1992/06/23C£t¥ Hallt Anahe!m_t Cal£fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~ 23~ 1992 - 5500 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
JTP MANAGER: Marge Pritchard
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
ASSOCIATE TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Alfred Yalda
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:15 p.m. on June 19, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the workshop portion of the meeting of June 23, 1992 to
order at 3:03 p.m.
City Manager James Ruth. Introduced Marge Pritchard who is going to make a
presentation on the Private Industry Council Year End Report.
PRESENTATION- PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL YEAR END REPORT: Marge Pritchard,
JTPA Manager. It is a privilege to be before the Council once again to
present the end-of-the-year results of the work of the Private Industry
Council (PIC) and the JTPA. She thereupon introduced Frank Jacobson.
Mr. Frank Jacobson, Chairman, PIC. He is before the Council to discuss the
JTP Act and the Anaheim Service Delivery Area, highlight the accomplishments
of the last fiscal year and report on the challenges for the coming year. He
first introduced the members of PIC who were present in the Chamber audience.
He explained the two major points or areas of responsibilities of PIC members
- to help the unemployed, dislocated and the youth to become part of a quality
work force to make Anaheim a better place in which to live, work and play.
Mr. Jacobson then gave his presentation which was supplemented by slides
covering performance standard summary, the career mentor program, the
dislocated workers program, hire the future, the summer youth and training
program, total clients served and new challenges for 1992-93. He pointed out
that PIC is also represented on the City's Gang/Drug Task Force. PIC is
extremely active and committed to the JTPA program.
At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Jacobson answered questions posed
by Council Members relating to the scope of the program.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She
complimented Mr. Jacobson on the job he has done as well as the Private
Industry Council and staff. She knows that they are going to be challenged by
the new money they will be receiving from the Federal Government. Relative to
getting the word out, since JTPA is now a part of the Community Development
Department, they have been working together with PIC and staff to make sure
when talking to companies through the Economic Development program they
include in the contract that they must participate with JTPA. They are trying
to link any deals in which they are involved in terms of economic development
with the JTPA program. In terms of an overall marketing brochure for
marketing the City of Anaheim, they do want to highlight the JTPA program in
437
City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
that brochure as one that they offer as a City. They will be working with PIC
in trying to incorporate their thoughts into the marketing brochure.
Council Members thanked the PIC for the excellent job they are performing for
the Anaheim Community.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session
to consider the following items along with two additional items as noted under
Item f:
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. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1).
e. 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.
f. Meeting with the City's real property negotiator concerning the
possible acquisition or disposition of (a) certain real property
known as the Julliet Low School site and (b) the property on or
surrounding 1313 S. Harbor Blvd.
Mayor Hunter moved to recess into Closed Session, Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3: 26 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.
(5:22 p.m.).
INVOCATION: Dr. Jarrell W. Garsee, First Nazarene Church, gave the
invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Simpson led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing and extending sincere
appreciation to Bob G. Franklin, Utilities Line Crew Supervisor upon his
retirement following nearly 31 years of service to the City. Mayor Hunter and
Council Members expressed appreciation for the many years of dedicated service
Mr. Franklin gave to the Anaheim community.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Jerry Moreno,
438
City' Hall~ ~nahe~,e~ California - COUNCIL ~I~S - ~ 23~ 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
Engineering Construction Inspector upon his retirement following over 26 years
of service to the City. Mayor Hunter and Council Members congratulated
Mr. Moreno expressing their appreciation for his many years of dedicated
service to the City and its citizens.
119= DEC_LARATION OF RECOGNITION= A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing and extending sincere
appreciation to Rita Valencia, Billing Supervisor, Utilities Department upon
her retirement following over 22 years of service to the City. Mayor Hunter
and Council Members expressed appreciation for the many years of dedicated
service Ms. Valencia gave to the Anaheim community.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing and extending sincere
appreciation to Harry W. Pealer, Line Mechanic, Utilities Department upon his
retirement following over 23 years of service to the City. Mayor Hunter and
Council Members expressed appreciation for the many years of dedicated service
Mr. Pealer gave to the Anaheim community.
119= DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION.!. A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing and extending sincere
appreciation to Vincent S. Scuteri, Senior Lead Street Maintenance Worker,
Maintenance Department upon his retirement following over 28 years of service
to the City. Mayor Hunter and Council Members expressed appreciation for the
many years of dedicated service Mr. Scuteri gave to the Anaheim community.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY. in the amount of $2,807,939.76 for the
period ending June 19, 1992, in accordance with the 1991-92 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5: 28 p.m. )
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:33 p.m. )
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Keith Olesen requested to speak on Items A7 and A30; Mr. Jeff Jackson
requested to speak on Item Al0; Mr. Phil Knypstra requested to speak on
Item A30; Mr. Frank Elfend requested to speak on Item B14; Gina Hainline, Jeff
Kirsch, Sharon Ericson and Marilyn Hauk requested to speak on Item Cl and
Sally White on Item C2 (see discussions under the specific items).
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST~
Richard Anthony, Junior, 1205 Walnut Street, Anaheim. His concern is the
parking structure proposed by Disneyland to be built on Walnut Street. He is
a m~b~r of A~aheim HOME No. ~$ which has 175 homeowners. He thereupon
submitted a petition representing these homeowners or approximately 165
signatures (petition contained approximately 108 signatures after counting)
and 95% are opposed to the parking structure for the reasons contained thereon
(made a part of the record). The residents are opposed under any conditions
to the parking structure. He does not see how any environmental engineer
could possibly approve a parking structure 100 feet away from a residential
area. Dumping traffic on to Walnut Street is only one of several impacts. He
does not see how putting up a few trees will stop noise, traffic or gas fumes
from permeating the residential area. Petitions are being circulated in HOME
Area 64 which represents another 500 residences as well as the condominium
association that will front the parking structure. They do not want the
439
City H&11· Anaheim· C&lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23· 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
parking structure. There are other issues for other areas surrounding
Disneyland which are objectionable.
Karen Bowers, 1919 S. Robert Lane, Anaheim. She is representing Anaheim HOME.
HOME is not opposed to the Disneyland expansion, but they are opposed to it as
it has been drafted thus far. She has been working with the City - Tom Woods,
Deputy City Manager and Planning staff as well as Disneyland in discussing the
project. The disappointments right now are with the City in getting
information. They are told they have to wait for the EIR. She understands
the process. Her major concern is that the Council carefully look at the
issues, for example, the air quality issue. With a 16,000 car parking
structure, she is concerned with exhaust fumes that will be generated from
thousands of cars, the kind of filter system used for the structure, etc. She
has talked to the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and knows that the
City and Disney will follow the strict guidelines, but she would like the City
to take a broader step and develop guidelines far beyond what state, city and
local agencies require and also to work with citizens to get their input.
Bette Ronconi, 1241 S. Walnut, Anaheim, Anaheim HOME. She first stated she
was going to ask Richard Anthony to read the petition presented since it
contained the concerns of the HOME residents.
Mayor Hunter interjected and stated he would have no problem reading the
petition or having someone else do so. However, there is no specific plan at
this time. Council or staff has not seen anything definitive. Until an
associated EIR is complete and circulated for public review, which he
understands will be some time in the fall, the cumulative picture is unknown.
For the Council or any Council Member to meet with HOME on what might be and
speculate is a waste until they know specifically what the proposal is from
Disneyland. He has nothing in hand and a meeting would not be constructive at
this time.
Bette Ronconi. They understand but she does not agree it is being premature.
The development company has come out with a tentative plan and they are not
particularly pleased with everything about the plan. They can see a lot of
impact on the residential areas which have not been addressed to date. The
residents have been meeting with the City for a year up until May, the purpose
being to give input beforehand to avoid some of the pitfalls and objections
once the specific plan is presented. They do appreciate the time the City has
spent with them as well as Disney. The HOME 65 people are unhappy with what
has been going on and with the lack of specifics. They are being heard but
not answered. They are not opposing the financing being proposed tonight for
a feasibility analysis for Disney's second gate (Item A26). They are urging
the City Manager and staff to do the best they can for the City of Anaheim and
for its residents.
Council Member Ehrle. Not having seen anything specific, the Council has not
approved anything. He has often been invited to HOME meetings and he has
always attended. To say the Council will "rubber stamp" the EIR is not true.
The Council will be looking closely at the document and it will go through
public scrutiny. He reiterated he has not seen anything specifically. He
feels that this time it is a matter of frustration because no one has all the
information they would like to have. Private enterprise has certain rights
relative to disclosure of information. He feels they are rapidly reaching the
point where the frustration will come to an end and the City will have the
documents necessary to evaluate the project.
440
City Hall, A, aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Bette Ronconi. It remains their intention to keep the communication lines
opened. They are not in a position to tell other people how to conduct
themselves. If their homes are involved and they want to bring something
forward, HOME cannot tell them they cannot do that. They appreciate the extra
time given them in their presentation tonight.
Art Stephenson. He is caught up in regulations regarding alleys and things
that are supposed to be kept in apartment garages. He is suffering for doing
something in the alley that a lot of other people are doing. Code Enforcement
has told him some things he needs to do, but others are doing the same.
Everyone should be made to comply and not just a few. He was told not to use
the garages for anything else but parking, but other people are doing
mechanical work and conducting business out of their garages. The only thing
he was doing is storing stuff in the garage and things that do not seem to
comply with the electrical code.
Mayor Hunter. Apparently Mr. Stephenson has been cited for something he is
doing in his garage. He asked that he (Stephenson) leave his name and address
with staff and someone from Code Enforcement will discuss the matter with him;
Mr. Stephenson stated if not, he would like to speak to the City Attorney to
see if the situation can be corrected.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
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-137 through 92R-139, both inclusive, for
adoption. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5316 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinance were read by the City Manager. (Resolution
Nos. 92R-137 through 92R-139, both inclusive, for adoption; and Ordinance
No. 5316 for adoption. )
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions
and ordinance. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken
as recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management=
a. Clalm submitted by John Hall for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about April 1, 1992.
b. Claim submitted by County of Orange, c/o Social Services Agency for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about April 23, 1992.
c. Claim submitted by David Lionel Patterson for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 15,
1992.
441
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5~00 P.M.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment
Commission meeting held May 27, 1992.
173: Receiving and filing Amendment to Petition for Modification filed before
the Public Utilities Commission of the state of California, in the matter of
Decision 89-11-003, Michael S. Mitchell, dba Mickey's Space Ship Shuttle for
authority to operate as a passenger stage corporation between certain portions
of Los Angeles County and Orange County and Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX) and John Wayne Orange County Airport.
A3. 170: ORDINANCE NO. 5316 - {ADOPTION}: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DELETING SUBSECTION 17.08. 039.040 OF SECTION 17.08. 039 OF CHAPTER
17.08 AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 17.10 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS.
A4. 150~ Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
MCR Landscape, in the amount of $160,023.85 for Little People's Park
Expansion; and in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of
the award, awarding the contract to the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving
any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second Iow bidders.
AS. 169= Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Hillcrest Contracting, Incorporated, in the amount of $3,189,883.79 for
Anaheim Boulevard Street, Storm Drain, Sewer, Water, Electrical, Traffic
Signal and Landscaping Improvements; and in the event said Iow bidder fails to
comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second iow
bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the Iow and
second low bidders.
A6. 169: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
S.J.K. Construction, Incorporated, in the amount of $38,663 for Barrier-Free
Anaheim F.Y. 1991-92; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with
the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second iow bidder, as
well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the Iow and second Iow
bidders.
A7. 101~ Approving Contract Change Order No. 2, in the amount of
$274,438.75, in favor of R.J. Noble Company, for additional construction at
the Anaheim Stadium Parking Lot.
Keith Olesen, 321 N. Philadelphia Street, Anaheim. Speaking to the contract
change order for the Anaheim Stadium Parking Lot (A7), the first thing they
will ~e~ ~01d is ~hat it is different money - it i~ not diff@r~nt m0n~¥ - it
is taxpayer's money or indebtedness. In the Maintenance budget, funds are not
going to be available to do work in the neighborhoods, but maintenance can be
done at the Stadium. If it can be deferred in the neighborhoods, it can also
be deferred at the Stadium.
James Ruth, City Manager. As a result of Arena negotiations, the Ogden
Corporation was required to dedicate to the City a $5,000,000 grant and
$2,000,000 low interest loan with that money to be expended exclusively at the
Stadium for major improvements which were long overdue. Those improvements
included the parking lot, lighting in the parking lot, sound system and other
miscellaneous improvements. Ail that money was committed and dedicated to
those improvements. It was a grant to the City with no strings attached.
Keith Olesen. He considers that it is still a misprioritization of funds and
time, the funds should be dedicated to the problems that exist in the
442
City Hall, ~_~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
neighborhoods and to bring back the quality of life. Priorities are not where
they ought to be.
A8. 123: Approving the Ninth Addendum to the Agreement with Hellmuth, Obata
& Kassabaum, Inc., (HOK), in an amount not to exceed $25,290 for design
implementation of the Anaheim Arena.
Council Member Pickler voted no on this item.
Ag. 175: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $20,021.58
in favor of Mel Smith Electric, Inc., for the construction of electrical work
required at Sharp Substation.
Al0. 175~ Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
E.R. Paul Company, in the amount of $3,500,000 for Linda Vista Pump Station
Modification, and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms
of the award, rejecting all bids and authorizing staff to rebid the project.
(Continued from the meetings of June 9, 1992-Item All and June 16, 1992-
Item Al5. )
Jeff Jackson, 18161 Ivory Crest, Huntington Beach (Team Construction). On
May 14, 1992, the City accepted bids for the subject project. It came to
their attention that some of the contractors bidding the project were not
properly licensed to do the work. Last week, they submitted a brochure to the
City Clerk's Office for the Council. (See Bid Protest Documentations
Submission for Construction of Linda Vista Pump Station Modification Project
No. 0197, Work Order No. 01963 submitted by Team Construction Corporation.)
Their main concern revolves around the State Contractor's License Law
provisions of which they believe are not being met relative to hazardous
substances. The bidding contractor of a project containing hazardous
substances must possess a valid hazardous substance certification. They so
informed the City's project contract administrator. They also hired an
independent consultant to determine the hazardous status and forwarded that
information to the City. It was conceded that license requirements regarding
hazardous substances were required for the project. He understands the City
has a shortfall of funds this year; however, the law should be upheld by
everybody including the City rather than to cut out the portion that does not
fit in. By cutting out that portion, they believe there could be a violation
of public contract law. He understands it is tempting to try to set a
"windfall" for the City by going with the iow bidder who was 20% lower than
everyone else. In his opinion, the Company is not qualified and he does not
feel they could do the project for the City.
MOTION,=. Council Member Hunter moved that the City Council waive any
irregularities in the low bid submitted by the E.R. Paul Company and award
such project to, and approve the contract with, the E.R. Paul Company based
upon the following findings and determinations=
1. The portion of the work relating to the underground drainage storage
tank for which a permit or license is required by the State of
California has been deleted from the project by a deductive change
order issued by the Director of Public Works and such work is not
included in the contract being awarded for this project.
2. The bid bond issued by the Old American Insurance Company, and
submitted by the low bidder with its bid, is legally enforceable by
the City against the bonding company in the event the low bidder fails
to execute the required project contract with the City.
443
Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
3. The low bidder holds a State of California Class A license which
authorizes the low bidder as the general contractor to perform all
necessary electrical work required by the project specifications with
its own employees and such work will be performed by the general
contractor.
I further move that all bids, other than the bid of the E.R. Paul Company, be
rejected and that the bid bonds for such rejected bids be released. Council
Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
All. 175: Rejecting all bids submitted for the Construction of Water Wells
No. 12, 29, and 36 project.
A12. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for ten months
ended, April 30, 1992, as presented by the Director of Finance.
A13. 123: Approving a Second Amendment to Agreement with John Cappelletti
Associates, in an amount not to exceed $70,000 for consulting services in
connection with the Police Automated Systems Development.
A14. 123: Approving a Third Amendment to Agreement with Planning Research
Corporation/Public Management Services, in the amount of $19,800 to provide
Police CAD/RMS software maintenance.
A15. 123: Approving an Agreement with Anaheim City School District from July
1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 to provide funding for a Police Officer to conduct
training in connection with the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)
Program.
A16. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-137: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN
100 DAYS OLD. (Voice Recording Tapes ~395 through ~472 - Utilities
Department, Systems Operations Division. )
A17. 123: Approving a settlement agreement with the Western Area Power
Administration for setting wholesale power rates (Hoover Wholesale Rate
Negotiations, FERC Docket No. EF91-5091-000) and authorizing Special Legal
Counsel to the Public Utilities Department to execute same on behalf of the
City.
A18. 150: Approving the submittal of applications to the Orange County Urban
Parks Program for funding of the three following projects: (a) Toyon Park
Ballfield Lights/Parking Development; (b) Yorba Regional Park Ballfield Area
Development; and (c) Security Lighting Improvements at Maxwell, Twila Reid,
Rio Vista and Lincoln Parks; and authorizing the City Manager to sign said
applications and act as the City's representative in all matters concerning
the applications.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-138: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY URBAN
PARKS PROGRAM.
A19. 123: Approving an Agreement with the City of Westminster, for a seven-
week lease of a mobile recreation van; and amending the 1992/93 Resource
Allocation Plan by increasing revenue account 01-277-3222 and expenditure
account 01-277-5115 by $1,000.
444
City Hall r Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23r 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
A20. 150: Accepting a $4,000 donation from the Anaheim Community
Foundation/Leo Freedman Foundation; and amending the 1991/92 Resource
Allocation Plan to increase revenues and expenditures in Programs 278 and 279
by $2,000 each.
A21. 123: Exercising an extension of the weed abatement contract for a
period of one year, with Edwin Webber, Inc., to cut and remove all weeds,
rubbish, or refuse from parcels designated by the Fire Chief, on the same
terms and conditions as the existing contract, not to exceed $53,620.
A22. 123: Approving an Amendment to Agreement with American Management
Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $314,915 for the purposes of:
(a) modifying and implementing the Budget Preparation and Control System to be
integrated with the Local Government Financial System (LGFS) application
software known to the City as AFRAM, (b) modifying the accounts receivable
subsystem and the inventory control subsystem of LGFS according to the needs
of the Finance Department, and (c) extend implementation support hours in the
original agreement.
106: Appropriating $126,440 from Data Processing Fund Retained Earnings.
A23. 117: Receiving and filing Summary of Investment Transactions for May,
1992,as submitted by the City Treasurer.
A24. 123: Approving the extension of an agreement through September 30,
1992, with West-Computil Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for
parking citation processing services.
A25. 152: Approving the recommendations from the Anaheim Private Industry
Council (PIC), for service provider selection and funding allocations for the
period from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993, and authorizing the JTP
Manager to execute the subcontract agreements and modifications thereto.
A26. 123: Approving a Second Amendment to Agreement with Caine Gressel
Midgley Slater (CGMS) and Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), in the amount
of $74,000 for evaluation and feasibility analysis of city participation
regarding the development of a Disney "Second Gate".
Council Members Simpson and Pickler declared a conflict of interest on this
item and, therefore, did not participate in any discussion or action on this
matter.
A27. 123: Approving an agreement with the Orange County Health Services
Agency, in the estimated amount of $646,149 (precise cost to be based on field
actions) for animal control services for the period from July 1, 1992 through
June 30w 1993; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City.
A28. 123: Approving an agreement with the State Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to receive $100,000 for final engineering of a pedestrian grade
separation at the Anaheim AMTRAK Station, and authorizing the Mayor and City
Clerk to sign said agreement.
106: Amending the FY 92/93 to decrease revenues and expenditures in the
amount of $185,000.
445
City Hall, Anahe£m, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MI~S - ~ 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
A29. 158.. RESOLUTION NO. 92R-139.. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY AND/OR FACILITIES (PARCEL MAP 83-251).
A30. 123: Approving the Tenth Amendment to the Contractual Agreement with E.
Del Smith & Company, Inc., extending Washington D.C. representation services
from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993.
Phil Knypstra, 2520 Gelid, Anaheim. Considering the difficult economic times,
Anaheim is going to enter into an extended contract with a Washington D.C.
lobbyist in the amount of $92,400 plus expenses with $4,500 a month coming
from the general fund and $3,200 from the Public Utilities Enterprise Fund.
The justification is that the City needs the lobbyist to protect Anaheim's
interest in the nation's capital. Looking into the matter further, he feels
lobbyists do not have the interest of taxpayers at heart, but their own
interest. The City already has its elected lobbyists in Congress. The City
has had to layoff employees. It is time for the Council to say that they can
do without the lobbyist.
Keith Olesen, 321 N. Philadelphia Street, Anaheim. It is interesting that the
City has approximately $100,000 for lobbying efforts in addition to $50,000 +
in salary for staff in the intergovernmental relations office to do the same
work as well as travel and expense money.
Council Member Daly voted no.
A31. 175.. Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder
Henkels a McCoy, Inc., in the amount of $240,053.15 for Underground District
No. i (Electrical), and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the
terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second iow bidder, as well as
waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the iow and second Iow bidders.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-137 through 92R-139, both inclusive, for
adoption g
AYES.' COUNCIL MEMBERS.. Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES = COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS .. None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-137 through 92R-139, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5316 for adoption:
AYES= COUNCIL HEMBERS= Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES = COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5316 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
A32. 000: HEARING - ADJUSTMENT OF STADIUM AREA DEVELOPMENT FEES AND ANAHEIM
STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER FEES:
To consider adjustment of Stadium Area Development Fees, and to also consider
adjusting the amount of the additional development fee for the Anaheim Stadium
Business Center area.
446
City Hall, _A_n___aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Submitted was report dated May 27, 1992 from the Public Works/Engineering
Department recommending adjustment of the subject fees.
Mayor Hunter opened the hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to
speak relative to the subject fees; there being no response he closed the
hearing.
Council Member Daly asked if in the Stadium Area development was expected to
take place in the coming fiscal year. Many projects have been approved in
that area as long ago as five and six years which have not yet been built or
are to be built in the foreseeable future. He is questioning the reason for
the proposed development fee increases.
Alfred Yalda, Associate Traffic Engineer. The fees are proposed to be
increased based on the fact that every year the cost of construction goes up.
Some projects were approved last year but they have not come to any building
permit or a payment of fees. They have not seen anything this year so far.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (92R-140 and 92R-141)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 92R-140 for adoption, adjusting
development fees established pursuant to Chapter 17.30 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code (Interim Development Fees - Anaheim Stadium Business Center);
and offered Resolution No. 92R-141 for adoption, adjusting the amount of the
additional development fee for the Anaheim Stadium Business Center area.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-140: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADJUSTING DEVELOPMENT FEES ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17.30 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (INTERIM DEVELOPMENT FEES - ANAHEIM STADIUM
BUSINESS CENTER) .
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-141.-. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR THE ANAHEIM
STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER AREA.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-140 and 92R-141 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-140 and 92R-141 duly passed and
adopted.
A33. 105: BOARDS/COMMISSIONS - APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO TERMS EXPIRED
JUNE 30m 1992:
Boards and Commissions - Community Redevelopment Commission, Community
Services Board, Housing Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Planning
Commission and Senior Citizens Commission.
Mayor Hunter suggested that appointments/reappointments be continued until
everyone has had an opportunity to get their applications in for
447
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL NINUTE$ - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.N.
consideration. He will not be present on July 14, 1992 and suggested that the
matter be continued to July 21, 1992.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue appointments/reappointments
to the City's Boards and Commissions to July 21, 1992. Council Member Daly
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A34. 105: DECLARING AN UNSCHEDULED VACANCY - HOUSING COMMISSION:
Council Member Ehrle moved to declare an unscheduled vacancy in the Housing
Commission term (Elmer Thill) expiring June 30, 1993, and directing the City
Clerk to post a notice of unscheduled vacancy. Council Member Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A35. 127: CALLING OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 3, 1992:
Calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 3, 1992, requesting consolidation with the
State-wide General Election and setting forth regulations for candidates.
Submitted was report dated June 17, 1992 from City Clerk, Lee Sohl.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 92R-142 through 92R-145, both
inclusive, for adoption. )
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 92R-142 through 92R-145, both
inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-142: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992, FOR THE ELECTION
OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO CHARTER CITIES.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-143: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3,
1992, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-144: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE
PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO
BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY
MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
ROI1 Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-142 throuqh 92R-145, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
448
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-142 through 92R-145, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS B1 - B6 FROM THE ZONING _ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JUNE 11, 1992,
DECISION DATE= JUNE 17, 1992 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JULY 2,
1992:
B1. 179= CONDITION~ USE PERMIT NO. 3520~ CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT~ CLASS 5;
OWNER= Robert Hassen, 7685 Eucalyptus Way, Anaheim, CA 92808.
LOCATION: 7685 Eucalyptus Way. Property is approximately 0.58 acre
located at the southwest corner of Eucalyptus Drive and Eucalyptus Way.
To permit a satellite dish antenna.
ACTION TAKE__N BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
CUP NO. 3520 APPROVED (ZA92-22).
B2. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4174 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION=
OWNER: Chris White, 829 1/2 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805.
AGENT= Mark Lord, c/o Lord Fleming Architects, 33866 Zarzito Drive,
Dana Point, CA 92629.
LOCATION: 833 South Lemon Street. Property is approximately 0.17 acre,
on the west side of South Lemon Street approximately 419 feet south of
the centerline of South Street.
Waiver of maximum building height and design of parking spaces to build
a duplex to an existing residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
WITHDRAWN by the applicant.
B3. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 92-01, (LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE}:
OWNER: Jaleh Roshan, 140 North Avenida Cordoba, Anaheim, CA 92807.
LOCATION: 140 North Avenida Cordoba= Property is approximately 0.15
acre, having a frontage of approximately 65 feet on the east side of
Avenida Cordoba, and being located approximately 270 feet north of the
centerline of Calle Durango.
To permit a large family day care facility with up to 12 children.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Use Permit No. 92-01 APPROVED (ZA92-23).
B4. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4183, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: Richard Wu, 1015 West Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805.
AGENT: JM & Associates, 8630 State Street, Southgate, CA 90280.
ATTN: Jose Vargas
LOCATION: 1015 West Broadway Property is approximately .17 acre,
located 55 feet on the north side of West Broadway approximately 143
feet east of the centerline of West Street.
Waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and vehicular
access turning radius, to construct a new 2-story duplex and retain an
existing single-family dwelling.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4183 DENIED (ZA92-24).
B5. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4184, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: Roger Williamson, C/O Williamson Enterprises, 3450 East La Palma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806.
AGENT: William R. Edwards, Wrea Architects, 177 Riverside, Suite 920,
Newport Beach, CA 92663.
~LOCATION: 6801 Avenida de Santiago. Property is approximately 1.17
acres, having a frontage of approximately 208 feet on the north side of
449
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Avenida de Santiago, and being located approximately 650 feet
southwesterly of the centerline of Tamarisk Drive.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 9,858 square
foot single-family dwelling.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4184 APPROVED (ZA92-25).
B6. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4185, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: William B. and Barbara J. Palmer, 1118 West Park Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801.
LOCATION: 1118 West Park Avenue: Property is approximately 0.23 acre,
approximately 96 feet on the south side of Park Avenue and 215 feet west
of the centerline of West Street.
Waiver of minimum side yard and rear yard setback to construct a two-
story, 868 square-foot room addition.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR=
Variance No. 4185 APPROVED (ZA92-26).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
ITEMS B7 - B13 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1992,
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JULY 7, 1992:
B7. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 328, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: The City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard.,
Anaheim, CA 92805.
An amendment to the Housing Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan
incorporating an analysis and programs to preserve assisted housing at
risk of converting to non-low-income uses per SB 1019.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA NO. 328 APPROVED (PC92-70) (6 yes votes, i absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
This item was set for public hearing this date. See Item D1 on today's
agenda.
B8. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-18, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3517, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14672, CEQA NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNERS: William Shea, C/O Paul Kott, (Steve & Jui Ching) 504 N.
~a~e College ~lvd., Anaheim, CA
AGENT: Andrew Homes, 4400 MacArthur Blvd., $900, Newport Beach, CA
92660.
LOCATION: 842 South Knott Ave. Property is approximately 1.08 acres
located on the east side of Knott Avenue and approximately 350 feet
south of the centerline of Rome Avenue.
For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400.
To permit a 19-unit condominium complex with waivers of:
a. maximum structural height (denied)
b. minimum landscaped setback adjacent to single-family residential
zones. (approved)
c. maximum site coverage (denied)
d. private street improvement (approved in part for 28 foot wide
private street)
To establish a l-lot, 19-unit, RM-2400, air-space, condominium
subdivision.
450
C£t¥ Hail, ~_nahe~, Californ';a - COUNCIL HINUTES - ,YONE 23. 1992 - 5~00 P.H:.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 91-92-18 GRANTED (PC92-71) (6 yes votes, I absent).
CUP NO. 3517 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC92-72) waiver a) DENIED, waiver
b) APPROVED, waiver c) DENIED, and waiver d) APPROVED, IN PART.
Tentative Tract Map No. 14672 APPROVED. NOTE: TT Map No. 14672 has a
10-day appeal period which expires June 25, 1992.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B9. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14697, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Jerome Marks Trust, 1080 Park Newport, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
AGENT: David T. MacArthur, P.E., 831 S. Lantana, Brea, CA 92621.
LOCATION: 2144 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 6.47
acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 102
feet west of the centerline of Empire Street.
Petitioner requests approval of tentative tract map to establish a l-
lot, 108-unit, air space, RM-2400 condominium subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Tentative Tract Map No. 14697 APPROVED (6 yes votes, I absent).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOTE: Tentative Tract Map No. 14697 has a 10-day appeal period which
expires June 25, 1992.
BIO. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3499 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Bradmore Realty, Ltd., 721 Santa Monica, CA 90401.
AGENT: Vail Speck Associates, 4 Executive Circle, $150, Irvine, CA
92714.
LOCATION: 270 East Palais Road. Property is approximately 4.69 acres
located on the south side of Palais Road and approximately 710 feet east
of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard.
To permit an auto leasing facility with 16,000-square feet of auto
preparation and outdoor storage of 144 vehicles.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3499 GRANTED (92R-73) (6 yes votes, i absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Bll. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 300, SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01:
OWNER: Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Post Office Box 2833, La Habra, CA
90632-2833.
AGENT: Greet Engineering, 2050 S. Santa Cruz, Suite 2100, Anaheim, CA
92805.
LOCATION: The Festival at Anaheim Hills Property is approximately 85
acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Roosevelt Road.
Petitioner requests a review of plans pursuant to Code Section
18.74.030.030(a) to determine whether the proposed location of the
ground monument sign for the previously approved service station is in
substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 90-01 (The Festival at
Anaheim Hills).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined location of the ground monument sign for the previously
approved service station is in substantial conformance with Specific
Plan No. 90-01 (The Festival at Anaheim Hills) (PC92-74) (6 yes votes, 1
absent ).
451
City Hall, Anahe£m, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL NINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
B12. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3421 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Andrew Y. Lui, 500 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92701.
LOCATION: 500 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.2
acres located at the northeast corner of Alameda Avenue and Brookhurst
Street.
To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the time
limitation and off-site parking agreement for a previously-approved
public dance hall.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3421 GRANTED, for two years (PC92-75) (6 yes votes, I absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
B13. 155: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP90-01) REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL:
REQUESTED BY: John Burroughs, Taubman Company
Petitioner requests Planning Commission review of proposed amendment to
conditions of approval for the Festival at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
(SP90-01).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval of the proposed amendment to conditions of approval
for the Festival at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP90-01).
This item is to be set for a public hearing due to the Specific Plan.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
B14. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3241 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIM~:
Request submitted by Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 4675 Mac Arthur
Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
The property is located at 201 West Katella Avenue. The petitioner is
requesting an extension of time retroactive to June 19, 1991, and to
expire on June 19, 1993 to comply with the conditions of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 3241. However, the first two conditions are
to be satisfied within a period of three months from the date of
approval of this time extension by September 23, 1992. Conditional Use
Permit No. 3241 is to permit a 12-story, 384-unit hotel.
Submitted was report dated June 16, 1992, from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending that the time extension be granted subject to
three conditions being satisfied as outlined on ~a~e 1 of the June 1~v 1992
report. Council Members Simpson and Pickler declared a conflict of interest
on this item and, therefore, will not participate in any discussion or action
on this matter.
Mr. Elfend asked the basis of the disqualification on the part of Council
Members Simpson and Pickler which was explained by City Attorney White; after
the explanation, Mr. Elfend stated that it is something they would like to
discuss in greater detail at a later date.
Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates. He is representing Tarsadia and is
seeking an extension of conditions to comply with approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 3241. Last year's economic climate has prevented his client from
452
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23. 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
obtaining the necessary financing for the project. The project originally
came before the Council two years ago. They have reviewed the June 16, 1992
staff report and are requesting that Condition No. 3 be deleted. He has
discussed the matter with staff. That condition would require his client to
submit building plans to conform with the new C-R Zone standards. His client
has spent an excess of $1,000,000 for the plans currently on file with the
City which have been approved with the exception of payment of the fee. If
this were approved today, it would make the development not only difficult but
impossible. He thereupon submitted a series of correspondence which they feel
is important for the Council to review relative to their request. (Letters to
the Planning Department dated June 28, 1990 and July 10, 1990, sections of the
CR Ordinance, Ordinance No. 5156 and portions of minutes of City Council
meetings - made a part of the record.)
He then briefed the material emphasizing three important points that relate to
the project and the reasons why he is present tonight. When the City was
going through a variety of studies and plans for the CR Area, this project was
exempted from those studies and plans as well as the moratorium adopted in
June, 1990. The project was unanimously approved by the City Council along
with the two other projects.
That exclusion or exemption is memorialized in the second letter dated
July 10, 1990. They also met with staff and worked out the wording included
in the third attachment, Ordinance No. 5165 under exemptions that if a CUP was
approved prior to August 7, 1990, it would be exempt from the new Zoning Code.
It was their understanding all along that the project was exempted from the
new zoning and development standards. In the last public minutes when he was
before the Council about a year ago, they made it clear that time and were not
told otherwise (see minutes June 11, 1991) that the project was exempted from
the City's moratorium, from the Zoning Code update which includes the
development standards, as well as the design guidelines. They have worked
with staff on the new studies that were prepared, all three projects owned by
Tarsadia were exempted from a variety of land use entitlement related studies
and they are present tonight requesting that this extension be provided and
that Condition No. 3 proposed be deleted. They would not have supported those
items or acted much differently if it was not their understanding as indicated
in the ordinance that they would be exempt from those new development
standards.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Answering Council Member Daly stated that much
of what was said were factual events. The primary issue is, how long should
the extension of time run on the property. It is true that the original
project was exempted from the moratorium and zoning code standards. He does
not have a copy of what Mr. Elfend submitted to the Council but included is a
copy of the minutes from the original project approval that indicates the
guidelines and standards that were in process at the time could not be used as
a basis for which to approve or deny the project. There were enhancements to
the project above and beyond a previously approved project that existed at
that time on the site. It is true originally the project was exempted from
both the standard and the moratorium and could have pulled a building permit.
The item came before the Council about a year ago for a request for an
extension of time. At that time, staff recommended the extension be granted
but in the report made it very clear, and the current staff report says the
same thing, - "staff is hereby putting this petitioner on notice that any
future time extension requests may not be viewed favorably unless revisions
are made to the approved development plans to bring those plans into closer
conformance with the new C-R Zone standards". He reiterated, the issue is, is
it appropriate to extend the extension for one more year. Their feeling is
453
City Hall r Anaheim, Cal:J. forn£a - COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 23, 1992 - 5500 P.M.
and the recommendation to the Council is that the CUP should be extended but
the project should conform to the standards which have now been in effect for
approximately two years.
Frank Elfend. This project has always been treated differently. If included
in the ordinance was the fact that they could not get an extension, they would
have at least had the benefit of knowledge to understand that. No one ever
told them they would not be exempted for as long as that project was viable
and would be built. That has not changed. It is new information and they
were never aware of any time limitation relative to that item.
Council Member Daly. He noted in the staff report there is language regarding
future time extensions.
Joel Fick: It is a quote from the staff report of last year where staff
wanted to let the petitioner know they were looking favorably upon the request
but that it would not be an item that ran forever. They wanted to allot the
appropriate time but put the applicant on notice that they would allow yet one
more year for the project to be built, but in the event it could not, they
were looking for some adjustments and in particular had some concerns about
the setbacks. The drawing posted on the Chamber wall identifies with the
differences would be. The recommendation is also consistent with the recent
hotel extension of time granted on the Harbor and Orangewood site.
After further discussion and questioning between Council Members and staff,
Council Member Ehrle concluded that he does not believe the project should be
placed in jeopardy because of the recession. There was an agreement and that
agreement was made in good faith by the Council. He is not going to back down
on the commitment to the developer who has placed a tremendous amount of
resources into the project and now they are being told that because they did
not build in a certain amount of time, all bets are off. It would be unfair.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to approve the requested extension of
time on Conditional Use Permit No. 3241 retroactive to June 19, 1991 and to
expire on June 19, 1993 and that Conditional No. 3 of the June 16, 1992 staff
report from the Zoning Administrator be deleted. Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Daly stated that staff has made
adequate justification for the conditions. Mr. Elfend makes a good point
about the economic climate but to be fair, they did apply conditions to a
previous project that was in a similar circumstance. The staff recommendation
is a fair one. He (Daly) is a supporter of the new standards for this entire
CR area. While he supports the extension of the permit, he also supports all
of the conditions staff is recommending - Condition 1, 2 and 3.
Mayor Hunter. He originally voted for the project as well as the
CR Ordinance. Looking at all the facts, the original Ordinance No. 5156
substantially complies with the subsequent standards approved by the Council.
Looking at some of the setbacks, 24-feet vs. 30-feet and looking at the plans
on the board, there is going to be adequate landscaping. But for the
recession, the project would already be built.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Ehrle and
Hunter voted yes, Council Member Daly voted no. Council Members Pickler and
Simpson were temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
454
City Hall, ~,aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
City Attorney White. He confirmed that the motion passes by a majority vote
of two to one. It does not require three affirmative votes to pass since it
is a motion and not a resolution.
Council Members Pickler and Simpson returned to Council Chambers.
Cl. 127: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS LIMITATIONS - INTRODUCTION/ADOPT ORDINANCE
AND/OR SUBMIT TO VOTERS ON THE NOVEMBER 1992 BALLOT:
This matter was continued from the meetings of February 25, April 7 and
May 19, 1992 to this date (see minutes those dates).
Submitted was report dated June 5, 1992 from the City Attorney.
City Attor.ney, Jack White first explained for Mayor Hunter the difference
between Alternative A and Alternative B, the revisions having been made at the
request of the Council during previous discussion on the issues (see previous
minutes). The limitation, however, is basically the same in both versions -
i.e., $1,000 from any single source per election cycle.
Gina Hainline, Employee representative, AMEA. On the surface, the proposal
seems as though it will help the "little guy" when actually it will be the
opposite. The fact that the definition of person has been extended to include
PAC's (Political Action Committees), in their opinion, is constitutionally
unsound. PAC's are an avenue to give each member of those committees the
right to participate fully in the democratic process. The average person
cannot afford to write a check for $1,000. It is their opinion that it is
self-serving in that incumbency will be able to raise money hand over fist
where non-incumbency can only raise a minimal amount which will make it almost
impossible to unseat the incumbent. She spoke with SEIU (Service Employees
International Union) today who was the lead plaintiff in the SEIU vs. FPPC
(Fair Political Practices Commission) against Proposition 73. They were
successful in all the areas except for special elections and after reviewing
the proposed ordinance, it would not stand up to legal scrutiny. They
understand there are those Council Members who are not comfortable placing the
issue on the ballot but feel they have no choice since it has been brought
forward and otherwise they would look bad. More importantly is if it is
actually in the best interest of the citizens of the City. AMEA feels it is
morally wrong for the Council Members who have raised hundreds of thousands of
dollars over the years to now tell "Joe Citizen" they are going to attempt to
limit his ability to raise enough money to compete with the "big boys". If
citizens are interested in campaign contribution limitations, they should
gather signatures and put it on the ballot themselves and the City stay out of
it.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He wants to know the impact on the
General Fund to administer the regulations. As an alternative, he suggests an
ordinance which would require a candidate at his own expense to list that
contribution and its source over a certain threshold in a general circulation
newspaper ad. Interested parties could then monitor the situation and the
cost would not be borne by the taxpayers.
City Attorney White. The Council has several options - it does not have to be
placed on the ballot. The Council could adopt it as an ordinance since it
does not require that it be placed in the City Charter. If the Council adopts
an ordinance, unless specified in the ordinance that it can be amended by the
Council at a later date, if it is adopted by the voters it can never be
changed unless by a vote of the people. The law in this area is continuing to
develop. There may be some justification having the ability to modify the
455
City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23t 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
ordinance from time to time. The Council does have a choice to make - put it
on the ballot as a binding initiative, or as an advisory measure and adopt it
later on or adopt it now or at anytime by an ordinance without putting it on
the ballot.
Council Member Daly. What the City Attorney is saying, the best way to go may
be an advisory measure because of the actions of the State, Government or
decisions of other jurisdictions could be in conflict with a Charter Amendment
- perhaps an advisory measure and then have an implementing ordinance that
would go into effect after the advisory measure. That might be the best
avenue. There are parts of the Charter now that are out of compliance with
State law which creates problems for City Government to operate. He will
speak in favor of the $1,000 limit per election concept. It is a matter of
how it is implemented.
Mayor Hunter suggested perhaps if the Council wanted an ordinance now they
could adopt it in a few weeks.
Council Member Pickler. That would not be fair to the people running in the
upcoming election. Further, he does not believe a level playing field is ever
reached when talking about incumbency. He is not in favor of campaign limits,
but has no problem with term limits.
MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved that revised Alternative B, limiting the
amount of campaign contributions the City candidate may receive from any
single source to $1,000 per election be placed on the November, 1992 ballot as
an advisory measure. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Sharon Ericson, President, AMEA stated that Council
Member Pickler is right. There will not come a time when there is a level
playing field. This is not making it easy for the "little guy". Their
members pay into their PAC as well as other associations, homeowner's groups,
etc., pay so they can get involved. They pay their $2 a pay period or $25 a
year just as they pay to the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. It provides
the opportunity to have a voice as a group. People will read the measure and
think it is great and that they will be able to get rid of the politicians
they do not like. It is a mistake. Even an advisory vote, if it passes and
the Council does not adopt it, the electorate will say the Council did not
listen.
Marilyn Hauk, Vice President AMEA. As a resident, she is opposed because it
will hurt the little person and will benefit people such as Mr. Elfend and
Associates. When representing more than one company, every person he does
business with can conceivably give $1,000. That is where it hurts the little
guy. If people were serious, they would stop taking anymore money and as far
as term limits ~o, they would not run in November. There will be
of finding how to give money to the people they want. It will hurt people
such as them. They will pursue the lawsuit. It will hurt their group and
homeowner's groups.
Council Member Ehrle. He supports this and also believes that term limits is
the equalizing force.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Member Pickler voted
no. MOTION CARRIED.
456
C£t¥ Hall~ ~nahe~_~m~ Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINIFTE$ - ~ 23~ 1992 - 5:00 P.N.
It was determined that Alternate B will be placed on the November ballot as an
advisory measure and that specific ballot language will be submitted to the
Council.
C2. 179: TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ORDINANCES CONCERNING BILLBOARDS:
ORDINANCE NO. 5317: Adding, amending and repealing various sections of
various chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
billboards.
ORDINANCE NO. 5318.-. Amending Section 4.08.020 and Subsection .010 of Section
4.08.050 of, and adding new Section 4.08.100 to Chapter 4.08 of Title 4 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code relating to outdoor advertising signs and structures --
near freeways.
Submitted was report dated June 17, 1992 from the City Attorney attached to
which were two proposed ordinances concerning billboards which he prepared at
Council's direction at the meeting of June 9, 1992 (see minutes that date).
Mrs. Sally White, 809 W. Broadway, Anaheim. She is speaking for herself and
the vast majority of the Members of Anaheim Beautiful. Just when the citizens
had a billboard ordinance, although not perfect, but one that they could live
with, along comes the promoters asking for change. This means that a new
potent citizens group must be formed to be ready to fight each and every time
an application is taken out for another blight on the horizon. She questioned
why spend huge amounts of rate payer's money to underground utilities in the
industrial area if the sight of utilities is to be obscured by gigantic
billboards. If they are permitted, then the City should take another look at
undergrounding the utilities since billboards are much more repulsive and
dangerous. Instead give industrial, commercial and residential a welcome cut
in electric rates.
Billboards are not only unsightly but also dangerous to the motoring public.
She requests that before voting on the ordinance change that one of the 60
foot high maximum size billboards be temporarily constructed across the street
in front of the new City Hall addition. It will then be possible to see the
scar it creates. She asked that they not change the ordinance and ruin the
horizon for all.
She then read a letter submitted by Mr. Frances Nutto who was unable to be
present denouncing the proposal. Portions are as follows. The people of
Anaheim have indicated their feelings about billboards. They are not welcome,
especially huge monsters along the freeway. Let us all try to make Anaheim a
better place to live. The City Council can join in that effort by rejecting
continuing efforts by billboard people to pollute the skylines.
City Attorney White. He explained for Council Member Ehrle that the code now
requires that any billboard for any of the permitted locations be by CUP. The
code does not require that there be any limit on the number of years it can be
approved. This Council or prior Councils may have approved such term limits
on occasion. With regard to any billboard that was in existence under a
previous law before it was required to be by CUP, those have legal non-
conforming status. While the City can set an amortization period in the
ordinance, State law is written now in such a fashion that subject to very
limited exceptions, those billboards cannot be required to be removed without
paying compensation for the cost of the value of the board in place at the
time it is removed. Existing billboards that have been there for many years
457
C£t¥ Hall~ ~Ztn_aheim~ California - COUNCIL ~INUTE$ - JUNE 23~ 1992 - 5z00 P.~.
are allowed to remain as legal non-conforming uses. New billboards are
required to get a CUP. It can be limited to a certain number of years, but
the existing ordinance does not now require that.
Council Member Pickler. If he offers the ordinances for introduction today
and the process starts and they want to come back at a later time limiting the
term to ten years and also requiring freeway oriented billboards to be 500
feet apart on both sides of the freeway, he asked how soon could those be
added to the ordinance.
City Attorney White. If the ordinances currently before the Council are
offered for first reading and at the same time he was instructed to bring the
Council a different ordinance that incorporated the items mentioned in his
report, he could have that different ordinance back to the Council at their
next meeting (July 14, 1992). The Council could adopt the ordinances before
the Council tonight on July 14 or introduce the one just suggested but that
could not be adopted until July 21.
Council Member Pickler. He is going to offer the ordinances for introduction
today and asked that the City Attorney prepare for the next meeting an
ordinance including Items 2, 3 and 5 on pages I and 2 of the June 17, 1992
City Attorney memo.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5317 and 5318 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5317: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING, AMENDING AND
REPEALING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BILLBOARDS.
ORDINANCE NO. 5318: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
4.08.020 AND SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 4.08.050 OF, AND ADDING NEW SECTION
4.08.100 TO CHAPTER 4.08 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS AND STRUCTURES -- NEAR FREEWAYS.
MOTION:. Council Member Pickler moved that the City Attorney prepare an
ordinance for the next meeting including items 2, 3 and 5 on pages I and 2 of
the June 17, 1992 City Attorney memorandum.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Hunter stated he is not ready to vote
on anything tonight; City Attorney White. Council Member Pickler has offered
the two ordinances on the agenda tonight and has made a motion that has not
yet been seconded to instruct him to prepare and bring back to the Council at
their next meeting a different ordinance relating to billboards which will
incorporate the three additional features - (2) Requiring freeway-oriented
billboards to be at least 500 feet apart on both sides of the freeway; (3)
Limitin~ term of any CUP for a billboard to not more than ten years; and (5)
Establishing a procedure for the processing of application~ for new billboard~
in the event applications are received for conflicting locations (within 500
feet of another billboard).
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion for purposes of discussion.
Before action was taken, Council Member Ehrle stated he would like to have a
cost estimate on some of the billboards. The alternative is that the City
would have to pay the billboard companies to take down various boards in the
inner-city.
458
tit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23 1992 - Ss00 P.M.
City Attorney White. Eminent domain laws in the State apply. It is a
valuation procedure based on a multiplicity of factors. One of the
disadvantages of doing that, in the event the City were to acquire billboards
that then becomes public information that any billboard company could use
against the City as far as valuation. It would take an extreme amount of time
and effort to try to come up with those numbers. Some of those factors relate
to information the City does not have.
Council Member Ehrle. He was just trying to follow up on Sally White's
comments on the millions that will be sl:~nt on undergrounding utilities.
Council Member Daly. The point Mrs. White is making, the City is spending a
lot of money both publicly and privately on the way the City looks. If they
are going to be opening the door for more billboards in Anaheim they might as
well ask Anaheim Beautiful to stop all the good work they do. He questioned
why would anybody in the City encourage any more billboards anywhere in the
City limits. He does not understand what the community is to gain by lining
the freeways with billboards. Secondly, to exempt Anaheim Hills with whatever
legal language is used and line the freeways of older parts of Anaheim with
billboards is wrong. He will be opposing the ordinances.
Mayor Hunter. He agrees with Council Member Daly wholeheartedly as a citizen
of Anaheim Hills, but one whose business is in the downtown area.
City Attorney White. There was a motion offered by Council Member Pickler to
direct him to prepare another ordinance that contained additional limitations
seconded by Council Member Ehrle. The Council must vote on whether or not he
(White) will bring back this additional ordinance.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion directing the City Attorney to
prepare an additional ordinance with Items 2, 3 and 5 from the June 17, 1992
memo from the City Attorney incorporated.
AYES: Simpson, Ehrle and Pickler
NOES= Daly and Hunter
Since Mayor Hunter announced that he would not be present at the July 14, 1992
meeting, it was determined that the ordinances would be submitted to the
Council at their meeting of July 21, 1992.
C3. 128: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHARTER AM_ENDMENT CHANGING THE CITY'S
FISCAL YEAR TO OCTOBER I THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30:
To consider a proposed charter amendment changing the City's fiscal year from
July 1 through June 30, to October I through September 30.
Submitted was report dated June 17, 1992 from the City Attorney.
City Manager Ruth. He stated staff respectfully request that this matter be
continued to give more time to analyze and evaluate the impact and come back
to the Council with a report.
City Attorney White. The Council has to adopt all language relating to ballot
measures not later than August 7, 1992. The Council' s last scheduled meeting
before that is July 28, 1992 since no meeting is scheduled for August 4, 1992.
Council Member Pickler. He asked the City Manager why more time was needed.
Do they want to change the wording or are they thinking of keeping the same
fiscal year.
459
C£ty Hall~ Anahe£m~ Cal£forn~a - COUNCIL MINIrrES - ~ 23~ 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Mr. Ruth answered staff is thinking about keeping the same fiscal year. They
want to know the full impact. The City has had some problems in the past, but
always have been able to resolve those. This year happens to be an
extraordinary year and they do not want to overreact to what is a given
situation on one occasion.
City Attorney White pointed out that ou= of 450 + cities in California, there
is only one that does not have a July i to June 30 fiscal year. According to
the Finance Director, it will cost over $50,000 a year in excess cost relating
to auditing expenses to make this change. It is also not certain if there are
other hidden costs involved. Rather than asking the Council to act without
knowing all the possible implications, they are asking for a delay.
It was determined that the matter would be continued to a later date as
requested by staff.
C4. 127~ POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURE INCREASING THE TRANSFER FROM UTILITIES TO
THE GENERAL FUND:
Council Member Ehrle proposed that the Council agendize for the next meeting a
discussion of an additional ballot measure to increase the 4% transfer from
Utilities to the General Fund to 8% or 10%.
Mayor Hunter again noted that he would not be present on July 14; Council
Member Simpson stated he would not be present on the 28th of July.
City Attorney White. Everything has to be adopted and all resolutions passed
by July 28, 1992, unless the Council meets in an extraordinary session after
the 28th of July.
It was determined that discussion would take place at the meeting of July 14,
1992.
107: PUBLIC REQUEST TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL - STREET VENDORS:
City Clerk Sohl noted that the Council previously indicated they were going to
allow groups that wish to come and speak on street vendors that they could do
so on July 14, 1992.
City Attorney White stated that the Council may have budget decisions in July
that they will need to spend time on.
It was determined by General Council Consensus that instead of July 14,. 1992,
the public request to speak to the Council regarding street vendors will be
s~he~ule~ ~or ~he mee%£ng o~ Augus~ 11,
D1. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 328t AND NEGATIVe.
DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: The City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard.,
Anaheim, CA 92805.
This is an amendment to the Housing Element of the City of Anaheim
General Plan incorporating an analysis and programs to preserve assisted
housing at risk of converting to non-low-income uses per SB 1019.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA NO. 328 APPROVED (PC92-70) (6 yes votes, i absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
460
City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - 5tO0 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - June 11, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 11, 1992
Posting of property- June 11, 1992
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 15, 1992.
Appendix D, City of Anaheim Housing Element Amendment - assessment of the
preservation of assisted housing developments in the City of Anaheim -
June 19, 1992.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present to speak to the proposed General Plan
Amendment; there being no response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIV~ DECLARATION: On motion by Council
Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Daly, 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.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-146)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-146 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 328. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 328.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-146 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-146 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Council Member Pickler moved to adjourn, Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7: 32 p.m. )
A Council quorum is not expected for June 30 and July 7, 1992 and, therefore,
no meetings are scheduled at this time.
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
461