street, Miraloma Avenue and
Orange Avenue)
233
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4403: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION
.020 TO SECTION 14.32.189 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. (no stopping at any time on Wagner
Avenue, on the north side from Ambridge Street to Cedarwood Lane; and on the
south side from the east property line to the west property line of Katella
High School)
ORDINANCE NO. 4404: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-17, CO, southeast
corner of Cypress Street and Harbor Boulevard)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4402 through 4404, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
142/185: ORDINANCE NO. 4405: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4405 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4405: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(i) APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
SAVI RANCH ASSOCIATES, (ii) FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SAID DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND
(iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AN ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY. (83-02)
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was going to vote against
the ordinance. The Development Agreement was tied to the General Plan and at
the time the General Plan was offered, general commercial was laid in on that
plan on a larger area than he agreed to and that was why he voted against the
General Plan Amendment. If they went back to a basic agreement, they were
still going to go back to the General Plan and eventually there could be
changes in years to come that could allow all that area to be general
commercial based on the General Plan.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4405 duly passed and adopted.
234
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4406 THROUGH 4408: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos.
4406 through 4408, both inclusive, for first reading.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4406: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SECTIONS 4.18.015 AND 4.18.060 OF CHAPTER 4.18 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AMUSEMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT PREMISES--RESTAURANTS.
(required attire for entertainers and persons serving food or beverages)
ORDINANCE NO. 4407: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(30), ML, southeast
corner of Orangethorpe and Tustin Avenues, Tustin-Atwood Annexation)
ORDINANCE NO. 4408: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-20(2), RS-A-43,000,
south of Ball Road between the 57 Freeway and Santa Ana River, Ball-Freew~y
No. 3 Annexation, northern portion)
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4409: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4409 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4409: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
4.29.030 OF CHAPTER 4.29 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
BUSINESS REGULATION. (massage establishments, eliminating the provision that
persons working under the supervision or written orders of a chiropractor or
osteopath are exempt from licensing and permit requirements)
182: CLEAN-UP EFFORTS - PATRICK HENRY AREA: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to
a letter from Anaheim Disposal and the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council and
was pleased to note that the area was picking up and the people were becoming
more excited about cleaning up the neighborhood. Bill Taormina, Anaheim
Disposal, offered to provide one large roll-off container (dumpster) each
month for the next 12 months to be utilized in the area at no charge. Sheri
Pignone, Chairman of the Housing Task Force, would be working to have the
apartment areas institute a clean-up campaign every month. They were also
starting the idea of establishing a bank of different tools to help clean up
the neighborhood. She had a tremendous response from resident landlords and
she noticed relative to the door-to-door inspection program, there was only
one letter received from a landlord who did not want anyone inspecting his
premises, an absentee landlord.
119: CROP WALK: Councilman Pickler referred to the letter received from Jane
Oseid announcing the second annual Tri-Cities CROP Walk to take place in
Anaheim on Sunday, April 24, 1983. The letter was urging support of the walk,
CROP being the Community Hunger Appeal of the Church World Service through
which the money raised was to be used to help alleviate hunger around the
world. Twenty-five percent of the income from the walk would be used to
support programs in the Anaheim community. Councilman Pickler submitted a
letter to each Council Member.
235
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
p.m.)
(7:12
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (10:20 p.m.)
153: MATTER OF GEORGE P. TIELSCH: Councilman Roth moved to approve the
action taken by the City Manager in the matter of George P. Tielsch.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: REASSIGNMENT OF GEORGE P. TIELSCH: Councilman Roth moved to approve the
action taken by the City Manager in connection with the reassignment of George
P. Tielsch. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT:
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-117 for adoption, establishing
rates of compensation for classes designated as Executive Management, creating
the classification of Executive Director of Administrative Services and
abolishing the classification of Deputy City Manager - Public Works. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-117: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-588 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT. (effective
March 25, 1983)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-117 duly passed and adopted.
153: MONTHLY AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES: Councilman Roth moved to approve a monthly automobile allowance in
the amount of ~250 (~115.38 bi-weekly) for the new Executive Director of
Administrative Services, effective March 25, 1983. Councilman 0verholt
seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:22 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
236