1992/01/28City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:35 p.m. on January 24, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a), to wit:
Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 40-92-46; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
b. Campbell vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 62-70-24.
c. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
d. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
e. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant ko ~overn~n~ 0~ ~e~ion ~49~6.9 (b) (1).
f. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as
are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City
Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any
of the matters will not be considered in closed session.
By general Consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:00 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. (5:15 p.m. )
41
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
INVOCATION: Pastor Mel Aguilar, Set Free Fellowship, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
,,
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Hunter and
authorized by the City Council:
American Heart month in Anaheim, February, 1992
Mr. Bob Kazarian, President and some board members of the American Heart
Association accepted the proclamation (Bob Sloan, Lew Overholt, Allan Hughes,
Tony Adams, Dean Olsen, Tom Seeberg).
119: DECLARATION OF WELCOME: A Declaration of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented at the Lions Clubs of California and Nevada
Annual Convention to be held February 7, 1992 at the Anaheim Hilton
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION & CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of
Recognition and Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and
presented to Pam Broberg the City's Traffic & Transportation Coordinator who
was recently nominated for Women's Transportation Seminar's National Member of
the Year Award.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members personally congratulated Ms. Broberg in having
been nominated for such a prestigious award.
119: DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council congratulating Ray Maggi on his
retirement from the Apartment House Owners Association.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members personally congratulated Mr. Maggi and
commended him for his long years of service to the Association and especially
to the Anaheim Community.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION AND CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of
Recognition and Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council to
be presented to Reverend Bryan Crow who is celebrating his 30th year as pastor
of the Garden Church, Anaheim.
The declaration also recognizes Reverend Crow's numerous contributions to the
Anaheim Community over this 30-year span.
MINUTES: Council Member Simpson moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held January 7 and January 14, 1992. Council Member Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,720,514.97 for the
period ending January 17, 1992 and $3,678,198.05 for the period ending
January 24, 1992, in accordance with the 1991-92 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5: 29 p.m. )
42
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:34 p.m. )
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Bob Pacho spoke on Agenda Item Bi0 (see discussion under that item).
Mr. Bob Adams, Adams Advertising, Inc., 19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ana, 92705. He
is interested in submitting a competitive proposal under Item C4 on today's
agenda regarding freeway billboard signs and asked the procedure to be
followed. He then submitted informational material (Billboard Lease Proposal).
Mayor Hunter explained that the item is going to be removed from the agenda
since the agent for Regency Outdoor Advertising requested their proposal be
withdrawn. The matter will, therefore, not be discussed or acted upon by the
Council and is being removed from the agenda. It is a moot issue at this time.
Mr. Adams asked how he could then get the item back on the agenda.
City Clerk Sohl stated if Mr. Adams will submit his request in writing it would
be handled as other such requests are handled.
City Attorney Jack White. He explained that the public has a right to submit
information to the Council and request an item be agendized. It is then up to
the Council whether or not the matter will be placed on a Council agenda. It
takes the concurrence of three members to do so. The first step has been
followed by submitting the material which the City Clerk has for distribution
to the Council. At that point, it is strictly at the discretion of the
Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON AGENDA ITEMS:
Michael Brown, representing Orangewood Liquor located at 320 Orangewood (at
Mountain View) Anaheim. He is concerned about the problem of vending trucks in
their neighborhood which he considers a big nuisance. They have been in
business in Anaheim for eight years. The vending trucks are ruining the
Dr0Dert¥ where they sit all day 10n~. Since there are no 9ublic facilities, he
questions where they are going to restrooms. They are creating unlawful
assemblies. He hears that some of the trucks are selling beer, cigarettes and
drugs and perishable items. Code Enforcement is constantly 'on their case"
about not moving. He would like to have the trucks completely out of the
neighborhood or go back to selling produce since they are classified as produce
trucks. The area involved is the vicinity of Pearson, Leatrice and Wakefield.
They started with one truck but now there are up to twenty-four trucks. The
situation is getting out of hand. He has called the Health Department, Code
Enforcement and the Mayor. He (Brown) wants to do something about the
situation but needs some help. He is concerned with the proliferation of so
many vending trucks. He questions if at that point all liquor stores and all
other places of business are going to go out of business in the City.
43
City Hall, Anaheim, California -.COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Pickler. A discussion of vending trucks is coming back to the
Council as a report from Code Enforcement which was requested by the Council a
few weeks ago. He suggested that Mr. Brown come back at that time; Mr. Brown
stated that he would like to get the issue on the agenda since there are people
in the community who want to speak on the matter.
City Clerk Sohl. She has Mr. Brown's address and when the issue comes before
the Council, she will notify him of the date.
Ron Osbrink, Sales Manager, Columbia Par Car (golf carts), 2835 La Mesa Avenue,
Anaheim, 92806. He referred to a letter he had previously submitted to the
Council explaining his concerns. (See letter dated January 27, 1992). He
filed a protest on a bid that took place on January 22, 1992, Bid 5016,
concerning the Golf Cart Lease Maintenance Agreement for Anaheim Hills and Dad
Miller Golf Courses. In reviewing the statement of work in the lease under
letter E, it lists four cycle type engines. His company currently has the
contract at both courses using the two cycle engines which can accommodate the
courses. They want to try to bid a new technology electric engine to be at
least a part of the package but were told if they tried to include it, the bid
would be non-responsive. In the best interest of the City, he feels they have
a product that can help emissions and air quality. They would like to see the
bid reopened. Out of six manufacturers, only two submitted competitive bids.
He asked that they re-examine the matter and give Columbia an opportunity to
show their product and new technology.
Mayor Hunter. He is asking that Greg Smith, General Manager of the Stadium and
Golf Courses contact Mr. Osbrink to discuss the matter.
Richard Ashley, 4506 East La Palma (intersection of Lakeview and La Palma,
southeast corner). He represents the people who own property at the subject
intersection and who strongly object to the planned critical intersection
widening. In reading the material provided by the City, the State intends to
spend over 1/2 million dollars on the expansion not including City
Redevelopment Funds. The funds could better be used somewhere else. The
property owners do not want the critical intersection. Lakeview dead ends into
Anaheim Hills to the south and to the north turns into a two-lane road about
one mile south of Orangethorpe. They do not understand why the engineers or
the City are so bent on making this a critical intersection. They do not feel
it is safe for them. They would like some way to address their feelings on the
matter. They have talked to the engineers in the past but feel they have been
ignored. At a meeting held sometime ago at the Jolly Roger which Mayor Hunter
attended they presented their feelings. He would like the City to review the
matter - either put it on the agenda or possibly a meeting with the engineers.
The property owners have alternative possibilities the City might consider
other than destroying the intersection. It will destroy the landscaping and
44
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
bring noise, traffic and dirt much closer to their buildings. They do not feel
the traffic problem is there or could be there. They are asking the Council
for some direction on how to resolve their feelings. They do not have time to
continuously go to meetings to address the issue.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. Answering the Mayor, Traffic
Engineering is targeting May or June for construction start on the intersection
(Lakeview and La Palma) to correct the existing deficiency. The intersection
operates at peak periods at Level Service F. It is so deserving of widening
that it was one of three selected Statewide by Cal Trans for State funding
participation.
Council Member Pickler. When getting off La Palma and trying to get on the
freeway between about 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., it is a big problem and in the
mornings it is the same.
Richard Ashley. There is nothing he could be told about that intersection.
However, as little as three years ago that was not a projection when he was
forced to give up 12 feet of his land for the benefit of that intersection.
When he wanted instead to bond for the sidewalks and landscaping, he was told
no and had to put in the sidewalks and landscaping at an expense of over
$10,000. He does not feel he has been treated properly and he does not like
it. He reiterated they feel there are things that could be done to alleviate
any problems at that intersection, one being the removal of the signal light on
Lakeview at the hospital (Kaiser). Since that light was installed, it has
created about 75% of any problems at the location. There are about five
signals within 1/2 mile and there is no way traffic can flow properly with that
kind of signalization. The rest is tolerable for them. They do not see the
widening of the intersection creating a better or safer traffic condition.
They would like at least one hearing with the engineers present to go over some
of the things they feel would be viable alternatives.
Council Member Pickler. He suggested that Mr. Ashley communicate with Gary
Johnson, Public Works Director/City Engineer and John Lower, Traffic and
Transportation Manager who are present today and who would be happy to discuss
the matter with him.
CITY MANAC~R/D~PARTM~NTAL CON~N? CAL~NDAR~ On motion by Council M~mb~r
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Hunter, the following items were approved
in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished
each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member
Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 92R-8 and 92R-9, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 92R-8 and 92R-9)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
45
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Al. 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 Eric V. Warner for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 15, 1991.
b. Claim submitted by Albert F. Miranda for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 26 1991.
c. Claim submitted by Oshman's Sporting Goods for indemnity
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 22, 1990.
d. Claim submitted by Kirk Stephens for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 14, 1991.
e. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 3, 1991.
f. Claim submitted by Robert W. Pierce for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 7, 1991.
g. Claim submitted by Asghar Soheili for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 8, 1991.
h. Claim submitted by Rabinder S. Jhaj for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 3, 1991.
i. Claim submitted by Nidia Rebelo for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 19, 1991.
j. Claim submitted by Joshua Daniel Rodriguez for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 30, 1991.
k. Claim submitted by Michael Collins for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 28, 1991.
1. Claim submitted by Armel Davison for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 14, 1991.
m. Claim submitted by James E. Wood for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 20, 1991.
n. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 16, 1991.
o. Claim submitted by Kwans Kyung Park for bodily injury and
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
October 12, 1991.
46
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
A2. Receiving and filing Resolution No. 7428-92 of the City of Garden Grove
supporting efforts to obtain State funds for the necessary improvements for the
Santa Ana Freeway.
Receiving and filing a written disclosure from Bob Messe regarding a financial
interest in the redevelopment area located at 3445 E. La Palma.
Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance Analysis
for the month of December, 1991.
A3. Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of the Twila Reid
Park Play Equipment Replacement by Hondo Company, Inc., and authorizing the
Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A4. Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of the Ninth-Audre
Storm Drain Improvements by Mike Cronin Construction, and authorizing the Mayor
to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A5. RESOLUTION NO. 92R-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT
EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR AGENCY. (To admit the City of Dana Point as a member of the Agency. )
A6. Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 14502, and the Subdivision Agreement
with Grimmway Development, Limited, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute said agreement. Tract No. 14502 is located at the southeast corner of
Orange Avenue and Velare Street, and is filed in connection with
Reclassification No. 89-90-49 and Variance No. 4042.
A7. Approving an Encroachment License Agreement (91-11E) with Orange County
Water District for twelve water monitoring wells at various locations in
Anaheim.
A8. Accepting the low bid of Pirelli Cable Corporation, in the amount of
$444,897.75 for 44,861 feet of 15KV, 1000 KCMIL concentric URD cable, in
accordance with Bid ~4997.
Ag. Acc~DtinQ the base bid of Cablec Utility Cable C0mDan¥, in the am0unt of
$36~905 for 50,000 feet of #2 URD primary wire, in accordance with Bid #5004.
Al0. Accepting the bid of B & B Amusements, Inc., and authorizing the
execution of a contract for the annual Cinco de Mayo Fiesta for a period of one
year, with the option to renew for a five-year period commencing April 30,
1992, in accordance with Bid #4977.
Ail. Approving a Grant Agreement with Lutheran Social Services of Southern
California, in the amount of $4,000 for a period of eighteen months from the
date of execution, for housing, counseling and educational services for
lower-income and homeless persons and families.
47
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Al2. Approving the amended Memorandum of Understanding for the Rental
Rehabilitation Grant Program with the City of Anaheim, and authorizing the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Memorandum.
A13. Retroactively approving a fee waiver for the Miss Anaheim Pageant for its
usage of the Brookhurst Community Center on January 12 and 26, 1992.
Al4. RESOLUTION NO. 92R-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING FORMATION OF A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY WITH THE ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
Approving the Anaheim Public Financing Authority Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City, and
authorizing execution of said agreement by the Mayor and City Clerk.
A15. Approving Letter Agreement No. 3462 with the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, to give Anaheim a one-time payment of $139,803 in
conservation credits for Anaheim's Water Conservation Retrofit Program, as
recommended by the Public Utilities Board at their meeting of January 16, 1992;
and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said agreement.
Al6. RESOLUTION NO. ----: Authorizing the Chief of Police to accept
charitable contributions and issue receipts for said contributions in
connection with community programs which are managed by the Police Department.
City Manager James Ruth announced that staff is recommending that this item be
continued to Tuesday, March 3, 1992.
It was determined that the matter be continued to that date as requested.
Al7. Approving an Amendment to the Agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
in an amount not to exceed $57,450 (Anaheim's share is $17,000),to provide the
services necessary to meet the compliance requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act for the Adelanto-Lugo Transmission Project, and
directing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said Amendment on
behalf of the City.
Roll Call Vote on ~esolution Nos. 92R--8 and 92R--9 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS'. Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-8 and 92R-9 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
48
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
ITEMS B1 - B5 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 1992 -
DECISION DATE: JANUARY 16, 1992, INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
JANUARY 31, 1992:.
Bi. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4163, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3:
OWNER: MAJID RAHMANI, 401 Primrose Avenue, Placentia, CA 92670.
AGENT: DAVE RICHENS, 112 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite E, Orange, CA
92666.
LOCATION: 7588 East Martella Lane. Property is approximately 0.51
acre located on the south side of Martella Lane, approximately 1,100
feet east of the centerline of Martin Road.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 3-story, 33.5 feet,
7,184 square-foot single-family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4163 APPROVED (ZA92-01).
B2. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4164, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: JAMES M. AND ANN M. CHERRY, 4932 E. Holbrook, Anaheim, CA
92807.
AGENT: GREGORY ANDERSON, 2761 Via Corazon, Corona, CA 91720.
LOCATION: 4932 East Holbrook. Property is approximately 0.12 acre
located on the south side of Holbrook Street located approximately 85
feet east of the centerline of Viola Street.
Waiver of maximum lot coverage and minimum required setbacks to
construct a 250 square foot room addition and relocate an existing
above ground spa and gazebo.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4164 APPROVED (ZA92-2).
B3. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4165, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: FRANK J. CURRIE, 7580 E. Martella Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808.
LOCATION: 7580 E. Martella Lane. Property is approximately 0.92 acre
located on the south side of Martella Lane, approximately 768 feet
east of the centerline of Martin Road.
Waiver of minimum rear yard depth to construct an attached two-story
garage and workshop addition to an existing single family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4165 APPROVED (ZA92-03).
B4. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4166 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: EFFAT YOUSSEF, 2516 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801,
LOCATIONs 314 South Helena Street. Property is approximately 0.28
acre located on the east side of Helena Street, approximately 170 feet
south of the centerline of Broadway.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 10-unit apartment
complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4166 APPROVED, modified conditions (ZA92-04).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Council Member Daly posed questions to staff on this variance for purposes of
clarification which were answered by the Zoning Administrator, Annika
49
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Santalahti who approved the variance. Subsequently, Council Member Daly asked
the City Attorney if the Council could refer the matter to the Planning
Commission for a review.
City Attorney White explained that the procedure is specified in the code. The
only thing the Council can do at this time under the appeal provision is to set
it for a hearing and at the same time refer it to the Planning Commission for
recommendation. If the Council sets the hearing, the decision will ultimately
lie with the Council at a subsequent public hearing. There' is no mechanism in
the code that would allow the Council to refer Zoning Administrator items to
the Planning Commission unless the code is amended.
Council Member Daly. His concern is with the site plan of the project. He
considers it to be a very sensitive area. He is not questioning the Zoning
Administrator's approval but would feel better if the Council or Planning
Commission had a chance to look at the project before it is built.
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Council Member
Daly and concurred in by Council Member Pickler and, therefore, a public
hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B5. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3486, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
OWNER: Raymond Masciel, P.O. Box 4241, Anaheim, CA 92803.
AGENT: Gary Masciel, P.O. Box 4241, Anaheim, CA 92803.
LOCATION: 200 North Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.9
acre located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Cypress
Street, approximately 359 feet east of Harbor Boulevard.
To permit a 48 foot square-foot freestanding sign in the "CO"
(Commercial, Office and Professional) zone. Property is approximately
0.9 acre located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and
Cypress Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
CUP NO. 3486 APPROVED (ZA92-05).
End of the Zoning Administrator Items.
B6. 179: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 89R-448 NUNC PRO TUNC:
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (92R-10)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 92R-10 for adoption, amending
Resolution No. 89R-448, nunc pro tunc, relating to zoning (Reclassification
No. 89-90-03). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 89R-448, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclassification No. 89-90-03).
50
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-10 duly passed and adopted.
B7/B8/B9. 179: ORDINANCE 5283 THROUGH 5285, BOTH INCLUSIVE, FOR INTRODUCTION:
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5283 for first reading, amending
Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 89-90-03, located at
1001 No. West Street from the RS-10,O00 zone to the R$-7200 zone; Ordinance
No. 5284 for first reading, amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 91-92-03, located at 3340 E. La Palma Avenue, from the
RS-A-43,000 zone to the ML zone and offered Ordinance No. 5285 for first
reading, amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No.
91-92-06, located at 3253 W. Ball Road, from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the
RM-2400 zone. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5283: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 TO
REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-03, LOCATED AT 1001 NORTH WEST
STREET FROM THE RS-10,000 ZONE TO THE RS-7200 ZONE.
ORDINANCE NO. 5284: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 TO
REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-03, LOCATED AT 3340 E.
LA PALMA AVENUE, FROM THE RS-A-43,000 ZONE TO THE ML ZONE.
ORDINANCE NO. 5285: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 TO
REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-06, LOCATED AT 3253 W. BALL
ROAD, FROM THE RS-A-43,000 ZONE TO THE RM-2400 ZONE.
B10. 179: REQUEST FOR FINALIZATION OF ZONING - RECLASSIFICATION 67-68-68 AND
67-68-68(8): Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No.
67-68-68(8) located at 752 North East Street, from the RS-7200 zone to the
RM-1200 zone.
Submitted was report dated January 15, 1992, from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika ~an~alah~i r~¢0mm~n~ing ~ha~ ~h~ ¢0un¢il ~eny in~r0~u¢~i0n of ~he
Ordinance and explaining under the discussion portion the reasons for the
recommendation. Further, if the Council fails to either introduce or adopt the
ordinance for reclassification, to direct staff, by motion, to schedule a
public hearing for termination of the Resolution of Intent approved in
connection with Reclassification No. 67-68-68 in the manner set forth in
Sections 18.03.085.040 and 18.03.083 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Earlier in the meeting under public comments on agenda items, Mr. Bob Pacho,
736 S. Mancos Place spoke on the issue. He is speaking for approval of the
introduction of the Ordinance. He is the son of Ida Pacho who owns the home
and his sister, Lorraine Schultz. The home is situated on East Street and
La Palma. There is a gas station on the corner as well as an auto mechanic
repair facility. Behind the property are apartments that are RM1200. The home
south of their residence is a day-care center which is commercial. About three
51
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
doors down are four or five units where the zoning is also RM1200. There is
some indication by the neighbors that the gas station would best be removed in
favor of apartments which are more pleasing to the eye. He is asking that the
Council allow the same privilege for his mother's home, i.e., the RM1200 zone.
She is under care and will not be returning to the home and they wish to sell
it under the RM1200 zoning. He feels it deserves such consideration in view of
what has happened in the area.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She briefed the data contained in her
report noting that in 1988, General Plan Amendment No. 236 was adopted lowering
the land use designation in that area. It would, therefore, be inconsistent
with the General Plan to finalize RM1200 zoning at this time since it would
exceed the density allowed by the General Plan.
City Attorney, Jack White. Rezoning is a two-step process. A Resolution of
Intent to rezone this property was originally adopted in 1968 or 23 years ago.
In 1968, the General Plan provided for higher density zoning which was then
consistent with the Resolution of Intent. The General Plan was amended in 1988
to lower the density that would be allowed in the area including this
property. The property is currently low medium density.
Annika Santalahti. If the Ordinance is not introduced or adopted, the
direction is to terminate that zoning action as it affects the properties that
have not been zoned.
City Attorney White. Every one affected will be treated equally. If the
Council does not introduce the Ordinance tonight or if it is introduced but
subsequently not adopted, the Anaheim Municipal Code requires the Council to
set a public hearing to allow the applicant to come and state his case as to
why it should be finalized. If it is not introduced, it would then be
appropriate to adopt a motion setting the matter for a public hearing to review
the existing Resolution of Intent which is staff's recommendation. This is not
a public hearing on the matter tonight. The subsequent public hearing will
provide the public forum for the argument to be made and provide due process to
the property owner. The only thing tonight's proceeding relates to is whether
the RM1200 zoning that was indicated being appropriate 23 years ago is still
appropriate.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved that the Council direct staff to schedule a
public hearing for termination of the Resolution of Intent approved in 1968 in
connection with Reclassification No. 67-68-68 (8). Council Member Simpson
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White. The public hearing will be scheduled by the City Clerk
and the owner along with those within a 300-foot radius will be notified of the
hearing.
Cl. 150: REQUEST TO WAIVE 60-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR COUNTY OF ORANGE USE
OF TWO CITY COMMUNITY CENTERS: To consider the request from the County of
Orange, General Services Agencies in letter dated January 8, 1992, to waive the
60-day notice requirement for the County's use of the City's Community Centers
located at Ponderosa Park (2100 S. Haster Street) and Audre Plaza (1366 Jeffrey
52
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Drive). The Community Centers will be used for the County Health Care Agency's
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program to offer free nutrition classes,
health assessment, counseling and food vouchers to participants in this
program.
MOTION..- Council Member Pickler moved to waive the subject 60-day notice
requirement. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C2. 114: DISCUSSION - TERM LIMITS AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OR EXPENDITURE
LIMITATIONS: Discussion requested by Council Member Ehrle at the meeting of
January 14, 1992, concerning (1) term limits for City Council Members, and (2)
local campaign contribution or expenditure limitations.
Submitted was report dated January 21, 1992, from the City Attorney responding
to the Council inquiry on the subject issues.
TERM LIMITS:
Council Member Ehrle. He feels the time is appropriate to discuss whether or
not the Council wants to go forward and have the City Attorney draft a charter
amendment and/or ordinance regarding term limits. He referred to the report
submitted by the City Clerk which listed those who had served on the City
Council for approximately the last forty years and the length of their term of
office. Twenty-four individuals were listed and only seven had served more
than two terms or eight years and only three of the entire group served more
than three terms. He believes that the public today feels there is a need for
term limitations - the ability to put a cap on how many times an individual can
serve. It has been his philosophy for some time. Eight years is enough for
any position including those who serve on the Planning Commission and
Redevelopment Commission it would allow more people to become involved in the
process. The Council should look toward more citizen involvement and perhaps
term limits is a way to do it. He asked to hear from other Council Members on
the matter.
Council Member Daly asked if he (Ehrle) intended to serve more than two terms.
Council Member Ehrle stated he has had the opportunity to serve for the past
five years due to the fact that he was involved in a special election. He
would enjoy ser¥in~ an additional four years. After that, if the question were
on the ballot and the citizens indicated that two terms are enough, he would
feel more comfortable with not serving another term. In the case of Santa Ana,
they have a procedure where an incumbent would have to sit out a term, or two
years, before running again for office. He does not feel that would be a bad
situation.
Council Member Daly. He agrees that the City Clerk's report is informative as
to the history of the issue in Anaheim. In looking at the report, he wonders
what the problem is and what needs to be corrected. While term limits are
currently popular with voters and a national trend, he cites the experience of
President Reagan where after two terms, many people regretted the
constitutional prohibition on a third presidential term. President Reagan
himself expressed concern with that in that the people of America were not able
to exercise direct democracy. Some time the solution to a problem may not help
resolve the fundamental problem. In the report, Charles Pearson, one of the
most revered
53
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
and legendary Mayor the City has had, served 25 years in office. There are
also a couple of other individuals who served a number of years including
A.J. Schutte. However, as Council Member Ehrle pointed out, seventeen of the
twenty-four served 8 years or less. He does not think there is a problem. The
facts show that the voters are sophisticated and they turn out politicians
after one term if they feel it is warranted. Very few individuals served more
than two terms. He feels they are going through an exercise trying to solve a
problem that does not exist in Anaheim.
Mayor Hunter. Public service is what the issue is about. Too many people have
tried to make politics a career. "Careerism" politics is what has hurt the
country. Throughout the country there is a movement and revival of turning out
politicians who have made it a career. That is why he believes the issue ought
to be on the ballot. He strongly urges that the Council vote tonight by motion
to have the City Attorney draft language to put the issue of term limitations
on the November ballot. In that way, if the voters agree, there will be a
guarantee that in 8 years that person will be out and new blood in.
Council Member Simpson. He believes in term limits at the local level and
every level of government. However, those who should decide are the people who
are the "stockholders" of the City - the voters. Since there is an opportunity
to make the issue a part of the November election at little cost to the City,
they should place the issue on the November ballot.
Council Member Ehrle. He believes that anyone who sits on the Council and has
the desire to move on to State or County positions can do so. There are many
elective positions to run for. If a person is doing a great job on the local
level, it can be used as a training ground for higher office. There are
excellent examples in Anaheim where former Council Members were elected to
other offices - i.e., current United States Senator John Seymour, County
Supervisor Don Roth and former County Supervisor, Ralph Clark.
MOTION: Council Member Ehrle moved to direct the City Attorney to come back in
30 days with two different options, A and B, to put on the November ballot term
limits - perhaps A for two terms and B for three terms. Council Member Hunter
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Pickler stated he had no problem with
placing the issue on the ballot noting however that Anaheim would no~
first City in Orange County who would have term limits.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council Member Daly. Mayor Hunter expressed concern about full-time
politicians. He (Daly) feels there is a distinction between the United States
Congress and local elective office relative to term limits. School Board
Members and City Council Members are part timers and the closest to the
community. The facts are and history has proven that at the local level there
is more control. Citizens are smart and sophisticated and will turn people out
of office that deserve to be turned out. On School Boards and Councils, with
term limits, there will always be new people and there will always be "lame
ducks" and, therefore, those who have nothing to lose relative to being
54
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
accountable to the voters. He feels that is dangerous. While he agrees with
some of the concerns Mayor Hunter expressed, he strongly disagrees with
others. He reiterated, local elected officials are part timers and not career
politicians.
City Attorney White. He will submit language to the Council on February 28,
1992.
Council Member Daly asked if the people of Anaheim are demanding this, why not
the June ballot; Council Member Pickler stated a June election will cost
$100,000 and more people vote in a November election.
City Clerk, Leonora Sohl answering Council Member Daly explained that a June
Special Election would cost between $100,000 to $110,000 or approximately $1
per registered voter. It would be somewhat less in November for the General
Municipal Election - between $80,000 and $90,000. June is considered a special
election since there is no money budgeted whereas the November General
Municipal Election is provided for.
LIMITATION ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:
Council Member Ehrle. This is an issue that affects not only the present
Council but also every person who wants to run for the office. He feels it is
necessary to evaluate the cost of campaigns and bringing campaigns back to the
grass roots level to get out the vote in the old fashioned way. The only way
that can happen is to put a limit on contributions which takes it out of the
hands of special interests and lobbyists, the County has put a cap on
contributions. He asked the City Attorney to clarify that they can act only
relative to campaign contributions but can do nothing about limiting campaign
expenditures.
City Attorney White. The United States Supreme Court in 1976 held that it
would be constitutionally permissible to limit the amount of campaign
contributions because of the potential for corruption that is inherent in large
contributions. That was sufficient justification to outweigh any First
Amendment rights an individual would have to express himself by a contribution
to a candidate. In the same opinion, the court held that it would not be
permissible under the First Amendment to limit the amount of money a candidate
could spend since it would violate the First Amendment right to Freedom of
Expression of the candidate. If a candidate has his own money to put into a
campaign, he is not restricted by what is spent but what is collected from
third parties or other sources. In 1988, Proposition 73 was on the California
State Ballot and approved by the voters which would have created a limitations
state wide. That proposition has been challenged in court by the Service
Employee's International Union (SEIU) and that case is on appeal at the Federal
Courts. There is no decision as yet on whether the state-wide limitation which
would have restricted contributions to $1,000 per source is valid or not. In
the absence of such a limitation in effect, cities are free to adopt local
limitations on contributions.
Council Member Ehrle asked if that is $1,000 per year or reporting cycle; City
Attorney White answered it would be whatever the Council wants to adopt. Most
cities are on a per-year basis.
55
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. It is his understanding that as far as limiting campaign
contributions this can be done by ordinance; Mr. White confirmed that is
correct which is unlike term limits which would necessitate a charter
amendment. Campaign contribution limits could be adopted as an ordinance or
put on the ballot to be adopted as an ordinance by the electorate or a charter
amendment.
Mayor Hunter. The County just adopted the TIN CUP ordinance. He would like to
have the City Attorney look at that ordinance and revamp it~ to fit the needs of
the City rather than reinventing the wheel, the most recent amendment.
Discussion and questioning followed between Council Members and the City
Attorney on the issue. The City Attorney reiterated either an ordinance could
be prepared for adoption or the matter can be placed on the ballot as an
ordinance or a charter amendment. If the issue goes on the ballot, whatever
the outcome, it would not be subject to being amended in the future except by
another vote of the people, whether an ordinance or charter amendment.
Relative to effectivity, they would have to grandfather in contributions made
before the date of the ordinance and then make it apply to contributions after
the date that the ordinance went into effect which could apply to contributions
for the upcoming November election, but it would not have dealt with
contributions received before the ordinance was enacted.
Council Member Daly stated he believes that the reform at the County level is
going to the voters county wide in June for a vote; City Attorney White. He
has a copy of the proposed measure that he has already looked at. It sets a
limit of $1,000 per person, per election cycle every four years.
Council Member Pickler. Looking at the campaign reports for the last election
of those who ran for City Council, one out of the eight or nine who ran had
less than $50,000 or more. Some Council Members are saying they want to open
it up for people to be able to run that do not have the money. If someone
comes in who has $100,000 of their own money to spend, they cannot be stopped
from spending that amount.
Mayor Hunter. He feels it will at least provide a level playing field for
all. The problem is there are no limits at the present time. He is running
one more time for Mayor and then going back to private enterprise but he wants
to do everything he can so that when he leaves, every one who wants to run has
%he opportunity ~o ~o so. ~oli~ics is no~ ~or th~ rich but ~r ~¥~rybody.
That is why he would like to see strict campaign contribution limits. If it is
$1,000 every four years, so be it. He would like to have the City Attorney
come back with an ordinance to adopt and then put it on the ballot so that
future councils cannot change it.
Council Member Ehrle. He personally would not support that. Economic times
change and they do not know what will be happening in 10 years. He would not
like to tie the hands of future councils. He would like to see more than one
option presented to the Council for consideration - one is the TIN CUP proposal
at the County level which is proposing to restrict contributions to $250 a
year. He would like to see perhaps $250, $500 or $1,000 - different
combinations to choose from.
56
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
City Attorney White. When he drafts a measure and brings it back to the
Council, it clarifies what the various issues are. He may bring back a measure
with a dollar limit in it. At least the Council will get to see the areas they
have to deal with and subsequently come up with something they are comfortable
with.
Council Member Daly. He has looked at the TIN CUP reform the Supervisors are
putting before the voters in June and feels it is too complicated and too
subject to legal jockeying. He is requesting that the City Attorney try to
create both an ordinance and charter amendment that are simple and straight
forward and not subject to conflicting interpretations and "legal
gamesmanship." TIN CUP is not much of a reform.
Council Member Simpson. He assumes the City Attorney has a sense of what the
Council wants. They started out talking about how much could be contributed
and now they are into TIN CUP which is complicated. He is simply looking for
limits on the amount of money that can be given to a candidate.
By general consent, the Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance/charter amendment limiting campaign contributions in the City of
Anaheim.
C3. 173: DISCUSSION - WHETHER ANAHEIM SHOULD REMOVE ITSELF FROM THE ORANGE
COUNTY CITIES AIRPORT AUTHORITY (OCCAA):
Council Member Ehrle. There has been some discussion whether or not the City
of Anaheim needs to continue to participate in the OCCAA. He understands the
City of Santa Ana does not attend any longer and County has now taken the
leadership role in this area. His concern is whether or not there is a need
for the City to be involved or something they need to discuss at this time.
(See minutes of October 22, 1991, where the issue was discussed at a Council
Workshop Session).
Council Member Simpson. He notes that Mr. Bill Mecham, Consultant, Coalition
for a Responsible Airport Solution is in the Chamber audience. There is no way
the Council can make a decision tonight. It has been deemphasized to some
extent because the County has taken the lead role in the Regional Airport
Authority. Anaheim promised to listen to the OCCAA Board and what they had to
say and they need to do that. It has not been done as yet and the City owes it
to the Board to do that prior to making any decision or agendizing the matter
for final action.
Council Member Ehrle. At this point, he surmises that the Council does not
wish to discuss the issue at this time.
It was determined by the Council that no further action be taken on the matter
at this time.
114: PROPOSED LOCATION OF INS OFFICE:
Council Member Daly. He referred to the news that an INS (Immigration and
Naturalization Service) office has been proposed for a downtown Anaheim
location. He is directing staff to go straight to the INS and find out their
57
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
rationale for the Anaheim location. The office is currently located in
downtown Los Angeles near its constituency. City Manager Ruth has sent a
letter to Senator John Seymour on the issue. He is asking that staff move
quickly and as thoroughly as possible. Federal law allows federal facilities
to be placed without a clearance by cities. He is "mystified" by their choice
of location (220 S. Anaheim Boulevard in the Willdan Building next to City
Hall). It is not near a freeway, and their clientele comes from Los Angeles
County. They first proposed Buena Park where they ran into opposition. To
read of the proposed relocation to Anaheim in a newspaper after the City has
spent millions of dollars to modernize and improve downtown and to plan things
well and then to read that their is this mysterious federal bureaucracy that
wants to move something downtown is not a good situation. He feels there must
be a better location.
Mayor Hunter. He cannot agree more and believes the Council is in
concurrence. This needs to be a priority item. He too feels there must be a
better location, certainly not the one that was chosen. It could create a
tremendous parking problem.
Council Member Pickler. He asked if the Federal Government finds a location
and they need waivers and variances, can that be done.
City Attorney White. The Federal and State Government is exempt from local
zoning controls. If they choose, they are not subject to the same zoning
restrictions that private enterprise would be subject to. With regard to the
particular location under discussion, that property has a lease with the City
relating to parking and it may be key depending on the magnitude of the
proposed INS use and there may be a violation of the current lease with the
owner of the facility. It is something that can be looked into and an area
where there is some City control. If there were a totally private piece of
property for which the City had no lease or other legal interest, zoning would
not be an impediment to the government putting the use in that location.
C4. 179: PROPOSAL - FREEWAY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BILLBOARD PROGRAM:
To consider the submitted proposal of Brian Kennedy, Regency Outdoor
Advertising, Inc., for a freeway outdoor advertising billboard program. (See
letter dated January 7, 1992 from Brian Kennedy, President Regency Outdoor
Advertising, Inc., attached to which was Outdoor Advertising and Community
Sergice Program Proposal - made a part of the record).
Letter dated January 28, 1992, was received earlier in the afternoon from
Mr. Frank Elfend, President, Elfend and Associates, Agent for Regency Outdoor
Advertising requesting that the application be withdrawn until further notice.
Mayor Hunter. As he explained earlier in the meeting, this item will now be
taken off the agenda since the proposal/application has been withdrawn by the
applicant thus making it a moot issue at this time.
C5. 179: APPLICATION FOR A POOL ROOM PERMIT - LUCKY JOHN'S OF ANAHEIM:
Requested by John Hilding Johnson, 21081 Red Jacket Cir., Huntington
Beach, CA 92646.
LOCATION: The business is located at 3478 E. Orangethorpe Avenue -
Lucky John's of Anaheim.
58
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
The petitioner requests the pool room permit to operate 15 billiard
tables in conjunction with on-premise sale and consumption of
alcoholic beverages in conjunction with food services.
Previously submitted was report dated December 13, 1991 from the Code
Enforcement Manager, John Poole recommending that the subject pool room permit
application be approved. On January 7, 1992, this request was heard in
conjunction with a public hearing held that date also involving Lucky John's
for an arcade permit. At the time of the public hearing, the Code Enforcement
Manager announced that he had changed his recommendation from approval to
denial due to information he received the day prior to the hearing that the
applicant was not going to have a restaurant or food service whereas the CUP
approved by the Planning Commission was for sale of alcoholic beverages in
conjunction with food service.
At the conclusion of discussion and input on both the pool room permit and the
arcade permit, the public hearing was continued to this date. (Also see
Item D1 on today's public hearing schedule.)
At this time, staff is recommending a one week continuance of the public
hearing t° February 4, 1992 with the concurrence of the applicant which will
include consideration of the application for the arcade permit.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to continue the application for a pool room
permit for Lucky John's of Anaheim for one week to be heard in conjunction with
the public hearing on the request for an arcade permit also by Lucky John's of
Anaheim. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ARCADE PERMIT NO. 1011 - LUCKY JOHN'S
ANAHEIM:
REQUESTED BY: J.H. Johnson, 21081 Red Jacket Circle, Huntington
Beach, CA 92646.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The facility is located at 3478 E. Orangethorpe
Avenue in the Lake Center Shopping Center.
The request is to permit 15 amusement devices.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Arcade permit No. 1011 was approved (ZA91-55).
HEARING SET ON.'
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Council
Members Daly and Pickler at the meeting of December 10, 1991 and continued from
the meeting of January 7, 1992 to be held in conjunction with the request for
pool room permit (Lucky John's) and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - December 26, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 23, 1991
Posting of property- December 27, 1991
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See decision of the Zoning Administrator dated December 5, 1991 - Z.A.91-55.
See item C5 on January 7, 1992 agenda.
59
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
APPLICATION FOR POOL ROOM PERMIT - LUCKY JOHN'S ANAHEIM: Requested by: Same
as above. Location: Same as above.
The petitioner requests the pool room permit to operate 15 billiard tables in
conjunction with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in
conjunction with food services. (See item Cl on January 7, 1992 agenda wherein
the Council determined that both the pool room permit and the arcade permit
would be combined into one hearing).
After discussion and input on both the arcade permit and pool room permit on
January 7, 1992 (see minutes that date) the Council continued the public
hearing to this date.
The City Clerk announced that staff is recommending an additional one week
continuance to February 4, 1992 with the concurrence of the applicant.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present who wished to speak at this time to
either the pool room permit or the arcade permit for Lucky John's; there was no
response.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue the public hearing on Arcade
Permit No. 1011 for Lucky John's of Anaheim to Tuesday, February 4, 1992 along
with the application for a pool room permit for the same business, both to be
heard at the public hearing with the concurrence of the applicant. Council
Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D2. PUBLIC HEARING - CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 1 - CENTRAL CITY OLIVE
STREET:
Underground District No. 1 is being created to provide for the
undergrounding of all overhead utilities at a cost of $2.1 million, to
take place in accordance with the Public Utilities Department's
Underground Conversion Program Five-Year Plan which was approved for
FY 1991-92 by the Public Utilities Board on December 5, 1991, and the
City Council on January 7, 1992.
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 1 - LOCATION: Olive Street from 90' north of
Santa Aha Street to Broadway and on Olive Street from Cypress Street
to La Palma Avenue.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - January 16, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 15, 1992
Posting of property - January 17, 1992
STAFF INPUT:
Submitted was report dated January 28, 1992 from the Secretary of the Public
Utilities Board recommending approval of the creation of the subject
Underground District for the overhead to underground conversion work to take
place in accordance with the Public Utilities Department's Underground
Conversion Program Five-Year Plan which was approved for fiscal year 1991-92 by
the Public Utilities Board on December 5, 1991, and the City Council on
January 7, 1992.
60
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Council Member Ehrle. In 1986 when he first ran for Council, a great concern
he had was with undergrounding utilities in the City. The Council has worked
together in having the Utility Department put together a program for
undergrounding facilities in the City. It is a long term program but he is
pleased at the progress being made. In five to eight years from now, the City
will see the fruits of this effort.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-11)
Council Member Ehrle moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Ehrle offered Resolution No. 92R-11 for adoption, creating
Underground District No. 1 - Central City - Olive Street as recommended by the
Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 1 (CENTRAL CITY-OLIVE STREET).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-11 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Council Member Daly asked if an underground district is
anticipated to be created for all areas where the program will take place.
Darrell Ament, Public Utilities Assistant General
Manager-Finance/Administration. He will defer to the City Attorney on the
matter but he believes there will probably be a need to create such districts
in order to clearly delineate boundaries. There may be some situations where
they can be more creative so as not to have to create districts, but the
Council should be seeing more requests to create underground districts.
Mayor Hunter then recognized a member of the audience who indicated he had
wished to speak to the issue.
Mr. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He is concerned with the 2.1 million
dollars that is going to be added to the rate payers bills; Mayor Hunter
interjected and stated that is not necessarily true and monies will be coming
from other areas to fund the program.
Mr. Kirsch continued he is concerned about future capital expansions since
there are quite a number already. Looking at Moody's Bond Index, there are
about five pages of City bonds. They may want to look at putting a break on
61
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
essentially cosmetic improvements and concentrate on things of substance if
money has to be spent at all.
Council Member Ehrle. His offering of the resolution of approval still stands.
D3. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14130, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3301 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: BLASH MOMENY, 27762 Pebble Beach, Mission Viejo, CA 92692.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located approximately 4.41 acres
located at the northwest terminus of Garland Circle and approximately
450 feet west of the centerline of Boisseranc Way.
The petitioner is requesting an amendment to conditions of approval
pertaining to the provision of vehicular access to Orchard Drive and
review of revised site plan for substantial conformance findings in
conjunction with a previously-approved 19-lot (18-unit) residential
subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3301 APPROVED.
Tentative Tract Map No. 14130 DENIED.
NOTE: No action was taken by City Council on Tentative Tract Map No.
14130 at their meeting of December 17, 1991, Item Bi0.
Mitigated Negative Declaration previously approved.
Informational item at the meeting of January 7, 1992, Item B13.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal was submitted by Mr. Dan Turner, resident and public hearing
scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - January 16, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 16, 1992
Posting of property - January 17, 1992
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See previous Staff Report to the Planning Commission of July 2, 1990 and also
report dated December 16, 1991.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator answering Mayor Hunter-stated first
Tentative Tract Map No. 14130 was not denied. There was a proposed amendment
to a condition on the tract that was denied. The concern of the appellant,
Mr. Turner, had to do with a reduction of the proposed house sizes from 2,200
square feet to approximately over 1,500 square feet. There was also a
condition regarding access to the north across an adjacent property to Orchard
Street.
City Attorney, Jack White. The original tentative tract map provided that
access would need to be provided across an adjacent piece of private property
to Orchard Drive. A condition of the Conditional Use Permit further provided
that construction traffic would be limited to the access across through Orchard
Drive and across the adjacent property and not through Garland Street. The
condition further contemplated that the owner of the project would attempt to
acquire the necessary right-of-way to allow the access to Orchard Drive which
according to the staff report and representations of the property owner he has
62
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
attempted to do unsuccessfully. He is now seeking a deletion of the condition
of the tract map which would require the acquisition and dedication of a public
street across adjacent property te this project from Orchard Drive and also a
deletion of the condition in the CUP that 'piggy backs' along with that that
would provide, once access to Orchard was provided, construction traffic would
be through that way rather than through the other access.
Relative to the Orchard Drive access, the owner would need to acquire the land
from another property owner and dedicate it to the City as 'a public street.
That has not yet happened. There are two alternatives - one is to acquiesce to
the owner's desire and delete the conditions, and the other would be to enter
into an agreement with this property owner that the City would entertain
eminent domain proceedings. The City did not and cannot commit to condemn the
property for a public street but would agree by a document with the owner to
undertake a public hearing to entertain whether or not the City will do that in
order to allow him to comply with that condition if it is determined that
access to Orchard Drive is necessary. The agreement would further provide that
the property owner would bear the cost of acquisition for that property. His
belief is the acquisition cost may be the reason why the owner desires to
delete the condition rather than go through a separate agreement.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from the applicant.
APPLI CANT ' S
STATEMENT:
Mr. Blash Momeny, 2882 Business Center Drive, Irvine, 92715. He
was planning to appeal the Planning Commission's decision but
before he did, one of the neighbors submitted an appeal. He felt
he should wait to see the reason for the neighbor's appeal.
However, he will be more than happy to speak first if the Council
wishes.
City Attorney White. It seems Mr. Momeny also opposes the
decision of the Planning Commission which denied the amendments
of the conditions. It would be appropriate for Mr. Momeny to
speak now since this is his project and then from the appellant.
The reason may be the same or entirely different.
Bla~h Mom~n¥. ~ ha~ tri~d to aequir~ th~ ~a~m~nt to b~
connected to Orchard for more than a year, but has been
unsuccessful in doing so. The cost of acquisition is not the
issue. He would be delighted to acquire it at any reasonable
cost and that is what he attempted to do. An official appraisal
was made and the subsequent efforts by phone and personally were
made to be able to accomplish the acquisition. He made an offer
at the appraisal cost which is much more than the actual value
because it is just an easement. The owner did not respond. He
also contacted the Texaco Oil Company who has the lease and they
wanted him to submit a proposal of the neighbors site plan. He
did that and designed another project with a sketch of what he
could do there to see if it would be acceptable so that it could
be submitted to Texaco but also unsuccessfully. The condition
was placed on the project because of the emergency evacuation for
63
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
the length of the street which is more than what the standard
says. He is asking that the Council approve his request of
leaving that as a future connection to Orchard. There are
several similar situations in Anaheim Hills where some streets
even longer than this have been approved even in hilly
situations. He has been struggling for more than two years to
build the 18-single-family detached homes and is seeking approval
to do so.
Council Member Simpson. If the only reason for having a
connection to Orchard is for emergency evacuation, he questioned
if a gate could not be put at the end of that on a cul-de-sac and
provide that with permission of the oil company in the event of
an emergency.
Blash Momeny. That would be a great idea and it would help the
neighborhood a lot more if that would not be used by the
residents but only used by Texaco. The oil wells could be
maintained just from that gate.
City Attorney White. What Council Member Simpson stated is too
logical and simple. It makes sense but there is a legal
problem. The City has absolutely no way of assuring that access
would continue to be maintained by the oil company or lessee of
the other properties since they are not a party to this. The
City could require Mr. Momeny to put a gate there with every good
intention that would be the emergency access, but 30-days from
now a building could be built across the road, a permitted use,
without coming to the Planning Commission or Council. There is
no way of guaranteeing that would be access whether public or
private access and that is the problem. One of the alternatives
available if Council desires and staff still supports the need
for the second access to Orchard, if the Council denies tonight's
request, the next step would be for City staff to attempt to
negotiate an agreement with Mr. Momeny and bring back to the
Council an application to acquire the necessary right-of-way
across the adjacent property. That would involve eminent domain
proceedings. If in holding those proceedings the Council decided
there is no basis to condemn or if the Council decided they
wished to condemn and somehow were prohibited by a court and the
City did not or could not acquire the ri~ht-of-way, at that
point, Mr. Momeny could institute the same request as tonight.
As he now understands, cost is not the issue but just that
Mr. Momeny has not been able to acquire the property.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. The condition
for the access was placed by the Public Works Department but is
supported by the Fire Department as well. Between them they have
developed a standard that a cul-de-sac street not be longer than
700-feet and this is 1,100-feet. It is a combination of both
fire access as well as vehicular traffic. That standard was
adopted within the last 1 1/2 years based upon the institute of
Transportation Managers Maximum Standard.
64
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Mr. Momeny, working from a posted map of the area, showed the
location of his project, the access he is trying to acquire, and
reiterated his efforts and his failure to do so.
Mayor Hunter then asked to hear from the person who appealed the matter and
requested the public hearing.
Mr. Dan Turner, 4816 E. Garland Street. Although he officially appealed the
matter, it was the wish of the entire neighborhood and the'cost of the appeal
fee was paid by everyone. Their concern has nothing to do with the access but
changing the square footage of the houses. The Planning Commission had already
voted no on changing the access Mr. Momeny is talking about. On the original
plan before the Planning Commission, there was an A and B and the residents are
appealing the B portion which involved "minimal" changes to the plan involving
a down sizing of the homes which they felt was a major change. Getting to his
appeal, this matter was heard before the Planning Commission on December 16,
1991 and they were in the Chamber from 1:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. By the time they
got to the case, only four residents were left and everyone was tired. Perhaps
they did not state their case as well as they could have. Nobody on the
Planning Commission was aware that it was a 30% reduction on the square footage
of the houses. The neighbors decided to appeal to make it clear what they were
concerned about. The original house sizes were homes to be proud of ranging
from 2,400 to 2,200 square feet, now reduced to 1,700 and 1,500 square feet
with one at 1,380 square feet. The renderings of the houses were presented to
the Council when the project was originally approved. Nothing was presented to
the Planning Commission at the last hearing. The product is changed and the
neighbors do not think it is fair. The City has already given the developer a
waiver on the distance of the homes to the oil wells and the cul-de-sac is
being changed. What is not pointed out on the posted map, the long skinny
piece of land is really two pieces of property joined together to make the
subdivision along with a private street. For the twenty-five years that they
have lived there they have expected perhaps four or five more houses. It is
not fair to put one more imposition on the neighborhood and now change the
product. The two-story houses will be smaller than the single-story houses
already in the neighborhood. He knows housing is in a down situation right now
but it will start to pick up; however, the size of the houses will not change
once they are built. There are about twenty homes total currently existing on
the cul-de-sac. It is 450 feet long in a closed situation. Even now the fire
tracks back out up Boisseranc. If it is necessary to back out a narrower
street of 1,000 feet it will be a real problem.
Ed Rados, 4817 Garland Street. Ever since the development was proposed in
1989, the main concern of the surrounding neighborhood has been emergency
vehicular access and increase in traffic because of the entrance on Garland
Street. Their concern is all the added traffic dumping out one way and that is
why they are asking the Council to require as an absolute condition on the
project that access be provided both ways. As the Council will recall, speed
humps were approved for adjacent Glenview Street last year because of the
traffic problem. Further, the oil company does not have a dedicated road
access but just rights to travel anywhere over the property. There is no
road. When it rains it is mud and the last thing they need is to have an
emergency with a vehicle trying to go out the back way and get stuck in the
65
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
mud. The other concern of the neighborhood is public parking provided, in this
proposed project. There is no parking on the streets. Overflow parking will
be on Garland Street. He would like to have staff review the project to
provide more parking and more spaces within the tract or on the access to
Orchard, allow over-night parking. He is also concerned about the down sizing
of the homes which they will have to live with. The neighbors deserve just
consideration.
Ron Levison, 4746 E. Garland Circle. Regarding the emergency access, it is not
just one oil well at the end, but mixed throughout the tract. The trucks that
service the wells are very large. If there was a problem, being a narrow
street as it is without the access on the back end it would be a bad
situation. Mr. Momeny wants to build an 1,100-foot road off an already
existing 450-foot cul-de-sac which is actually 1,500 feet plus.
At this point, City Attorney White again explained in detail for the Mayor the
process in order to obtain the necessary access through Orchard, if it is
considered to be a public necessity.
Blash Momeny. Relative to the size of the homes, which he has spent a great
deal of time on, he tried to get rid of a lot of wasted area. He only
decreased the size about 5%. His proposal is very consistent with the
neighborhood and anticipated prices are a little more than what houses are
selling for in the neighborhood.
City Attorney White. Answering Council Member Pickler, the Council must make a
decision on whether or not the access to Orchard Drive continues to be a
requirement of the project. If yes, how that is acquired will be the subject
of a subsequent meeting. If the Council were to allow the project to go
forward at this time, predicated on the fact that there will be a secondary
access to Orchard Drive and subsequently attempt to acquire the access at a
later date, as Council Member Pickler suggests, the City would probably be
defeating their ability to acquire it in the future. Under condemnation
proceedings, it is necessary to make a finding that the access is necessary and
if the City has already committed to having the project built without the
access, it creates the argument that the access is not necessary to be
acquired.
Dan Turner. Since the appeal is going for Mr. Momeny for the access and since
the neighbor's appeal had to do with the size of the houses, he wanted to know
if h~ would b~ r~imburg~d hig appeal f~,, th~ City Attorney ~tat~d that two
different things have been appealed, one being the down sizing and a decision
on that will be made tonight. Therefore, the fee will not be reimbursed.
Before concluding, Mr. Turner referred to the July 2, 1990 Planning Commission
minutes and quoted portions which were specific to the subject of access.
"Commissioner Hellyer stated since the developer does not have access through
Orchard, he would like to have a condition that there would be a bilateral
ingress and egress so that the developer cannot come back to the commission and
say since he could not get the access he would not have to open that
cul-de-sac. Mr. Momeny stated once the plans were approved, he cannot change
them." That seems to be what he is trying to do at this time.
66
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
City Attorney White. Council has two separate decisions to make - whether the
Council wishes to continue to require as a condition of proceeding with the
development that the access be provided to Orchard Drive and secondly, whether
the revised plans for the project substantially comply with the exhibits
previously approved which show different sizes to the dwelling units.
Mayor Hunter. He believes the developer should be required to provide some
type of access to Orchard. By necessity, the City should start action to get
the land owner or lease holder to the table to come to a reasonable decision
relative to the access perhaps avoiding the power or'eminent domain. He does
not have a problem with the down sizing of the eighteen houses. His concern is
with the ingress and egress which is also a concern of the neighbors as well as
additional traffic that would be generated. Access to Orchard is something
that is reasonable. It is a public safety issue.
Council Member Ehrle. Everything possible should be done to extend ingress and
egress to Orchard. That was the original intent of the Council at the time he
voted for the project. The applicant has made every effort to purchase the
land and to contact the owner. He is asking for some assistance and it should
be given. It has taken a long time for the project to get to this point. This
is a compromise situation. He has no problem with the down sizing of the
homes. They should move forward to acquire the property for the necessary
ingress and egress.
city Attorney White. The first part of the action relates to access to Orchard
Drive which would involve a motion denying an amendment to Condition No. 12 of
Tentative Tract Map No. 14130 and offering of a resolution denying the
amendment to conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3301.
Mr. White then confirmed for the Council that the Council is not in any way
committing to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the necessary
right-of-way. That requires an entirely separate proceeding and that there be
an agreement before even entertaining that process. In any event, the Council
would not commit to acquiring the access at this time because legally that
cannot b~ don~. In order to ~xp~dit~ th~ procedure, they will do ~v~rything
possible to make it go quickly. The first step would be to sit down with
Mr. Momeny and attempt to reach an agreement to bring to the Council relating
to the payment of the cost of acquisition if it goes forward.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by
Council Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, the City Council does
hereby approve a mitigated Negative Declaration on the subject project and
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code on the basis that the Planning Commission/City Council
has considered the proposal with the mitigated Negative Declaration and
accompanying Monitoring Program, together with any comments received during the
public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
67
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-12)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to deny amendment to Condition No. 12
Tentative Tract Map No. 14130. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-12 for adoption, denying the
amendment to conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3301. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3301 AS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 90R-330.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES.- COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-12 duly passed and adopted.
City Attorney White explained the Council actions mean the Council has
confirmed the action of the Planning Commission that the access to Orchard
Drive is still required for this project. An additional action necessary which
is the subject of the appeal by Mr. Turner is a motion to confirm the decision
of the Planning Commission that the revised plans substantially conform to
previously approved exhibits.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to confirm the decision of the Planning
Commission determining that the revised plans substantially conform to the
previously approved exhibits for the subject project as set forth in
Condition No. 24 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3301. Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D4. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4144, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
OWN~R~ MCW INVESTCO INC., Attn~ Mar~o Ca~l~, 27132-B ~a~o E~pada,
san Juan capistrano, CA 92675.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1725 South Brookhurst
Street and is approximately 0.42 acre located on the west side of
Brookhurst Street approximately 580 feet north of the centerline of
Katella Avenue.
The request is for a waiver of maximum number of freestanding signs,
permitted location of freestanding signs, minimum distance between
freestanding signs, minimum sight distance requirements for
freestanding signs, unpermitted canopy 'column" signs, and unpermitted
garden wall signage to retain 3 freestanding signs, 2 canopy "column"
signs and garden wall signage.
68
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4144 DENIED (PC91-197) (7 yes votes).
Informational item at the meeting of January 7, 1992, Item B4.
HEARING SET ON
A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by the
owner, Jules S. Rickless, MCW INVESTCO, INC., and public hearing scheduled this
date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - January 16, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 16, 1992
Posting of property- January 17, 1992
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1991.
APPLICANT/AGENT
STATEMENT: Ray Shadwick, 12278 Ment Court, Rancho Cucamonga, 91730. In
working with Mr. Rickless, he has prepared an outline for the
Council which is in the exact order of the original staff report
and the order of the item as listed on the Council's agenda.
Mr. Shadwick thereupon submitted a booklet entitled - Variance
No. 4144 - AlaCar Express, 1725 S. Brookhurst Avenue, Anaheim,
California, 92803 - Owner: MCW Investco, Incorporated - Jules S.
Rickless. It contained photos showing the signs presently in
place at the subject location and referencing specific sections
of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to such signs.
Photographs were also submitted of various gas stations with
similar signage. The last page contained thirteen items and how
each would be addressed if Variance No. 4144 is approved.
Mr. Shadwick started to brief the material contained in the
packet.
Council Member Daly. He interjected and asked before continuing
that staff brief the Council how they got to this point and what
the basic decision is before the Council tonight.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. When the convenience
market, service station, off-sale beer and wine and car wash was
approved in 1989, there was a condition which the Council picked
up recommended by staff which limited freestanding signage to a
4-foot monument sign. Subsequently, that was amended to allow an
8-foot monument sign which is consistent with a recent policy of
the Planning Commission. The applicant put up a great number of
signs on the property including signs on a block wall on the
south property line, on the poles supporting the canopy and some
price signs in the front. He had about four illegal type signs
on the property different from what was approved by the Planning
Commission and Council and Code Enforcement picked that up. He
is asking now for more signage than allowed by the zoning code in
this zone and apparently is modifying his request.
69
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Daly asked Mr. Shadwick before taking the Council
through every photo in the booklet, what is the bottom line of
his request.
Ray Shadwick. The package submitted was prepared in direct
response to the staff report and is in compliance with that and
in compliance with what is being mentioned here as their
recommendations as well.
Council Member Daly asked specifically if the request has changed
from the one that went to the Planning Commission which was
denied unanimously and if it was changed, has it been presented
to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Shadwick answered that the package is changed from what is
stated on Variance No. 4144 and he did not present the package
that is mentioned in the staff report to the Planning Commission.
Council Member Daly asked staff how much the new package has
changed from what the Planning Commission was asked to approve.
When that happens, he feels it is a moving target and an abuse of
the system.
Annika Santalahti. They are allowed to have one freestanding
sign. He originally proposed three and there are two waivers
that relate to that regarding permitted location as well as
distance. If the freestanding signs were reduced to one, he
would eliminate the first four waivers - A through D. Waiver E
had to do with the four-sided signs posted or hung on the canopys
which is not permitted and F was the sign on the "garden wallm.
Perhaps Mr. Shadwick could sum up what his booklet is proposing.
It appears to eliminate two of the freestanding signs.
Ray Shadwick. He continuedJ to brief, the- Council on what...th'ey
proposed to do as outlined in the booklet; Council Member Pickler
interjected and asked if this was the first time staff had seen
the new proposal.
The Zoning Administrator answered yes.
Council Member Pickler thereupon recommended that the matter be
continued so that staff could have the opportunity of analyzing
the changes proposed so that the Council is not in a position to
make a decision on the matter without staff input or a
recommendation.
After additional discussion and questioning of Mr. Shadwick by
Council Members, the Zoning Administrator confirmed that staff
had not seen the proposal submitted to the Council this evening.
Council Member Ehrle. He wants staff to look at what is being
proposed, meet with the applicant, go through the process and
subsequently get a recommendation from staff.
70
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Ray Shadwick. He pointed out to staff that Mr. Rickless is willing to pay for
all permits and fees required to make the correction.
ENVIRONM_~NTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council
Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, the City Council ratified the
determination of the City Engineer that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01 Class 11, 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.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-13)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-13 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 4144. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 4144.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS.' None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-13 duly passed and adopted.
179: REQUEST TO PREPARE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PERMITTING FREEWAY BILLBOARD
SIGNS: Council Member Pickler asked the City Attorney relative to signs, is a
Conditional Use Permit needed to permit all signs - freeway signs and intercity
signs, i.e., billboards.
City Attorney White. A Conditional Use Permit is required for non-freeway
signs. Currently there is an absolute prohibition on freeway signs.
Council Member Pickler asked what has to be done to allow billboard signs on
freeways.
City Attorney White. The code would have to be amended. Section 4.08 of the
code currently prohibits freeway billboards. In order to allow freeway
billboard signs, it will be necessary to delete that prohibition and also amend
the zoning code to allow freeway signs subject to whatever the standards are or
a Conditional Use Permit.
Council Member Pickler. He asked the City Attorney to give the Council the
current code and then what it would take to permit freeway signs.
71
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
City Attorney White asked for clarification if Council Member Pickler was
asking for a proposed ordinance or a report; Council Member Pickler answered a
proposed ordinance to allow freeway signs.
City Attorney White. He asked for further clarification if it is to be
prepared in the abstract without any particular proposal in mind; Council
Member Pickler answered yes.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Adminstrator. Although it is necessary to have a CUP
for a billboard elsewhere in the City, there are some site development
standards and in the prior ordinances that have come before the Council in the
past, there were development standards included for freeway oriented billboards
specifically. They have typically been larger with different locational
considerations.
Council Member Ehrle. At one time, there was a report and also a billboard
committee had been established. He wants to know how many billboards there are
and a location map.
Annika Santalahti. They had a location map that was good for about 1988.
There are somewhere around 140 billboards or less, most of them are on arterial
highway intersections.
City Attorney White. He will give the Council material similar to What they
have looked at in the past, but the Council is not asking the matter to be
agendized.
General Council Consensus was that the matter was not to be agendized at this
time.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council Consent, the meeting was adjourned.
(8:16 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
72