1995/11/14C?TY OF ANAHE'rM~ CAL?FORN'rA COUNC~'L M'rNUTES
NOVEMBER :1.4~ 1995
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY= Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SRVCS/GOLF: Chris Jarvi
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 2:40 p.m. on November 9, 1995 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance to the workshop
noting that many members of the City's Community Services Board were present.
(3:17) p.m.
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the time scheduled for the workshop on
Human Services priorities to be presented by the Community Services Board
(CSB). It was his pleasure to introduce the Board Chairman, Ramon Daniel.
150= HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITIES: Ramon Daniel, Chairman, Community Services
Board. Through a slide presentation, Mr. Daniel gave an historic overview of
the Community Services Board, their charge, and the major constituencies that
are served by the Board. In concluding, he introduced three of the longest
serving members of the Community Services Board -- Vivian Englebrecht, Jackie
Terrel and Flo Tarlton, Mrs. Engelbrecht having served since 1976.
The following presentations were also made by the respective members of the
Board= Roles and Responsibilities of the Board, Mary Hibbard; Current Human
Services Priorities for Anaheim, June Lowry and Bryan Crow; Resources &
Strategies for Meeting Human Services Needs, James Vanderbilt, and Discussion
of Priorities, Ramon Daniel. (See Workshop Agenda attached to which was an
outline covering all of the foregoing subjects listing the main points of each
presentation, i.e., five main responsibilities, six current priorities, and
three resources and strategies, each with subheadings.)
1
CITY OF AN]tHEIMv CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14v 1995
At the conclusion of the presentations, Chairman Daniel invited questions from
the Council. He noted that the Board will be recommending the allocation of
$750,000 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in December, and
$130,000 from the General Fund in May of 1996. The Board is interested in
knowing if their priorities are consistent with City Council direction.
Discussion and questioning followed by Council Members relative to funding,
priorities, strategies, etc. During the conversation, City Manager Ruth
reported that staff is prepared to give a report to the Council relative to
the General Fund monies requested by the CSB in approximately one or two
weeks. There was also an explanation of the public service cap funds amounting
to approximately $750,000 to help the non-profits. Mrs. Lowry explained that
the majority of those funds do not go to the non-profits (in Anaheim) but to
City services such as the Bookmobile, gang enforcement team, code enforcement
team, neighborhood services, etc. These are not services being provided by
the non-profits but paid for from block grant monies to fund services the City
feels they need to be providing. She clarified that of the $750,000, none has
to be given to the City or to non-profits, but it is a mixture the Council
decides on based on the recommendations. The public service cap funds are
expended at the Council's discretion. If the City had all the money they
needed to fund code enforcement and other services, then 15% of the total
amount or approximately $750,000, could go to the non-profits.
Council Member Tait. His priority is the partnership idea with the churches
and the non-profits in order to affect as many lives as possible with the
limited amount of resources. He sees it as a partnership with the schools and
churches and the City being more of a facilitator with those partnerships.
In concluding, Mayor Daly asked that the City Manager inform CSB members when
the report is coming to the Council relative to the requested funds which was
deferred during budget hearings.
City Manager Ruth. The City appreciates the great dedication the CSB gives
year in and year out. As the resources become more and more limited, the
decisions become much more difficult. Ail requests have great merit. He
emphasized that City staff is not in competition but provides recognized needs
that the community has identified and which also represents the Council's
priorities. The City has taken some major "hits" in the last several years as
well. He reiterated, he feels the Board has done a tremendous job over the
years. The City will continue to rely on their judgment and recommendations
and to continue to work closely with the CSB.
Mayor Daly and Council Members commended the work of the CSB especially the
role they play in screening and monitoring the myriad of requests that are
received from the community services agencies.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION=
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that
there are no additions to Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS~
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNI~ COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of case: In re: County of Orange, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, Central District Case No. SA 94-22272; and In re: Orange
County Investment Pools, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District No.
SA 94-22273.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION~
Name of case: Anaheim Stadium Associates v. City of Anaheim, Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74; Anaheim Stadium Associates
v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 73-26-65;
Anaheim Stadium Associates v. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 73-70-20.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (ANNUAL REVIEW)
TITLE: City Treasurer
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: IBEW Local 47; Anaheim Fire Association; AMEA
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a)
Name of Case: Delmonico, et al vs. City of Anaheim, et al - Orange
County Superior Court Case 70-80-71 and 16 related cases.
RECESS: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Zemel
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:12 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:26 p.m.).
INVOCATION:
Reverend Bryan Crow, Garden Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Lou Lopez led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION AND DECLARATION - DELEGATION FROM MITOt JAPAN: Recognizing
Anaheim's Sister City Mito, Japan Goodwill Delegation on their visit to
Anaheim.
Mayor Daly acknowledged and welcomed the large contingent in the Chamber
audience from Mito, Japan led by the Honorary Mayor of Anaheim, Mr. Hataya.
The Cities are about to enter a milestone marking in 1996 the 20th anniversary
of the Sister City relationship. Anaheim, led by the Sister City Con~nittee,
3
CITY OF AN~IEIH~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL HINUTES NOVEHBER L4~ L995
will be sending a delegation to Mito in just a few months. He asked to hear
from a representative of the Sister City program.
June Lowry, Sister City Committee. It is her pleasure to present several
people from the delegation who have brought greetings from Mito, the first
being Mr. Hataya who has the honor of being the Honorary Mayor of Anaheim as
designated by the Council several years ago.
Mr. Hataya, through an interpreter sent greetings from Mito to the Mayor and
Council Members noting their mutual bond of friendship over these past 20
years highlighted by the annual visits. They are looking forward to greeting
Anaheim's delegation next year and hope that the relationship between the
cities will develop more fully and expand in the future. He also expressed
greetings from the Mayor of Mito and elaborated further on the friendship and
exchange between the two cities.
Mayor Daly and Council Members then personally greeted the entire delegation.
Token gifts were exchanged as well as a letter from the Mayor of Mito to Mayor
Daly.
Mayor Daly then expressed thanks to the Sister City Committee and the other
Anaheim citizens who volunteer their time to make the program the success that
it is.
119= THE FOLLOWING WERE RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME=
1. DECLARATION recognizing November 26 - December 3, 1995, as
Travellers with Disabilities Awareness Week.
2. DECLARATION recognizing November 26 - December 2, 1995, as
International Children's Wish Week.
3. DECLARATION recognizing the Discovery Science Center for Building
a Math and Science Education Center.
4. DECLARATION recognizing Takakuni Oki for his dedication to Oki
Gakuen High School, Fukuoka, Japan.
5. DECLARATION recognizing November 26 - December 2, 1995, as Home
Care Week in Anaheim.
6. DECLARATION recognizing Reverend Bryan Crow for 40 years in the
Ministry.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,913,241.32 for
the period ending November 9, 1995, in accordance with the 1995-96 Budget,
were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5=45 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (6=28 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA=
There were no additions to agenda items.
4
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST=
NO items of public interest were addressed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS=
There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items.
MOTION=
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and
resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of November 14,
1995. Mayor Pro Tem Feldhaus seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MAh'AGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR=
On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Feldhaus, the following
items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar.
Al.
A2.
A3.
A4.
Rejecting and/or denying certain claims filed against the City.
118= The following claims were filed against the City and action
taken as recommended=
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management=
a. Claim submitted by Vincent Forbes for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 13, 1995.
b. Claim submitted by Kristen Dyan Moretta for bodily injury and
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about August 4, 1995.
c. Claim submitted by Steven D. Cooper c/o Janice L. Burnham, Esq.
for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City
on or about October 10, 1994.
105= Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Course Advisory
Commission meetings held August 24, 1995 and September 28, 1995.
123= Approving an Agreement with NBS/Lowry, Inc., in an amount not
to exceed $111,116 for design services for sewer relocation
improvements along the I-5 Freeway, Segment B.
Approving three Agreement Supplements with the State of California,
covering flood damage, emergency repair, and restoration as follows=
123: Program Supplement No. 76 reimburses the City ($38,000) for
emergency repairs at three locations= Harbor Boulevard and Ball
Road, Harbor Boulevard and Vermont Street, and La Palma Avenue and
Chantilly. At the first location the existing traffic signal
controller was destroyed by flood water and required emergency
replacement. At the latter two locations water flowed into the pull
boxes and conduit causing the wiring to short out. This supplement
reimburses the City for costs associated with the repair at these
locations.
123= Program Supplement No. 78 reimburses the City ($50,000) for
flood damage and emergency road openings along Santa Ana Canyon Road
between Lakeview Avenue and Weir Canyon Road. Three separate
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14v 1995
mudslides temporarily closed portions of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
this supplement reimburses the City for costs incurred in clearing
the roadway.
123: Program Supplement No. 79 reimburses the City ($50,100) for
flood damage, emergency repair, and restoration of Royal Oak Road
from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Nohl Ranch Road. Runoff was able to
penetrate the road surface and erode much of the base course causing
uneven settlement of the road. This supplement reimburses the City
for the emergency road repair.
AS.
160~ Waiving the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 306,
and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase Order to
Guaranty Chevrolet, in the amount of $23,404.00 (plus tax) for one
(1) 1996 Chevrolet Blazer for the Police Department.
A6.
160= Accepting the low bid of Park West Golf, Inc., in the amount of
$73,119 for rebuilding the number twelve green and cart path at
Anaheim Hills Golf Course, in accordance with Bid ~5439.
A7.
140~ Accepting the receipt of grant funds in the amount of $23,114
for the Major Urban Resource Library (MURL) grant which will be
administered through the Central Library~ and amend the FY 1995/96
budget by increasing revenues and expenditure appropriations in Fund
217, Program 4273, by $23,114.
AS.
000: Approving a partial fee waiver for the Buttons and Bows Square
Dance Club of Anaheim for a benefit event to be held at Brookhurst
Community Center on Sunday, February 18, 1996.
Ag.
174= Approving the transfer of $32,905 from account number 235-411-
7115, Community Development Block Grant Administration, to account
number 235-213-1113, Neighborhood Services/Citizen Participation to
carry out the Citizen Participation Plan.
Al0.
123= Approving an Agreement with the Anaheim City School District
for a Mobile Recreation Program at two elementary schools~ and
amending the FY 1995/96 budget by increasing revenues and
expenditures in Recreation/Community Services Program 4277 by $4,000.
All.
123: Adding Golf Operations and Recreation to the Current Merchant
Services Agreement (Credit Card Agreement)~ adding future operations
to the current Merchant Services Agreement~ and Entering into a Debit
Card Agreement on behalf of the City of Anaheim.
Council Member Zemel. Adding credit card capabilities to the golf courses is
a good business move and a positive decision. It is a great move in getting
the golf courses up and running as a business and getting that done this year.
A12.
173: Receiving and filing correspondence from Southern California
Edison. Company regarding a Notice of Cancellation of FERC Rate
Schedule No. 246.9 pursuant to Section 35.15 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's Regulation under the Federal Power Act.
A13.
184: Reviewing the need for continuing the Eighth Proclamation of
the Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of
Emergency Services on October 31, 1995, concerning the Santiago
CXTY OF ANAHEXH; C~LXFORNX& COUNCIL ~XNUTE~ NOVEMBER ~4; xgg5
Landslide and Pegasus Landslide in the City of Anaheim~ and taking no
action to terminate the local emergency at this time.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
Chairman Daly reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Meeting (6~30 P.M.)
A14. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT/OWNER PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE z Submitted
was report dated November 14, 1995 from the Community Develolanent Department
recommending that the Agency, by Resolution, approve and authorize the
execution of a Disposition and Development/Owner Participation Agreement by
and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the United States Postal
Service and making certain findings in connection therewith.
Mayor/Chairman Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661W. Palais, Anaheim. He asked if other alternatives had been
explored relative to the funding of this project. If they are dealing with
somebody who does not want to participate, he does not know how they are going
to derive benefits.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor/Chairman Daly closed
the Public Hearing.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She briefed the
information contained in the subject staff report noting that they have been
working with the Post Office for at least six years. It has been a difficult
process since the Post Office has changed its mind from year to year on their
needs in a replacement facility. They have finally decided on a retail
oriented "store of the future" which would be serving the needs of the
business community and the community in general. This solution is one that is
very cost efficient for the Agency. She emphasized that the Agency needed to
acquire the Post Office site for the Broadway street widening which has not
been able to take place because the Post Office property is in the way and for
future plans for development of the site including a new parking structure
and other facilities. The Federal Government is not an entity that they can
force to move since there ks no power of eminent domain involved. It was
necessary to make the offer attractive and to meet their needs. By providing
the building An the new location which involves about 1/3 of an acre, it is
much less land but the Agency has to build the building and provide a
"turnkey" facility. The Post Office does not have the money to do so. They
do not know the final cost of the building, staff is still analyzing the bids
and negotiating with the low bidder for a more reasonable dollar amount.
Bringing the agreement with the Postal Service to fruition is a "minor
miracle" since the Post Office does not have to move.
Discussion and questioning followed by Agency/Council Members relative to the
Redevelopment Commission vote on the proposal which Mrs. Stipkovich stated she
was told was 3-1 in favor. She also confirmed that the Post Office was not
paying anything for the structure but that it was a trade -- they are trading
their property for the subject property and a building. The Agency has to
provide a move-in condition or the Post Office will not go. They cannot be
forced to accept something less than what they would need to move in. The
Post Office has no capital to put anything in the building. The Agency is not
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14v 1995
buying the furniture, but will be putting in the mail boxes and all tenant
improvements.
Mayor/Chairman Daly. If they do not proceed, it will be a lost opportunity.
The City is attempting to bring companies, corporations, law schools and other
users to the property inunediately adjacent to the old existing Post Office.
There is a real need to upgrade the downtown area not to mention eliminating
the obstruction along Broadway which is also somewhat dangerous.
After additional discussion, Council Member Zemel stated he believes in the
plan and that they should step up efforts with Chapman Law College relative to
locating on the property which would be a tremendous asset to the City. He im
in a position to support this proposal based on that vision.
Mayor/Chairman Daly. He looks forward to seeing the final plans for the
project~ Lisa Stipkovich. Those plans will be submitted when staff is ready
to ask the Council to award the bid for the building.
Chairman Daly offered Resolution ARA95-16 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA95-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT/OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. ARAgSR-16 for adoption:
AYES~
NOES~
ABSENT=
AGENCY MEMBERS~
AGENCY MEMBERS~
AGENCY MEMBERS=
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
Chairman Daly declared Resolution No. ARA95R-16 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 95R-188 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-188: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO THE EXECUTION OF A DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT/OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE AHAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE AND MAKE
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-188 for adoDtionz
AYES=
NOES~
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS=
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-188 duly passed and adopted.
Adjournment: The Redevelopment Agency Meeting was adjourned. (6:50 P.M.)
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14v 1995
A15.
105: Appointment to the Community Services Board to fill unexpired
term ending 6/30/97 (Rosales).
Council Member Zemel nominated John Machiaverna; Council Member Feldhaus
stated that was going to be his nominee as well.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to closed nominations. Council Member Tait seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. John Machiaverna was thereupon unanimously appointed to the Community
Services Board to fill the unexpired term ending June 30, 1997.
ITEMS Bi - B8 FROM THE PLANNINO COMMISSION MEETINO OF OCTOBER 30,
1995, - INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS NOVEMBER 21r 19951
B1.
179~ WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2334 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATIONz
OWNER~ CALIFORNIA AUTO DEALERS EXCHANGE INC., 16255 Ventura Blvd.,
$1100, Encino, CA 91436
AGENTs FARANO & KIEVIET, Attn= Thomas G. Kieviet, 2100 S. State
College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806-6118
LOCATIONs 1320 North Tustin Avenue fCalifornia Auto Dealers
~xchanqe). Property is approximately 34 acres located on the east
side of Tustin Avenue and approximately 220 feet north of the
centerline of Miraloma Avenue.
Petitioner requests the amendment of a conditional use permit to
expand an existing automobile auction and reconditioning facility
with waiver of minimum landscaping requirements and permitted
encroachment in to required setback.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 2334 APPROVED (PC95-141) (7 yes votes).
Approved waiver of code requirement APPROVED.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B2.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3455 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITHm CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL~
OWNERs WILLIAH C. & VINCENT C. TAORMINA, Attn= Richard B. Winn,
P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92815-0309
LOCATIONs Property is approximately 0.95 acre located on the north
side of the Riverside (91) Freeway and being located approximately
400 feet west of the centerline of the southerly terminus of White
Star Avenue.
(a) Petitioner requests modification or deletion of a condition of
approval pertaining to the limitation of time to retain a previously
approval expansion of a recycling/resource recovery transfer facility
(for overflow parking of collection transfer operations rolling
stock) with waiver of minimum yard requirements.
9
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNI~ COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14v 1995
(b) Petitioner requests a one-year time extension (retroactive to
September 23, 1995) to comply with conditions of approval for subject
petition.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Denied retroactive extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No.
3455.
Denied request to amend Condition No. 15 of Resolution No. PC94-25.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B3.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3802 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: ELVA M. WEST AND NADINE C. WEST, 5201 E. Crescent Drive,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 1500 East Lincoln Avenue.
To permit a pawnshop within an existing shopping center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3802 GRANTED for three years, to expire 10/30/98 (PC95-143)
(7 yes votes)
Approved N~gative Declaration.
B4.
179~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3800 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION~
OWNER: ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, P.O. Box 3520, Anaheim,
CA 92803-3520
AGENT: AIR TOUCH CELLULAR, Attn: Joe Milone, P.O. BOX 19707.
Irvine, CA 92714
LOCATION: 3325 West Oranae Avenue (Western High School). Property
is approximately 38.84 acres located at the northwest corner of
Orange Avenue and Western Avenue.
To permit a 116 foot high cellular communications tower.
ACTION TAKEN BY TH~ pLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3800 GRANTED (PC95-144) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, answered questions posed by the Mayor and
Council Member Tait relative to the proposed antenna. He clarified tha the
proposal is supported by the School District. It will be the same height but
the whip antenna itself will be 16' above the existing 100' tower. It is
basically a replacement for the tower presently on the property.
Council Member Tait asked if a time limitation was imposed in this case; Joel
Fick. Staff originally recommended in their report to the Planning
Commission, a five-year limit. The Commission upon evaluating the request did
impose some conditions including that the antennas/pole could be lowered and
if technology is such that the antenna is not needed in the future the pole
would be removed in its entirety.
Mayor Daly. He agrees with Council Member Tait that it is a good idea to
think about a time limitation.
Council Member Tait requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
concurred in by Mayor Daly and, therefore, a Public Hearing will be scheduled
at a later date.
10
CITY OF ANAHEIM; CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14v 1995
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
BS.
179; CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3688 - REOUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE DETERMINATZON~
REQUESTED BY: JOHN SCHROEDER, 2440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
CA 92804
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard.
Petitioner requests a substantial conformance determination for
Conditional Use Permit No. 3688 (to permit a private outdoor roller
hockey rink in conjunction with an existing indoor swapmeet
facility).
ACTION TAKEN ~Y THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined that revised plans are in substantial conformance with
previously approved exhibits.
B6.
179~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2992 - INITIATION OF REVOCATION OR
MODIFICATION PROCEEDINGS~
City-Initiated (Code Enforcement) 200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: Property is located at 507 South Lemon Street.
City initiated request to initiate revocation or modification
proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No. 2992 (to permit a tree
service contractor's yard).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Initiated revocation or modification proceedings.
B7.
~79z VARIANCE NO. 4~8~ - REOUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME
TO COMPLy WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
REQUESTED BY~ Blash Momeny, 24015 Catamaran Way, Laguna Niguel, CA
92677
LOCATION: Property is located at 2260 W. Oranqe Avenue. Petitioner
requests a retroactive extension of time for Variance No. 4182
(waivers of required lot frontage, minimum building site area,
minimum building site width and required orientation of single-family
structures to construct 8-single-family residences) to expire on May
18, 1996.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of
approval for Variance 4182 (to expire 5/18/95.)
BB.
179~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3703 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL~
REQUESTED BY: LEWIS R. SCHMID, 1725 South Douglas Road, Anaheim, CA
92806
LOCATION: 2610-20 East Katella Avenue.
Petitioner request8 an extension of time to comply with conditions of
approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3703 (to permit a 22,000
square foot commercial retail center with a 14,000 square foot semi-
enclosed restaurant) to expire on September 7, 1996.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of
approval for CUP NO. 3703 (to expire 5/18/95.)
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
11
CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995
B9.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5532 (ADOPTION) Adding and Amending various
subsections of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to
Zoning (side yards on reversed corner lots in single-family
residential zones. (Introduced at the meeting of November 7, 1995,
Item B10.)
BlO.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5533 (ADOPTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 92-93-01 located at 2001 West
Folsom Street from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the RS-7200 zone.
(Introduced at the meeting of November 7, 1995, Item B16.)
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance Nos. 5532 and 5533 for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 5532: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND
AMENDING VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING (SIDE YARDS ON REVERSED CORNER LOTS IN
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
ORDINANCE NO. 5533: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 92-93-01 LOCATED AT 2001 WEST FOLSOM STREET FROM
THE RS-A-43,000 ZONE TO THE RS-7200 ZONE.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5532 and 5533, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT~
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS~
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5532 and 5533, both inclusive, duly passed
and adopted.
D1.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3788 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: MOHAMMAD JOHAR, 1074 N. Tustin Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT~ SAMIR JOHAR, 1074 N. Tustin Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 1074 North Tustin Avenue. Property is approximately 1.67
acres located on the east side of Tustin Avenue and located
approximately 350 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue.
(Mr. J's).
To permit a public dance hall within an existing restaurant with
cocktail lounge.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3788 DENIED (PC95-112) (6 yes votes, i absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was
submitted by Farano & Kieviet on behalf of the Owner, Mohammad Johar and
Public Hearing scheduled on November 7, 1995. The Public Hearing was
continued from the meeting of November 7, 1995 to this date at the request of
staff, (see minutes that date).
12
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY=
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - October 26, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 25, 1995
Posting of property - October 27, 1995
PLANNING STAFF INPUT=
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 18, 1995
City Attorney White. His office, in conjunction with the Planning Department
and Community Development Department, has submitted a written memorandum to
the City Council. (See memorandum dated 11/13./95 to the City Council from the
City Attorney attached to which was memorandum dated 11/13/95 to the City
Attorney from the Zoning Division Manager and memorandum dated 11/13/95 to the
City Attorney from the Executive Director of Community Development.)
It is the position of his office that the code has been amended since the
application was originally filed. There seems to have been some confusion or
ambiguity as to whether or not this particular use being a public dance hall
was a conditionally permitted use in the zone in which it was located. At the
applicant's request, it was processed as a Conditional Use Permit. It was
indicated at the time the City was going through a zoning process both to
amend the zoning code and to amend and place the property in the new North
East Specific Plan. The Council may recall at the hearing on the Specific
Plan, the applicant through his representative, Mr. Farano, was present and
requested that public dance halls be permitted or be a conditionally permitted
use in the Specific Plan. The Council did not choose to include those as
either permitted or conditionally permitted. Therefore, at this time, because
public dance halls were not included, it is the conclusion of his department
that the CUP process is not available for this particular use at this time.
The Council has received correspondence from Mr. Farano. The recommendation
from staff is that the application be denied and secondly, even if it was a
permitted use and grandfathered in, that public dance halls and specifically
this proposed dance hall would not be in conformity with the newly adopted
North East Specific Plan and surrounding land uses and the goals and
objectives of the Specific Plan. That would be an independent ground for
denial.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Applicant's Statement= Mr. Jeff Farano, Attorney, Farano and Kieviet, 2100 S.
State College Blvd., Anaheim. He has received the City Attorney's response
and disagrees with it. He first explained what the proposal is and then
addressed the points with which he disagrees as outlined in his letter. (See
Mr. Farano's seven-page letter with attachments dated 11/7/95). He clarified
that the proposal is merely to allow a cover charge so they can have patrons
dancing after 8=00 P.M. It excludes the form of entertainment ta~ing place
there now pursuant to an entertainment permit, i.e., dancing by people working
on the premises where they dance at tables for a fee. The applicant's true
intention has always been to provide a restaurant with a dance hall permit.
The only reason he is doing what he is doing is because he could not get a
dance hall permit and it is the only way to keep the place open. By way of
condition, he is willing to restrict any type of dancing for fees or tips.
All they are asking is after 8=00 P.M. to allow a dance hall license to allow
people to pay to dance. It will not adversely affect any adjoining land
owners.
In concluding his extensive presentation, Mr. Farano stated that a lot of
money has been spent on the facility by his client and there have been some
13
C~TY OF ANAHE~H~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL H~NUTES NOVEHBER ~4, L995
problems in reputation as to what he wants to be and what he is. Me has
offered to change what everybody has a problem with and get rid of what the
City does not seem to like. There is no problem with that. He will agree by
conditions and code enforcement restrictions, whatever is necessary. He needs
this to make his business go. It will be good for the area if it is operated
in a way where conditions can be imposed.
Jim Jobar. He owns Mr. J's. He also used to own Mr. J's in E1 Monte. At the
present location, the previous owners had a good restaurant and good
entertainment for the last 20 years. When he opened the business, there was
no problem. They got an entertainment license and public dancing -- all the
licenses needed. They ran into problems when they wanted to have a cover
charge. If there is entertainment without a cover charge, there is no way to
make it go or to have a restaurant by itself. A restaurant without dancing or
entertainment is not successful. He is willing to work with the City if he is
given the chance to at least let them collect a cover charge. They do not
need to have a show like they have now. They have it because it does not cost
a lot of money. The food business by itself costs a lot of money and in his
first three months, he lost over $100,000. He hopes to be treated like
everybody else'-- the Foxfire or Black Angus. He is asking that they be fair
and reasonable and patient. A small businessman like himself needs help to
stay in business.
Sam Johar. He and his father operate Mr. J's. They were told a number of
times they are not located in the proper zone for the cover charge and public
dancing although in reality they were told by other people in the City that it
was legal to operate a public dance hall with a cover charge until recently
when the City passed new codes and ordinances which left them in the dark.
For the last 6-7 months, they have been trying to obtain a public dance hall
permit which they originally obtained but no right to have a cover charge. He
feels they deserve a fair opportunity to try to prove themselves as a public
dance hall in conjunction with a restaurant.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition~ there was no response. Mr. Farano also did not have anything
further to add.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly. He referred to the extensive material submitted both from Mr.
Farano and staff relative to the issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - DENIED~ On motion by
Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council denied the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly stated he was going to offer a resolution of denial.
City Attorney White stated that such a resolution is offered on the basis it
does not meet the criteria for a permit, the use is not properly one for which
a CUP is authorized by the code, it does not meet the other three findings as
stated in the staff report, it will adversely affect adjoining land uses and
14
CITY OF ANAHEIMt CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14t 1995
growth and development in the area and that the CUP would be detrimental to
the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution 95R-189 for adoption denying Conditional Use
Permit No. 3788 incorporating the findings as articulated by the City
Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-189= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3788.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-189 for adoption=
AYES=
NOES=
ABSENT=
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS=
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-189 duly passed and adopted.
D2.
PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 339 AND NEGATIV~
DECLARATION - AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS
SPECIFIC PLAN (SPS?-I}=
OWNER: PRESLEY COMPANIES of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 19 Corporate Plaza,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 2.8 acres located on the northwest corner
of Sunset Ridge Road and Serrano Avenue, having approximate frontages
of 180 feet on the north side of Sunset Ridge Road and 430 feet on
the west side of Serrano Avenue, and further described as Development
Area 8 of The Highlands of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1).
Petitioner requests approval of General Plan Amendment No. 339 to
amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate subject
property from General Commercial land uses to Hillside Medium Density
Residential land uses.
Amendment to the Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) to
amend Exhibit Nos. 5, 14 and 23 to redesignate Development Area 8
from commercial land uses to single-family residential (attached)
land uses and to amend the Development Area 8 Zoning and Development
Standards to permit a 32-unit condominium complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION=
Recommended adoption to of GPA NO. 339 (Exhibit "A") to the City
Council (PC95-105) (6 yes votes, i absent).
Recommended approval to the City Council of the proposed amendment to
The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) (PC95-106).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of September 26, 1995, Item B2.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY=
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - November 2, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 26, 1995
Posting of property - November 3, 1995
15
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14v 1995
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 6, 1995
Mayor Daly. He asked if anyone was present in opposition to the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment; no one was present in
opposition. He then opened the Public Hearing.
Applicant's Statement: Richard Sone, Presley Company. They are requesting
approval of a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment that would redesignate
2.8 acres of property at The Highlands from commercial to single-family
residential detached. It will become part of an existing condominium complex.
He is present to answer any questions.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Daly closed the
Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 95R-190 and 95R-191 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-190 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AH AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 339 (EXHIBIT "A")
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP87-1) AND THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
RELATING THERETO.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 95R-190 and 95R-191, both inclusive, for
adoption~
AYES~
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS;
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 95R-190 and 95R-191, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5534 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5534 (INTRODUCTION) A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC
PLAN (SP87-1).
16
C~TY OF ANAHE~H~ CALiFORNiA COUNCIL H~NUTES NOVEMBER
D3.
PUBLIC ~r~a~ING - VARIANCE NO. 4041 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION~
OWNER: INTERVIROS TRUST AGREEMENT, C/O Jack and Nellie Levine, 320
Pine Avenue, Long Beach, Ca 90802
AGENTs THE HOME DEPOT, Attn: Jim Lyons, The Home Depot, 601 South
Placentia Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92631~ Tamera Schippers Santoni,
C/O Greenberg Farrow Architecture, 17941 Fitch Road, 2nd Floor,
Irvine, CA 92714
LOCATION~ 2300 West Lincoln Avenue {The Home DeDot~. Property is
approximately 9.1 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue
and located approximately 655 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert
Street and further described as 2300 West Lincoln Avenue (The Home
Depot ).
Petitioner requests modification or deletion of a condition of
approval pertaining to the limitation of time to permit outdoor
storage and display of materials.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONs
Approved amendment to conditions of approval for Variance No. 4041
(PC95-119) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Conunission's decision requested by
Council Member Zemel and Mayor Daly at the meeting of October 10, 1995, and
Public Hearing scheduled this date.
pUBLIC NOTICE REOUIREMENTS MET BYs
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - November 2, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 2, 1995
Posting of property - November 3, 1995
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 18, 1995
Council Member Zemel. He first asked if a representative from Home Depot was
present or an agent~ there was no response. Upon determining no one was
present, Council Member Zemel stated that furthers his concern relative to the
matter.
City Clerk Sohl confirmed that notification of the Public Hearing was sent
using the same list used for the Planning Commission hearing. A notice was
specifically sent to Home Depot, attention= Jim Lyons, 601 S. Placentia
Avenue, Fullerton.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff tried to contact Home Depot as well and
left four messages over a period of some days.
Council Member Zemel. He feels this is not uncommon for Home Depot and has
encountered the same in trying to deal with the day laborers that are
attracted to the Home Depot site because of the building materials that are
purchased there. He feels it affects other businesses in the area. He does
.not believe it is wise to remove time limitations on the outdoor storage. He
personally, along with the City Manager and Police Chief, have tried to work
with Home Depot regarding the day laborers but with no success. He supports
the businesses around Home Depot who have complained that customers will not
patronize their businesses because of the situation or ladies who have
frequented the businesses who feel that can no longer do so. He is
recommending that the Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission
in this case and instruct staff to take actions necessary to curb the
activities.
17
C~TY OF AN~E~ CALiFORNiA COUNCIL H~NUTES NOVEI~ER L4~ L995
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. After the last Council meeting, they
left a message for the Manager at the Anaheim store and the Area Security
Manager to contact them regarding the problem. There was no response so they
left the message again a few days later. Staff has worked with Home Depot in
the past with their Security Supervisor, Ken Gustafson. They did work the
problem for a few weeks. He has not sent anything in writing regarding the
day laborers.
Mayor Daly. He knows the City Manager's office is already involved in
discussions with Home Depot in moving the store. If they are encouraging Home
Depot to move and might be involved in a transaction at some point, the City
Manager's Office needs to be communicating with the Council. He agrees with
Council Member Zemel that they need to respond to a legitimate concern and he
is prepared to support reversing the Planning Commission action but would like
to make sure that Home Depot understands from the City Council and City
Manager that there is a concern.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to reverse the Planning Commission action
and not delete the condition of approval pertaining to the time limitation for
outdoor storage and that the City Manager make an all-out effort to deal with
this in a positive manner.
Before action was taken, Mayor Daly stated he would first like to have
something in writing and not act on this land use item until that step is
taken. He would like to give Home Depot three or four weeks and then take the
next step.
Council Member Zemel. No rights will be taken away. The City will merely not
delete the time limitation. He wants to send a message that they are serious.
He repeated his motion. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Daly. He suggested a 30-day continuance and requested that the City
Manager report back to the Council on two issues -- (1) what has the
communication been with Home Depot on the subject of the day laborers, what
steps have been taken and what communication has occurred in writing from the
City Manager to an executive of Home Depot who can solve the problem and, (2)
report back on the status of the negotiations with Home Depot on relocating.
Before concluding, Mayor Daly asked if anyone was present who wished to speak.
Jeff Kirsch. He feels it is a property rights issue and the best way to solve
it would be through direct citizen legal action if there is any violation of
the law.
MOTION. After additional Council discussion on the issue, Mayor Daly moved to
continue the Public Hearing for 30 dayg to December 12, 1995 where the hearing
will be reopened. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. Council Member
Zemel was opposed on principle. MOTION CARRIED.
18
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14v 1995
Cl.
ll4t DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 111 - COUNCIL REORGANIZATION -
DESIGNATION OF MAYOR PRO TEM:
Council Member Feldhaus. He referred to Council Policy No. 111 noting that
this year, according to the policy, there would be a casting of lots since
both Council Member Lopez and Zemel would be eligible to be appointed Mayor
Pro Tem. Fulfilling Mayor Pro Tem obligations is a very important function.
He has enjoyed being Mayor Pro Tem for the past year in support of the Mayor
but it has been a "grueling" one. Just to rotate the position does not make
sense to him if the person who is next in line feels they could not do a
credible job. That is the reason he wanted to discuss the matter. He would
like to suggest a new policy although not necessarily for this time. He does
not know whether the policy should dictate it would be the next highest vote
getter or not. The person should be able to say whether or not he could
fulfill the position at that time.
Council Member Zemel. He offered to nominate Council Member Lopez as Mayor
Pro Tem at this time~ City Attorney White stated it would not be possible to
take action or make a nomination tonight.
Mayor Daly. The question is not on the agenda tonight but Council Member
Zemel is prepared to nominate Council Member Lopez. The reorganization is
scheduled for 11/28/95.
Council Member Feldhaus asked in the meantime for a copy of the minutes of
12/7/82 when the discussion took place when the policy was changed and also
July 8, 1982.
City Attorney White. He believes the 5nly meeting where this type of rotation
was discussed was at the January 7, 1992 Council meeting. Previous meetings
related to other changes in policy but not the rotation.
City Clerk Sohl stated that the first two amendments to the policy indicated
that the Council Members nominated among themselves and then voted on that
member. In 1992, it was changed to a rotation. She will be happy to furnish
the Council with all the history on the issue.
Council Member Feldhaus. He staSed he would like to have the history.
It was determined that the reorganization of the Council would be on the
Council agenda of November 28, 1995.
C2.
155: Discussion from the meeting of October 17, 1995, Item D1,
requested by the Mayor and City Council in connection with the left-
turn pocket Pertaining to the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1).
(Also see minutes of October 17, 1995 and November 7, 1995).
Council Member Zemel. He announced he has a conflict on this issue which he
just discovered yesterday. He voted earlier not knowing he had a conflict.
He is, therefore, abstaining from all discussion and action on this matter at
this time.
Council Member Zemel temporarily left the Council Chamber (8:00 P.M.).
19
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995
Mayor Daly. The Council had asked that the applicant submit additional
paperwork verifying and confirming the Traffic Engineering analysis performed
by the applicant. He asked to hear from staff.
John Lower, Traffic & Transportation Manager. The Sycamore Canyon 1988
Specific Plan established left-turn access locations. This site was limited
to right turns in and out even under the previous designation of commercial
use. Staff has received communication dated November 13, 1995 from Wes
Pringle, Weston Pringle Associates (WPA) Traffic Engineering, Inc. dated
11/13/95 - made & part of the record) which he briefed. He (Lower) has again
talked to County staff and they have indicated no accident history has been
completed on the locations listed. It was a qualitative statement not based
on documented accident histories. He also reiterated the information obtained
from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, guidelines for driveway
location and design. Staff's position remains the same -- not to provide the
left-turn, in-bound improvements requested by the developer.
Jeffrey Parker, 7 Lorenzo, Irvine, Principal, Tradition Housing Group, the
project developer. Tonight they would like to finalize approval of the
proposed left-turn pocket which they believe is essential to the viability of
the project. He then briefed the reasons why they feel it is warranted and
would be beneficial. He is convinced their proposal is not only safe and
appropriate, but also substantially safer than the currently approved access
requiring residents to make a "U" turn at an unsignalized four-way
intersection.
Bob MIckelson, 121 W. Rose, Orange. The Council has heard his presentation in
some detail a few weeks ago (see minutes of October 17, 1995) and Mr. Parker
has covered their concerns. .It is & safe and appropriate access point and is
better than Hhe alternatives. The Planning Commission reviewed the project
unanimously with the left-turn pocket. He then submitted copies of photos
already in the file for Council's further review.
Wes Pringle, WPA, 680 Langford, Fullerton. He works with City staff and
respects them but in this case, he has a difference of opinion with staff. He
referred to his letter dated November 13, 1995 (subject= Sycamore Grove - Left
Turn Access) which was submitted yesterday. He has measured and determined
the sight distance which falls between 55 and 60 MPH taking into consideration
there is a grade and adjusting for the grade. The speed limit is 40 MPH so
the buffer is in excess of 15 MPH. The sight distance as he measured it is
not dependent upon being able to see over any landscaped area. The design has
been used throughout Southern California. He first encountered it in the mid-
1960's. It was found to be a very successful approach. He has talked to
County staff twice. There has not been a detailed study, however, they have
not had a problem and recently recommended one of these turns to a developer.
They feel they are an acceptable method of accommodating access to a project.
They did have a problem with one on Portola -- not left turns in, but left
turns out. The alternative of making "U" turns at Running Springs has, in his
view, reduced sight distance. It is also dependent upon the median landscape
being maintained so as not to create a visibility obstruction. In addition,
since it is a full intersection, there are all the other conflicting movements
that have to be taken into consideration by the driver. At the proposed
location, there is only one conflict and that is with the oncoming traffic.
Mayor Daly. He asked if staff is suggesting the "U" turn alternative or what
is the preferred alternative~ John Lower. The former would be acceptable to
staff. From day one, staff said there would be no left turn into the driveway
20
C~TY OF ~N~IE~ CAL~FORNI~ COUNCIL ~NUTES NOVEMBER L4~ L995
where they proceeded with their design. One other option would have been a
right-turn in only off Canyon Vista.
Wes Pringle. The difference between the "U" turn excluding the sight distance
consideration is the additional conflicting vehicles wherein a [eft-turn in
only has one. It is one of the safest intersection designs as far as he is
concerned because of that. Staff referred to an ITE publication with respect
to these access points. He happened to find a different reference -- a
National Highway Research Program, Report No. 348 which analyzed access
management guidelines published by the Transportation Research Board in 1992
which he briefed.
Discussion and debate followed between Mayor Daly, City staff and Mr. Pringle
relative to the Mayor's concern that the Council is being asked to overrule
City staff and staff is saying that the language thus far submitted relative
to the safety issue is unacceptable.
City Attorney White reiterated as he had in previous meetings in order to
protect the City is for the Council to determine based upon substantial
evidence in the record that the design or plan is a reasonable and safe
design.
Hary Johnson, Public Works Director/City Engineer. He confirmed that at this
point, there is nothing in the record they can see from the applicant that
overrides staff's concern. Mr. Pringle stated he feels the proposal meets the
criteria and on that basis, believes it is safe.
Bob Mickelson. They have felt after all the discussion with Mr. Pringle that
the design is safe. He conceded that is not in the letter, but asked if it
could be added now.
Council Member Tait. He has read Mr. Pringle's letter and he knows that his
(Pringle's) reputation in the community is extremely strong. He is a very
respected traffic engineer. He believes that Mr. Pringle believes this is a
safe design. He (Tait) drives through that intersection every day and it does
not seem to him like a natural place to have a left-turn off Weir Canyon. It
seems that the better choice is off Canyon Vista although he knows the
development will lose two lots.
Bob Mickelson. That issue was discussed at some length. They would lose 2-4
lots which makes it a no-project alternative. The only reasonable alternative
is to leave it as is to continue the left-turn diversion up to Running Springs
or allow the left turn in which they believe is safe. He has asked Mr.
Pringle if he is willing to commit that to writing and he has agreed.
wes Pringle. He would put in writing that he feels the proposed left turn is
a reasonably safe access to this development considering the conditions~ City
Attorney White reiterated the staff's position from a legal standpoint -- that
type of language if couched in terms of the speed traffic will be travelling
rather than what the posted speed limits are, he would feel would solve the
legal issue. Then it becomes a design issue entirely and he would have to
defer to professional traffic management staff.
After further discussion on possible language that would be acceptable to the
City, Council Member Talt stated even with the language, the proposal does not
work for him and he would prefer the alternative off Canyon Vista. Besides
that, the "U" turn down the road is the only alternative. If this is granted,
he feels the next thing they will see is an application for a left-turn pocket
21
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14v 1995
into Ralph's which would be a difficult argument to overcome if this is
granted.
City Attorney White. From staff's legal standpoint, the language necessary is
for Mr. Pringle to indicate, and not even in writing but it could be orally,
in his professional opinion and that of his firm as professional traffic
engineers, that the proposed median break and left-turn access to the tract
will be reasonably safe based upon the speeds at which vehicles are
anticipated to be travelling on that street. They have heard those speeds are
going to be in excess of 60 MPH. If that is Mr. Pringle's opinion, then
legally that satisfies him. It does not satisfy the Traffic Engineer because
he still feels it is not an appropriate design but it takes the liability
aspect out of the equation.
Council Member Lopez. He is not ready to vote unless they have specific
language the Council can understand and be comfortable with. He is not
comfortable at this point.
Council Member Tait. He is ready to move for denial. He would like to see
access off Canyon Vista or at the "U" turn in support of staff's
recommendation. Mayor Daly seconded the motion.
Before any action, Bob Mickelson asked if it would be useful if Mr. Pringle
were to submit that and ask if the Council could go out and look at the site
and meet with Mr. Pringle.
Mayor Daly. He has driven the site and remembers when they approved the
Master Plan for a commercial site. If he (Mickelson) would like a
continuance, he would agree to that.
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue the matter for two weeks.
Mayor Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C3. 114: INS PILOT PROJECT - REPORT ON TRIP TO WASHINGTON, D.C.~ (Also
see minutes of 9/19, 9/26, 10/3 and 11/7/95 where the issue was
previously discussed and actions taken).
Council Member Zemel reported on his trip to Washington, D.C. with Council
Member Tait, Deputy City Manager, Tom Wood and Intergovernmental Relations
Officer, Kristine Thalman on 11/8 and 11/9/95 as outlined in detail in
memorandum dated November 13,1995 from Mrs. Thalman with attachments. The
meetings and results were very positive. As a result, the City is a giant
step closer to putting an INS Agent in the City's jail. They are impressed
with the City's numbers, the research and the simplicity of the issue and the
fact that the City of Anaheim is willing to be responsible and taking a
position of leadership for the country.
Council Member Tait. There was universal support for the idea on Capitol
Hill. Everyone thought it was a good idea. It shows what an asset Anaheim
has in the fact that it is part of five Congressional Districts and that gives
the City clout in Washington. It looks like the proposal is going to happen
and it will be funded.
Mayor Daly stated he feels it was time well spent and will be looking forward
to a further report on the issue.
22
C~TY OF ANAHE~H~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL H~NUTES NOVEHBER L4~ L995
Council Member Zemel commended Kris Thalman, Dave Morgan and Tom Wood for a
job well done. He feels staff has done an excellent job.
C4. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent the City Council Meeting of November
14, 1995 was adjourned to Friday, November 17, 1995 at 8=00 A.M. for a meeting
with Assemblyman Ackerman at City Hall in the 7th Floor Conference Roo~ and
that meeting subsequently be adjourned to Saturday, November 18, 1995 to Room
A8 at the Anaheim Convention Center for a City Council Budget Workshop with
the City Manager and members of staff. (8=55 P.M.)
No Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 1995 due to the
Thanksgiving Holiday.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
23