1991/09/24City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991. 5:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Armstrong
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER= Edward Aghjayan
UTILITIES FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER= Michael Bell
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER= Gary Johnson
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
COMMUNITY SERVICES SUPERINTENDENT: Steve Swaim
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3=00 p.m. on September 20, 1991, at the Civic Center kiosk,
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the workshop portion of the meeting to order at 3=02 p.m.,
all Council Members being present.
175: FINANCIAL PLANNING WOBK~HOP - DEVELOPMENT OF REVENUE RATES - PUBLIC
UTILITIES: Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager. The department
has received many questions regarding Utility finances, Utility rates, rate
increases, refunds, etc. Staff had been preparing to come back to the Council
in September based upon the Public Utilities Board (PUB) vote in August on the
rate increase reviewed by the Council at the time of preparation of the budget
but held off until now for a workshop presentation to address most of the
questions that have been asked and to answer any additional questions. He then
introduced Mike Bell, Financial Services Manager who will give the
presentation.
Mike Bell, Financial Services Manager. The main purpose today is to give an
overview of Utilities financial matters. Mr. Bell then gave an extensive
presentation supplemented by slides, the first showing a pie chart breakdown of
Electric Utility expenses noting that 67% of the Utility budget is represented
by power supply costs. Mr. Bell briefed all of the information pictured in the
slides; Mr. Aghjayan from time to time elaborated on key points of the
presentation. Some of the key areas covered by the overview were financial
planning, the department's five year financial requirements, major projects in
both the electric and water utility, refunds and the Rate Stabilization Account
(RSA) forecast of refunds, etc. The presentation included three forecast
slides - Forecast-Recommended - Forecast-Option I, and Forecast-Option II
relative to future rate increases and comparisons with Edison rates.
During the presentation, Council Members also posed questions. Council Member
Ehrle asked if it was a stated goal of the department, the Public Utilities
632
City Hall, Anaheim, Californ£a- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991, 5=00 P.M.
Board or the Council that rates are to be a certain percentage under Edison's
rates. As Mr. Aghjayan pointed out, at this time, the City is 12% under Edison
in rates system wide.
Mr. Aghjayan stated that although he did not know the history, it is his
understanding that the goal is to keep the City's rates 8 to 10% below Edison
as far as possible. However, should the Council elect to set some definitive
policy, the department can work with that policy.
Mike Bell. The last time the issue arose was in 1985-86 when the stabilization
policy was established. At that time, Council direction to staff was to
maintain rates approximately 10% below Edison when including the 4% transfer to
the general fund. The attempt was to maintain that level in future years. The
department's goal is to maximize that amount and keep rates as far below Edison
as possible.
Council Member Pickler. He was on the Council at the time and the objective
was to maintain rates as iow as possible to the benefit of the taxpayers. It
was the only reason the Rate Stabilization Account was set up. There is
nothing stating that they cannot take the RSA and put the money into other
areas of the Utility but the Council set up the RSA to give the lowest rates
possible.
Mr. Aghjayan, referring to the power cost comparison chart, noted that ten
years ago, the City bought 82% of its power from Edison and today only 3% is
purchased from Edison. Over that period of time, millions of dollars have been
put into power projects but it has brought the City to where it is today - no
longer dependent upon Edison for its power supply.
Mr. Bell then briefed the Water Utility and water system issues covering
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) proposed increases and stricter standards.
The outlook for the year 2010 is that there will be 3 million more people to be
served in their service area but short 1.2 million acre feet of water. MWD is,
therefore, proposing a 6 billion dollar expansion program. He also briefed the
new water quality standards involving five issues, the point being there are
some issues between the MWD increases and water quality that will have a
profound impact on water rates. Meeting the tough water quality standards and
making sure there is an ample supply of water is going to require substantial
rate increases in future years.. He then briefed the four strategies the
department is implementing in order to keep rates down, one being a continued
management audit and analysis which was initially projected to save 2.1 million
dollars but now up to 3.5 million dollars.
Mr. Aghjayan interjected stating that the department really has control over
only 16% of the 225 million dollar budget - labor costs being less than 10% of
the budget. He noted that labor is a very low factor but reiterated and
emphasized that the department hires people to make money, not cost the City
money. If they do not accomplish that goal, they do not stay.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Council Member Ehrle asked the City
Attorney if RSA monies could be used for such things as water wells,
undergrounding, etc.
633
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24~ 1991~ 5=00 P.M.
City Attorney White. He is in the process of preparing a legal opinion at the
request of Mr. Aghjayan on that issue. His conclusion tentatively is that the
money that comes by way of a refund from the electric rates that are being
rebated not voluntarily by Southern California Edison (SCE) are restricted to
be used for electric utility purposes. They become revenues to that particular
utility and as such under the charter are subject to the 4% provision that
allows 4% to be allocated in the following fiscal year to the general fund.
The other 96% would be restricted to the particular utility that had generated
or caused that revenue. Refunds would still always be revenues to the utility
as a legal principal. If the Charter provision did not contain a 4% limitation
on the transfer to the general fund, to the extent there were excess revenues
in any year, the amount of those excess revenues could be spun off for other
purposes including General Fund purposes. The City by bond covenant states
that the revenues of the Utility first go to service the operation and
maintenance of the Utility and the debt service on outstanding bounds. There
would need to be some excess revenues that would either be created through
decreased expenses or increased rates or a combination. To the extent there
were an excess, those could be spun off for other purposes except for the
Charter limitation.
Council Member Pickler. In the 18 years the City has been involved in
providing its utilities, the City has benefited 182 million dollars or 10.1
million dollars per year. There were naysayers cautioning against the City
purchasing its own power but the record is something to look back on with
pride. It has been and continues to be very positive for the City.
167: KATELLA AVENUE SUPERSTREET PROJECT - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING= Mike Betts,
Manager of Planning to the Orange County Transportation Authority (formerly
Orange County Transportation Commission) - member of the project team for the
Katella Superstreet Project. He is present to give an update on the status of
the project. He then named the members of the team following which he briefed
the history of the proposed project up to its present status. The
Environmental Impact Report was initiated in May of 1990 and it is expected to
be completed in August of 1992. Over the next few weeks, the cooperative
agencies will be holding a number of scoping meetings to allow public input.
It is anticipated that formal public hearings on the project will be held in
the first quarter of 1992 accompanied by a 45 day circulation period for review
of the final document. It has been recommended, but not yet officially
approved, that both the final design and construction of the project will be
eligible for Measure M funds and it is up to the affected cities to apply for
those funds. He then introduced Mr. Rob McCann.
Mr. Rob McCann, LSA Associates, Inc., Irvine. Their role is to prepare the
EIR. Before going into the specifics of the project, he gave a brief review of
what the improvements included, a condensed version of the information to be
presented to the public tonight at the first scoping meeting. He then briefed
some of the specifics of the Katella Superstreet Project - improvements that
would be made in the various segments and specifically the segments within the
City of Anaheim. The primary issues of concern as far as the EIR are three
major ones to businesses and residents - the first (residents), is my property
going to be affected, (2) noise - bringing travel lanes closer to houses can
bring greater noise levels and, (3) prohibition of on-street parking. All the
634
City Hall. Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991t 5:00 P.M.
other issues will be included in the EIR as well. They are targeting
circulating the draft EIR for public review and comment in February of next
year and between now and then will be developing several iterations of a draft
document that the City staff will be involved in reviewing so that there will
be ample opportunity for the City to have early input on the document before it
is released. The goal is, following the public hearings on the draft EIR, to
prepare responses to con~nents and for the final EIR to be prepared by August
1992. He explained for Council Member Daly that the County of Orange is the
lead agency for the document and both the County and OCTA will be holding the
public hearings. LSA will be conducting the public hearings but they would be
fully sponsored by the County and OCTA.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members thanked both Mr. Betts and McCann for their
informative presentation.
REOUEST 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.
William Martin vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 54-83-60.
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. To meet with the City's negotiator concerning ~oseible acquisit£0n
and disposition of real property owned by Walt Disney Co., 1313 S.
Harbor Blvd.
Council Member Hunter moved to recess into closed session, Council Member
Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:58 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. (5:20 p.m.)
635
City Hallt Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24t 1991m 5=00 P.M.
INVOCATIONs Mary Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
invocation.
FLAG SALUTE= Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119= PRESENTATION - ANAHEIM COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONs Mrs. Jackie Terre11, on
behalf of the Anaheim Community Foundation presented a check for $7,500 to
Mayor Hunter for the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department to
fund that department's ReLeaf Coordinator. The City had received a grant for
the tree program but $23,852 of that grant would have gone back to the State if
there were no coordinator to administer the program. The donation from the
Foundation prevents that from happening. Mayor Hunter and the Council thanked
and commended Mrs. Terrel and the Foundation for the generous and timely
donation. The Mayor, in turn, presented the check to Chris Jarvi director of
Parks, Recreation and Community Services.
119= PROCLAMATIONS= The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council=
Knudsen Reading Team Day in Anaheim, September 25, 1991
Independent Living Month in Anaheim, October 1991
World Food Day in Anaheim, October 16, 1991, and Orange
County Hunger Week, October 13-19, 1991
Dan Ferrari accepted the Knudsen reading team proclamation~ Mr. Robert Cummings
and a representative from the Dayle McIntosh Center accepted the Independent
Living Month proclamation, and Paul Kratzer accepted the World Food Day
proclamation.
119= DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION= A Declaration of
Recognition and Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be
mailed to William E. Schaffler acknowledging his retirement from the City after
over 23 years of service in the Maintenance Department. Mayor Hunter and
council Member8 congratulated and commended Mr. Schaffler who could not be
present tonight and thanked him for his dedicated service to the City and
citizens of Anaheim.
119= DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION= A Declaration of
Recognition and Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be
mailed to Jack W. Nosek acknowledging his retirement from the Parks Department
following over 26 years of service to the City. Mayor Hunter and Council
Members congratulated and commended Mr. Nosek who could not be present tonight
and thanked him for his dedicated service to the City and citizens of Anaheim.
119= DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION= A Declaration of
Recognition and Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and
presented to Carole L. Cain upon her retirement from the City Treasurers Office
following over 26 years of service to the City. Mayor Hunter and Council
Members congratulated and commended Mrs. Cain and thanked her for dedicated
service to the City and citizens of Anaheim.
636
City Hallt Anaheimr California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991, 5=00 P.M.
119= DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION= A Declaration of
Recognition and Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and
presented to Bernard C. Bradley, Jr., upon his retirement as a Police Sergeant
following over 27 years of service to the City. Mayor Hunter and Council
Members congratulated and commended Sergeant Bradley and thanked him for his
dedicated service to the City and citizens of Anaheim. Mayor Hunter especially
commended 'Bing' having worked with Sergeant Bradley many years ago when he
first worked for the Anaheim Police Department.
119= DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION= A Declaration of
Recognition and Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and
presented to William D. Boswell upon his retirement as a Police Sergeant
following over 28 years of service to the City. Mayor Hunter and Council
Members congratulated and commended Sergeant Boswell and thanked him for his
dedicated service to the City and citizens of Anaheim.
MINUTES= Council Member Simpson moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held August 6 and August 13, 1991, and the special meeting held
August 16, 1991. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,043,811.85 for the
period ending September 13, 1991 and $5,524,630.25 for the Period ending
September 20, 1991, 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=46 p.m.)
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5=48 p.m.)
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. 91R-276 through 91R-281, both inclusive, for
adoption and offered Ordinance No. 5257 for first reading. Refer to
Resolution/Ordinance Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS= The title of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 91R-276 through 91R-281, both
inclusive.)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
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. Claim submitted by Dane M. Williams for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 30, 1991.
637
City Hallo Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991. 5~00 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Gregory A. Eckel for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 12, 1991.
c. Claim submitted by Donald Ray Howard for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 24, 1991.
d. claim submitted by Adelina Lopez for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 26, 1991.
e. Claim submitted by Gregory Grubba for property damage sustained
purDortedly due to actions of the City on or about July 5, 1991.
f. Claim submitted by George Grew for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about February 16, 1991.
g. Claim submitted by Mary L. Simpson for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 7, 1991.
h. Claim submitted by Felix Roblee for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 28, 1991.
i. Claim submitted by Carole Ann Tye for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 21, 1991.
j. Claim submitted by Joseph J. and Mary A. Ganz for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 3, 1991.
k. Claim submitted by Judith Kravits for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 4, 1991.
1. Claim submitted by Charles R. Reeee for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 9, 1991.
m. Claim submitted by Betty Jane Limbeson for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 7, 1991.
n. Claim submitted by S.M. Patel for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 6, 1991.
O. Claim submitted by Phil Weber for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 10, 1991.
p. Claim submitted by Benjamin Anthony Tedeschi for indemnity sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 15, 1991.
A2. 105= Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission
meeting held July 31, 1991.
156= Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance
Analysis for the month of August, 1991.
105= Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held
August 7, 1991.
638
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -SePtember 24, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission
meetings held August 14, 1991, and August 21, 1991.
109: Receiving and filing from the California Legislature Assembly Committee
on Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments, a notice of
hearings to be held regarding the Committees' proposed redistricting plans for
State Assembly and Congressional Districts.
109: Receiving and filing a hearing notice from the State of California
Department of Conservation regarding exemption of convenience zones from
provisions of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction
Act.
117: Receiving and filing a Summary of Investment Transactions for the month
of August, 1991, as submitted by the City Treasurer.
A3. 169: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Magnolia
Avenue Street Improvements from La Palma Avenue to Crescent Avenue by R.J.
Noble, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice
of Completion.
A4. 169: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Broadway
Street Improvements from Greenwich Street to Gilbert Street by R.J. Noble, and
authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of
Completion.
AS. 101: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction for the
restoration of the "Big-A' structure, lighting and message board system by
Federal Sign, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said
Notice of Completion.
A6. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-276: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FUEL EFFICIENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION.
A7. 173: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-277: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
106: Amending the 1991/92 Resource Allocation Plan by increasing
appropriations in Account No. 44-799-3122-933X by $100,000 and expenditures in
Account No. 44-799-6310-933X by $100,000.
AS. 160: Accepting the low bid of United for Fitness Equipment, Inc., in the
amount of $19,000 for the Police Department Gymnasium/Physical Fitness
facility, in accordance with Bid $4978.
Ag. 160~ Accepting the low bid of Nokia Cables L.T., in an amount not to
exceed $226,988.45 for 15,300 feet of 69KV power cable, in accordance with Bid
$4959.
639
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24~ 1991~ 5~00 P.M.
James Mara, District Manager, Okonite, Manufacturers of Electrical Wire and
Cables since 1878 - 100% American/Employee owned. They have a manufacturing
facility in Santa Maria. When they bid the subject item, their price was
$14,131 per 1000 feet - Nokia's price, $14,130 per 1000 feet or a difference of
$15.30 on the approximate $260,000 total bid. Okonite's relationship with
Anaheim is long standing. Because of this long standing relationship in doing
business with the City and because Nokia is located in Finland with offices in
New York, for the $15.30 difference, it makes sense to award the bid instead to
Okonite. It is obvious that the cost of telephone communication alone with
Nokia will be more costly than the very small difference of $15.30. He is
requesting that the Council review the recommendation to place an order for the
cable with Nokia and that it instead be placed with Okonite.
At the conclusion of the Consent Calendar, the Council accepted the
recommendation of staff and awarded the contract to Nokia Cable.
AiO. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to O. M. Scott and Sons, in an amount not to exceed
$110,000 for fertilizers, fungicides, and herbicides as required by Golf
Operations and the Stadium.
All. 125: Accepting the bid of American Management Systems, Inc., and
authorizing the Data Processing Director to negotiate and enter into a
contract, in an amount not to exceed $923,428 for the purpose of licensing,
installing and implementing the fully-integrated financial application software
package, Local Government Financial System; and in the event negotiations fail,
authorizing the negotiation of a contract with the second bidder, KPMG Peat
Marwick.
Sharon Ericson, President, Anaheim Municipal Employees Association (AMEA). She
wants to call the Council's attention to the amount of money involved in this
contract.
A12. 123: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Data Processing
Director to enter into a purchase agreement with Hitachi Data Systems in the
amount of $34,400, for an additional 32 megabytes of memory for the City AS/EX
20 mainframe computer.
Authorizing the Data Processing Director to enter into an agreement with
Hitachi Data Systems in the amount of $960 per year for maintenance on the
AS/EX 20 mainframe computer.
Sharon Ericson, President, AMEA. She also wants to call the Council's
attention to the cost of this agreement. She confirmed later in the meeting
for Council Member Daly that AMEA is not against these items at this time; AMEA
needs to look further into that department's budget.
A13. 148: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-278: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING ESTABLISHMENT IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OF A SERVICE
AUTHORITY FOR ABATEMENT OF ABANDONED VEHICLES PURSUANT TO VEHICLE CODE SECTION
22710.
640
City Hall, Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24t 1991t 5:00 P.M.
A14. 1~3~ RESOLUTION NO. 91R-279~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN
TWO YEARS OLD. (Inactive Code Enforcement records.)
A15. 185~ Determining that on the basis of the evidence submitted by Joseph
Barbot, Woodcrest Development, the property owner has complied in good faith
with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 88-01 for the
1990-1991 period under review.
A16. 185~ Determining that on the basis of the evidence submitted by Ron
Winkler, IDM Development Services, the property owner has complied in good
faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 88-05 for the
1990-1991 period under review.
A17. 123= Approving the extension of the existing contract for services with
Robert Johns, 'Dad' Miller golf professional, from the present expiration date
of October 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 (Second Amendment to Agreement for Pro
Shop Concession at H. G. 'Dad' Miller Municipal Golf Course).
A18. 153~ Authorizing all full-time City of Anaheim Employees to participate
in a one-time accrued vacation buy-out to provide a cash donation to full-time
employees on layoff status.
Sharon Ericson, President, AMEA. She referred to the article in the Anaheim
Bulletin where she mentioned that no management employees have come forward
relative to this item. She was subsequently approached by a few management
employees who told her that they did not know they could do so and others are
planning on doing so. She is hoping that management employees will donate
perhaps one-half hour or one hOur to those who were laid off. Three people in
her unit were retired tonight and last week about four people, all having taken
early retirement to save fellow employees.
Al9. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-280: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 91R-78 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (To
create the classification of Redevelopment/Economic Development Manager and
delete the classification of Development Services Manager, effective September
27v 1991.)
A20. 153: AcceDting a $7,500 donation from the Anaheim Community Foundation;
and amending the FY 91/92 Resource Allocation Plan to increase revenues and
expenditures in program 242 by $7,500 to fund the part-time Tree Coordinator
for Urban Forestry Grant.
A21. 150: Approving the naming of the parksite at Canyon Rim Road and Serrano
Avenue in the Highlands of Anaheim Hills residential development as Canyon Rim
Park.
A22. 150~ Approving the allotment plan for $138,631 in Community Services
Funding to be distributed to selected community organizations as recommended by
the Community Services Board.
641
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24~ 1991~ 5=00 P.M.
This matter was discussed and extensive input received (see discussion
following the Consent Calendar) at the conclusion of which, the Council
accepted the recommendation of the Community Services Board allotting the
$138,631 as listed in report dated September 3, 1991, from Michael Sofia,
Chairperson, Community Services Board.
A23. 123= Approving an Easement Deed with BrookhollowApartments (Anaheim)
Associates for ingress egress, and surface use purposes over and across the
Flood Control Channel (City owns fee title) located within the Brookhollow
Apartment Project.
A24. 105= ORDINANCE NO. 5257 - ¢INTRODUCTIONI= AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 1.04.995 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE I OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD.
A25. 155= Approving a Negative Declaration, pursuant to CEQA findings, for
the construction of 12' water main replacement in Lemon Street between Vermont
Avenue and South Street.
A26. 123= Waiving Council Policy 401 and approving an Agreement with National
Economic Research Associates, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $40,000 for a
period of six months, to prepare a cost of service study of the City's electric
operations, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute
said agreement.
Sharon Ericson, President, AMEA. This agreement is $40,000 for a six month
period for another study in the Utilities Department. She knows the money does
not come from City General Funds but after the workshop presentation today (see
workshop session - 3=00 p.m. - re= Financial Planning - Development of Revenue
Rates - Utilities) she feels Utilities should be able to study their own
electrical operations and service needs.
A27. 123= Approving an Agreement with Orange County Water District, in the
amount of $750,000 for construction, installation, operation and financing of
Well No. 46 for a period of 15 years.
A28. ~13= RESOLUTION NO. 91R-281= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN
TWO YEARS OLD. (Utilities Department, Customer Services Division.)
A29. 123= Approving Supplemental Agreement Modification No. 8 to Contract
No. DE-SC05-84UE07541 with the Department of Energy, Southern California Edison
Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and the City of Riverside to purchase
incentive price enrichment services for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station.
A30. 123= Approving a First Amendment to agreement with CGMS/EPS in the
amount of $50,000 for an aggregate amount not to exceed $151,000 for evaluation
and feasibility analysis of City participation regarding the development of a
Disney 'Second Gate'.
642
City Hall. Anaheim, CaliforniaT COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991, 5=00 P.M.
Sharon Ericson, President, AMEA. This proposed agreement is of concern. She
questioned, if the City is laying off people and is in a severe budget crisis,
why the City is spending this money on studies. This is not the time to be
spending money on Disneyland.
Mayor Hunter. He asked staff to respond as to whether or not any or all of the
money proposed to be spent is reimbursable.
Jim Armstrong, Assistant City Manager. In this case, it is not. It is being
funded out of certificates of participation sold for the commercial-recreation
area. Those notes were sold and the cost for the study will come out of that
funding. The City is involved in negotiation with Disneyland on a hundreds of
million dollar project and this is very specialized assistance. The City
cannot afford to make mistakes. Several staff members are also involved and
this is to assist them on probably some of the most complex negotiations in
which the City has ever been involved.
A22. 150. COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92=
Approving the allotment plan for $138,631 in Community Services Funding to be
distributed to selective community organizations as recommended by the
Community Services Board. Submitted was report dated September 3, 1991, from
the Community Services Board recon~ending the subject allotment.
The following people spoke relative to the subject allotment, specifically on
the Feedback Foundation, TLC (Transportation, Lunch and Counseling) program for
senior citizens=
Muriel Nelson, 1776 W. Greenleaf, Anaheim. She works for Feedback Foundation
as manager of the Congregate Nutrition programs. They are requesting Council's
assistance in their efforts to continue to serve 1,000 seniors a year, many
with special needs. It is necessary to have the total amount requested in
their proposal to the Community Services Board (CSB) - $62,018 requested -
$31,631 allotted. For those who attend TLC on a daily basis, it is a reason
for them to get up and get dressed Monday through Friday to go to their
'club'. Those in the homebound program do not go anywhere but are provided a
needed service. She is urging that the Council give the full allotment to the
program so that one of the TLC sites in Anaheim will not have to be closed.
John Combaro, Chairman, Orange County Senior Citizen Advisory Council and
member of the California Senior Legislature. He is speaking on behalf of the
elderly of the community and the nutrition program. It is not only a nutrition
program, but also a fellowship program. It gives the senior a purpose to get
up each day to share with their fellow senior. It is perhaps one of the beet
programs in the Older American Act.
Floyd Hemp, 225 S. Western Avenue. The United States is one of the first
countries to send food all over the world, but now the City's seniors are going
to have to go without. The program provides seniors with one good meal a day -
for some, their only meal. He urged the Council to try to keep providing that
one meal. The TLC center on Ball Road (west Anaheim site) averages over 100
seniors a day.
643
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991. 5=00 P.M.
Julia Hitch, Founders Lane, a member of the TLC mclub#. She asked the Council
to reconsider what they can and cannot do for the seniors. It is almost an
injustice to deprive seniors from meeting during the week for pleasure, therapy
and all the good and many things it does for them. She feels it would only be
fair to keep the program going.
Nick Werner, Manager, West Anaheim TLC Center #Trident School/Ball Road' for
14 years. Their daily average at the West Anaheim site is approximately 115
seniors. He wonders if the seniors would get a balanced meal without the
center, or be able to visit with their friends and make new ones, dress each
day and wear their best clothes because they have some place to go, get their
blood pressure taken, get assistance with forms they must fill out, see the
elder care nurse, share their problems, attend a physical fitness class and the
many other vital services provided. He does not know how it is possible to
place a value on all of these things. That's what TLC is all about.
Ellen Jervis, Home Services Manager, Feedback Foundation. She is speaking on
behalf of the 85 seniors - homebound and dependent on the Foundation to receive
meals. Last March, there were 115 being served. Through attrition and careful
reassessment, it has been narrowed to 85 with a waiting list of 58 clients.
For many, without having meals delivered to them, they would be unable to stay
in their homes. It cost $2,800 a month for a nursing home - a meal costs much
less. She urged the City's assistance.
Kathleen Benson, Manager, TLC, George Washington site downtown. Central City
seniors desperately need to have the service they are provided. The site
serves between 85 and 110 people a day - 5 are in wheelchairs but still able to
live independently although unable to cook for themselves. Without the daily
program, they will not be able to eat. The City has always been so good to the
seniors. She asked that they not forget them now.
Shirley Cohen, Executive Director, Feedback Foundation. They are not asking
for a handout but an investment on behalf of the elderly of Anaheim. Feedback
Foundation is a business with a budget of $3,893,000 with 110 employees, 16
Anaheim residents. They pay over $60,000 a year to Anaheim in Utility bills.
In addition to the programs already spoken about, there are 22 Anaheim
residents in the Adult Day Health Center which is completely self sustaining.
The question may be with a budget of over $3,000,000 why $31,000 makes that big
a difference. They have been meeting over the past 1 1/2 years with
representatives of each of the cities where services are provided and agreed
that all cities would pay their fair share. If any city did not do so, they
would either take people off the home meal program or close the site. It is a
very difficult decision to be made within the next 30 days if Anaheim does not
come up with the full $62,000. Anaheim has always been supportive of their
programs. She urged the Council to consider their requests for $62,000
favorably.
Mary Turinitza. She is speaking to the future of TLC site ~1 (West Anaheim).
She worked seven days a week as a volunteer - shopping, working in the kitchen,
etc., and on Sundays she works at St. Jude with the homeless. No other
community except Anaheim is trying to shut down a center. The Council should
not forget their constituency. Their was a great need for the center in West
644
City Hall, Anaheim, Californ£a- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, ~991. 5~00 P.M.
Anaheim. For many of those who attend, it is the only hot meal they get.
Before they were promised a new center and now it is getting to be a closed
center.
Mayor Hunter. The Community Services Board made the final recommendations. He
asked to hear from a representative of the Board.
Mike Sofia, Chairperson, Community Services Board. As chairperson of the CSB,
he appointed a subcommittee of five to work on the Community Services Agency
funding for fiscal year 1991/92. Most of the people who have spoken tonight
also came before the CSB when they held presentations. He asked Mary Hibbard,
one of the members of the subcommittee to address the issue.
Mary Hibbard, the allocation went fro~ a $200,000 line item last year to
$138,631 this year. Twenty-four agencies asked for a total of $441,928.80. It
is evident that the Board had a tremendous task. One of the first things they
did was to establish their funding priorities which were - children and youth,
Anaheim based agencies and cost effectiveness of program and prevention. There
were brand new agencies who did not receive any funding. Once they made the
allocation, the percentage broke down as follows= 36% for children and youth -
36% for elderly adults - 28% for disadvantaged families.
In order to give everyone a fair share, no-one received their entire amount and
the majority took a cut. The funds that they had to work with this year
represented a decrease of approximately 31% from last year.
After some closing comments by Council Members, the Council, under the consent
calendar, approved the allotment plan for $138,631 in community services agency
funding to be distributed to selective community organizations as recommended
in report dated September 3, 1991, and attachment thereto with no changes.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 91R-276 through 91R-281=
AYES=
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 91R-276 through 91R-281, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consen~ ~alendar. MOTION~ CARrieD.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A31. 105~ ORDINANCE NO. 5258 - (INTRODUCTIONS: Adding new Section 1.04.850
to Chapter 1.04 of Title I of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the
Community Services Board.
Council Member Ehrle offered Ordinance No. 5258 for first reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
645
C~t¥ Hall. Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991. 5=00 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 5258s AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING HEW SECTION
1.04.850 TO CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE I OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD.
The proposed motion to appoint Margaret Sullivan as Conununity Services Board
Member Emeritus, as recommended by the Board at their meeting of August 8,
1991, was deferred until next week to be acted upon at the time of adoption of
the subject ordinance.
RECESSs By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (6=30 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS= The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6s40 p.m.)
A32. 105s APPOINTMENTS - SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSIONs
This matter was continued from the meeting of September 10, 1991, for a new
term expiring June 30, 1994, and to fill an unscheduled vacancy on the Senior
Citizens Commission for the term ending June 30, 1993 (Scherman). On the
Council Agenda today is the remaining term to be filled on the Senior Citizen
Conunission as well as the unscheduled vacancy for the term ending June 30,
1993.
Council Member Ehrle nominated William Ericson for the term ending June 30,
1994~ Council Member Pickler nominated George Maclaren for the unscheduled
vacancy, term ending June 30, 1993.
There being no further nominations, nominations were closed.
Mr. Erickson and Mr. Maclaren were thereupon unanimously appointed to the
Senior Citizen Commission for the term ending June 30, 1994 and June 30, 1993,
respectively.
A33. 105= APPOINTMENTS - COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARDs
Unscheduled vacancy for the term expiring June 30, 1994, (Rizzo).
Council Member Pickler nominated James Vanderbilt.
Councll Member Ehrle nominated Patricia Tafola and proceeded to brief the
Council on Mrs. Tafola's extensive credentials.
Council Member Daly. The Council has received an application from
Mr. Vanderbilt. He asked Council Member Ehrle if he would be willing to slot
the nomination of Mrs. Tafola for the next available vacancy on the Community
Services Board. He notes a vacancy will be coming up shortly.
Council Member Ehrle. He will defer his nomination and have an official
application sent to the City Clerk even though it is not necessarily required.
Nominations were then closed.
Mr. Vanderbilt was thereupon unanimously appointed to the Con~nunity Services
Board for the term ending June 30, 1994.
646
C$t¥ Hallr Anaheimr California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991. 5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Member Pickler.
referred to actions taken by the Council on September 10, 1991. He has had
time to think about the situation and he feels he erred and would like to
rectify the matter.
He
MOTION: Council Member Pickler thereupon moved to rescind the Council action
of September 10, 1991, declaring all seats on the Public Utilities Board (PUB)
vacant as of October 22, 1991. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion.
Council Members Ehrle and Hunter voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
The action previously taken was thereupon rescinded by a majority vote of the
Council with Public Utility Board members to serve their respective terms.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler then moved that the City Council rescind its
previous action of September 10, 1991, appointing Ian Skidmore to the Public
Utilities Board for the term ending June 30, 1995, and that Carl Keifer be
reinstated as a member of the Public Utilities Board in his place.
Before action was taken, Council Member Ehrle stated he opposes the motion.
he recalls, there were two openings on the board. Mr. Skidmore's name was
placed in nomination and he received more votes than the other nominee. He
was, therefore, seated on the board.
As
City Attorney Jack White. That is correct. He had given the Council a
memorandum on the subject. His opinion, based upon the action of the Council
on September 10, Mr. Skidmore was appointed as of that night and became a
member of the board. The motion now offered by Council Member Pickler is to
rescind that appointment. Under the rules of order, a motion to rescind the
previous action is in order. He understands the motion is to rescind that
appointment and reinstate Mr. Keifer which has not been seconded as yet. He
clarified for Council Member Simpson that as of now, Mr. Skidmore is a member
of the Public Utilities Board due to Council's action of September 10, 1991,
and unless that action is rescinded, he will continue to be a board member.
The only way to rescind that action is by a motion to rescind his appointment
and to appoint someone else. It requires a second and then a majority vote of
the Council. He then explained for Council Member Daly if it is merely a
removal of a member then under State law it would require that the vacancy be
noticed before an appointment is made. However, the motion as made was to undo
the action taken on September 10, 1991. As he recalls, there were three
nominations at the time and Mr. Keifer was not elected because he did not
receive a vote comparable to the other two. Because of the fact that the
present motion is to rescind that action and redo the vote as to one of those
nominations, he does not believe it would have to be posted but could be acted
on tonight if the Council wished to do so. In the absence of a second at this
time the motion may be moot.
Council Member Simpson. He fully supports not getting rid of all the board
members without having had time to think the matter through. He is not even
sure what the qualifications of all the board members are and did not know
until doing some research how long each have served. It turns out that five on
647
City Hallr Anaheimr California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24~ 1991. $=00 P.M.
the board are registered engineers. The only reason he has not seconded
Council Member Pickler's motion, he called Mr. Keifer who said he does not want
to be back on the board. He (Simpson) would like to wait until the Council
reconsiders the matter on October 22, 1991.
City Attorney White. He clarified that the Council will not be reconsidering
the matter on October 22, 1991, since the first motion was to rescind the
Council's action declaring all seats vacant on October 22, 1991. As it stands,
the board is still constituted as it is today and will not be reconsidered on
October 22, 1991. He also clarified for Council Member Daly that it includes
Mr. White and Mr. Skidmore but does not include Mr. Keifer. Mr. White and
Mr. Skidmore were elected on September 10, 1991.
Council Member Ehrle. Speaking to Council Member Pickler, he stated he was
confused with his action since he (Pickler) shared with him that each Council
Member ought to have an appointment on the board. He (Pickler) has said for a
long time that relative to the Public Utilities 8oard, Planning Commission and
Community Redevelopment Commission, each Council Member should have his own
appointee just as they did with the Charter review committee and recently
appointed Budget Advisory Commission. He (Pickler) is now switching and
appointments will remain under the statue quo. If he made an error, he should
have stated that last week.
Council Member Daly. In keeping with the comments of both Council Member Ehrle
and Council Member Pickler, he is suggesting that the Council put the Public
Utilities Board on the October 22, 1991 agenda - the two appointments for the
two terms - Joe White and Ian Skidmore and those two only.
city Attorney White. What he is hearing, Council Member Daly would like to see
those two positions agendized for possibly considering the removal of one or
both of those two members. That could be agendized if a majority of the
Council wishes. If either or both are then removed, they will have to go
through the Maddy Appointive List Act procedure of waiting ten days and posting
the vacancies.
MOTION= Council Member Daly moved to declare the seats of Public Utilities
Board member Joe White and Ian Skidmore vacant as of October 22, 1991. Council
Member Pickler seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Council Member Ehrle again asked Council Member
Pickler if now he does not feel each Council Member should have an appointee on
the Public Utilities Board, Planning Commission and Redevelopment Commission
and wants to go back to the old way of appointing members.
Council Member Pickler stated that was correct.
Council Member Daly asked if there was a way to post the two vacancies at this
time.
City Attorney White. It can be done similar to what was done on September 10,
1991 - declaring the seats vacant as of October 22, 1991. Notices would go out
and on October 22, 1991, the Council could appoint both of the same people,
648
City Hall, Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991, 5~00 P.M.
one, or neither and could fill either or both of the seats with someone else.
Tonight the action would have to be taken to remove both of the individuals
effected October 22, 1991. Which would authorize the City Clerk to make the
posting required by law.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Council Member Daly, seconded
by Council Member Pickler clarified as follows=
Declaring the seats of Public Utilities Board Member Joe White and Ian Skidmore
vacant as of October 22, 1991, and authorizing the City Clerk to post
vacancies.
The motion carried by the following vote= Ayes= Simpson, Daly, Pickler,
Noes= Ehrle, Hunter. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 - B5 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR M~.~TING OF SEPTEMBER 5~ 1991 -
DECISION DATE= SEPTEMBER 12, 1991, INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
SEPTEMBER 27~ 1991=
B1. 179~
VARIANCE NO. 4139~ CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT~ CLASS 5:
OWNER= CGH ASSOCIATES, 23046 Avenida Carlata, Suite 520, Laguna
Hills, CA 92653. Attn: Richard L. Cramer.
AGENT: MOTHERHEAD & ASSOCIATES, 8857 Swallow Avenue, Fountain Valley,
CA 92708, Attn: Mike Motherhead.
LOCATION= 1334, 1338, 1342 & 1346 Knollwood Circle. Property is
approximately 1.95 acres located at the east side of Knollwood Circle,
approximately 640 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue.
Waivers of (a) required lot frontage (b) minimum number of parking
spaces proposed to establish a four lot industrial subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4139 APPROVED, with one added condition (ZA91-36).
H2.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4140~ CATEGORICalLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: PAUL BOSTWICK, 200 W. Midway Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805.
LOCATION: 200 West Midway Drive (Midway Trailer Park). Property is
approximately 6.65 acres located on the south side of Midway Drive,
approximately 400 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard.
Waiver of maximum fence height to construct an 8 foot high block wall.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4140 APPROVED (ZA91-37).
B3.
179t VARIANCE NO. 4141 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: NICK BECKER, 17141-C Murphy Ave., Irvine, CA 92714.
LOCATION: 1300 North Jefferson Avenue. Property is approximately 3.9
acres located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Miraloma
Avenue.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish 7,500 square
feet of office improvements within an existing 50,160 square-foot
industrial building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4141 APPROVED (ZA91-38).
Approved Negative Declaration.
649
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991o 5=00 P.M.
B4. 179s
VARIANCE NO. 4142 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONs
OWNERs CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT, 1065 N. Pacific Center, Anaheim, CA
92714, Attn= Rick Del Carlo.
LOCATIONs Southeast corner of Hunter Avenue and Manassero Street.
Property is approximately 4 acres located at the southeast corner of
Hunter Avenue and Manassero Street.
Waiver of minimum number of parking space to permit a 30,000 square
foot industrial building, a 18,500 square foot industrial building and
a 24,000 square foot industrial building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR=
Variance No. 4142 APPROVED, modified Conditions #3 and $8 (ZA91-39).
Approved Negative Declaration.
BS. 179=
VARIANCE NO. 4145, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS
OWNERs GUS CHRISTOPOULOS AND JUDITH, MARIE CHRISTOPOULOS, 422
Meadoview Drive, La Canada, CA 91011.
AGENT= PETER DRAKOS, 5750 E. La Palma Avenue, CA 92807.
LOCATIONs 5750 E. La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.8
acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, approximately 435
feet east of the centerline of Imperial Highway.
Waiver of permitted sign to construct an 81 square foot monument sign.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR=
Variance No. 4145 APPROVED, IN PART, (72 square feet instead of 81)
(ZA91-40).
Council Member Daly posed questions for purposes of clarification relative to
the thinking in granting the sign waiver which were answered by the Zoning
Administrator, Annika Santalahti.
ITEM B6 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5~ 1991 - DECISION
DATEs SEPTEMBER 12t 1991, INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 23t
1991s
B6.
179s ARCADE PERMIT NO. 1009 ~READVERTISED)s
REQUESTED BY= SUPER GAMES ARCADE, 2295 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA
92804
LOCATION= 2295 West Ball Road.
To permit 67 amusement devices.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR=
Approved since opposition did not exceed 50%
End of the Zoning Administrator Items.
B7. 179s ORDINANCE NO. 5255 FOR ADOPTIONs Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 90-91-28, located at 300 North Anaheim
Boulevard, from the CG zone to the CL zone.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE= The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5255)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
65O
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991. 5=00 P.M.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5255 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5255: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Votes
AYES=
NOES=
ABSENT=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5255 duly passed and adopted.
B8. 179= REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253 AND
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-48:
REQUESTED BY: RICHARD A. DEBEIKES, JR., DeBeikes Investment Company,
2300 Michaelson Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92715
LOCATION/REQUEST= 1521 N.Imperial Highway.
The petitioner request an extension of time retroactive to
September 11, 1991, to expire September 11, 1992, to comply with the
conditions of approval for Reclassification No. 89-90-48 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 3253 to permit a 30-unit commercial retail
center at the subject location.
Submitted was report dated September 16, 1991, from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending approval of the request.
MOTIONs Council Member Daly moved to approve the requested extension of time
retroactive to September 11, 1991, to expire September 11, 1992 on
Reclassification 89-90-48 and Conditional Use Permit 3253 as recommended.
Council Member Hunter seconded, the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
B9. 179= ORDINANCE NO. 5259 - (INTRODUCTIONS: Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 90-91-25, located 1440 South Anaheim
Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Swalaaeet), from the ML zone to the CL zone.
Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5259 for first reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5259= AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Cl.
107= APPLICATION FOR POOL ROOM pERMIT - '999 BILLIARD'=
REQUESTED BY: JIM NAM QUACH, 1702 N. Morningside Street, Orange, CA
92667.
LOCATION= The property is located at 2437 W. Ball Road on the north
side of Ball Road, west of Gilbert Street. The request is to operate
30 pool tables in conjunction with serving snacks and beer on CL zone
property.
Submitted was report dated September 9, 1991, from the Code Enforcement
651
City Hall. Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991, 5=00 P.M.
Manager, John Poole recommending that the Council deny the application for the
reasons he enumerated in the report.
John Pools, Code Enforcement Manager. He clarified staff is recon~ending
denial of the permit based on the facts outlined in the subject report.
Mayor Hunter. Noting that there were a number of people in the Chamber
audience present on the item asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak
either in favor or in opposition.
Clara Pritz, 920 S. Bruce Street, north of the proposed pool room. There is a
high school in close proximity and a liquor store next door and across the
street on the east is a boarded up Del Taco. There has been a drug dealing
problem in the area. Friday and Saturday nights there is a large gathering at
the McDonalds to the east. This ie not a place to establish a pool room where
beer is sold. In the best interests of the youth and the neighborhood, they
are urging the Council to deny. the application.
There were no further persons who wished to speak, but a number of citizens
indicated they were present in opposition.
MOTION= Council Member Pickler moved that the application for pool room permit
to authorize 30 pool tables at 2437 West Ball Road be denied on the grounds
that, by reason of the location where the pool room is sought to be located,
the conducting or carrying on of the pool room would be detrimental to the
public order or public morals in that= 1) The proposed location is in an area
of excessive juvenile loitering~ and 2) The proposed use would be located in
the vicinity, and be incompatible with the activities and educational purposes
of, Magnolia High School~ and 3) There is insufficient off-street parking
available for the proposed use. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
C2. 106= ESTABLISHMENT OF BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION - APPROVING APPOINTMENTS
AND TERMS OF APPOINTEES=
ORDINANCE NO. 5256 FOR ADOPTION= Adding new Section 1.04.997 to Chapter 1.04
of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code establishing a Budget Advisory
Commission.
WAIVER OF READING -- ORDINANCE= The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5256)
Council Member Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Council Member Simpson seconded the mot£on. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5256 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5256= AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
1.04.997 TO CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE i OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING
A BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION.
652
City Hall, Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991~ 5=00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote=
AYES=
NOES=
ABSENT=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5256 duly passed and adopted.
It is now necessary to confirm the appointments of all those nominated by
members of the Council and subsequently to slot those vacancies in staggered
terms.
MOTION= Council Member Daly moved to approve the following appointments of ten
members to the Budget Advisory Commission=
Mayor Hunter - Julie Mayer and Leon Alexander
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle - Tom Tate and Lynne Pierson Doti
Council Member Pickler - Douglas Leavenworth and Ken Heuler
Council Member Daly - Rick Vaughn and Shirley McCracken
Council Member simpson - Dick Clark and Ned Snavely
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White. Relative to slotting each member, it can be done in two
ways. The Council can by motion pick which members will go in each slot (when
terms will expire) or in the alternative have the Mayor or a Council Member
draw names of all ten which have already been written down and placed in a hat~
the Council elected to have the Mayor draw the names with those names to be
slotted in the order in which they are listed on the agenda. The names were
drawn as follows=
Three terms expiring June 30, 1995= Snavely, Vaughn and Leavenworth
Three terms expiring June 30, 1994= Hueler, McCracken and Doti
Two terms expiring June 30, 1993= Clark and Mayer
Two terms expiring June 30, 1992= Tate and Alexander
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST=
Margaret E. Farris, 15200 S. Magnolia, Westminster, CA 92806. She is a street
person and was victimized at Pearson Park in 1986. It was reported at the time
and the person who committed the crime is now in prison. She is concerned that
Phil Aguilar of Set Free Church who knows what happened has tried to look for
ways to discredit her story as well as other homeless people who go to Set
Free. She asked the Council to look into the matter.
D1. 179= _~ONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4113 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
OWNER= AMEDCO, HUMANA WEST ANAHEIM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL INC., 3030 West
Orange Ave. Anaheim, CA
AGENT= KAISER HEALTH PLAN, INC., Attn= Property Acquisition, 393 E.
Walnut St., Pasadena, CA 91188
653
City Hall. Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991. 5:00 P.M.
LOCATION/REQUEST= The property is located at 3030 West Orange Avenue
and is approximately 3.27 acres located on the south side of Orange
Ave. and approximately 387 feet west of the centerline of Beach Blvd.
The request is for a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces,
maximum structural height and minimum required setback adjacent to
residential zone boundary to construct a 5-story, 140,000 square foot
medical multi-specialty office building with 2 levels of subterranean
parking and a detached 5-level parking structure.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONs
Variance No. 4113 GRANTED (PC91-100) (4 yes votes, 2 no votes).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of August 6, 1991, Item B1.
HEARING SET
A letter of appeal was submitted by the agent, Kaiser Health Plan, and public
hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of August 27, 1991, to this
date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BYs
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - August 15, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 15, 1991
Posting of property - August 16, 1991
PLANNING STAFF INPUTs
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 15, 1991 and follow-up
repert dated September 16, 1991, from the Zoning Administrator, Annika
Santalahti.
Mayor Hunter. He noted that extensive public testimony had already been heard
at the meeting of August 27, 1991. Subsequently the developers and neighbors
were going to get together and. re~ort back.
City Attorney White. At the last hearing, the Council closed the public
hearing and indicated they did not wish to have additional extensive testimony
presented. The Council has previously received written information as a result
of the meeting of the developer with the neighbors.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Jim Lynn. Representing Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 393 E.
Walnu%, ~asaaena. Kaiser has had %wo meetings w£~h the W£nd
Rivers Home Owners Association since the last public hearing
before the Council. What was presented to the homeowners at
those meetings is summarized in a repe~t from the Zoning
Administrator, Annika Santalahti (see report dated September 16,
1991) briefing some of the fine points. He noted Kaiser agreed
to reconfigure the parking structure to make it conform
substantially to the 2-to-1 slope requirement that the Planning
Commission had recommended and at the same time put an additional
level of parking underground. They do protrude somewhat into the
2-to-1 slope plane if measured from the ground, but as Mrs.
Santalahti indicated, if measured from the top of the block wall,
it is conforming to the 2-to-1 setback requirement. The parking
654
City Hallo Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991. 5~00 P.M.
structure overall height has been reduced 5 1/2 feet. The south
end of the parking structure, at least the lower floor, is now
going to be completely enclosed. The vehicle entrance and exit
is now 50 feet from the property line and they have offered to
plant 5 foot box trees along the southerly boundary of the
property to help screen out the parking structure from the
neighbors.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from a spokesperson of the home owners
association.
Mike Stacker, 3047 W. Cheryllyn Lane, Anaheim. He referred to
letter dated September 19, 1991, previously submitted to the
Council after their meetings with Kaiser expressing concerns that
remain unanswered. The project is still only 33 feet from their
residential boundary. Instead of setting it back further, they
have decided to tier it back to be able to come into the 2-to-1
window. The scope of the project has not changed and there are
still 380 cars per hour during rush hours. A positive change,
they have moved the entrance and exit 18 more feet so it is now
50 feet from their homes instead of 33 feet. It will still
generate 5,500 car trips per day as stated in the traffic study.
The building is now 50 feet instead of 55 feet. The medical
building is still 84 feet tall. There is still exposure to
damage due to the proximity of the project next to their property
in the event of an earthquake. Kaiser has decided to go down
another level with a second level now below the ground water
level. With the liquefaction factor, the earthquake danger with
such a large structure must be considered. The structure is
still an intrusion on the residential neighborhood and infringes
on their privacy and quality of life. It is an incompatible use
of the property. He then countered statements listed in the
Planning Commission resolution granting Variance No. 4113 and the
requested waivers. Another issue, since one waiver allows
building close to the strawberry field (RSA4300) to the west
placing this commercial building at that location will affect the
types of homes and condominiums that would be built in that field
and set a precedent for the entire area so that commercial
properties will continue to intrude into the neighborhood moving
further west. They are urging the Council not to approve the
project due to the size of the structure and the scope of the
project.
Council Member Pickler. He feels that Kaiser has gone above and
beyond in trying to meet the concerns. What they have proposed
is something that will have a positive affect for the City and
citizens of Anaheim. They went back and worked with the
residents - they are constructing a layer of parking underground
and have come back with a 2-to-1 ratio.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by
Council Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Hunter, the City Council
does hereby approve a mitigated Negative Declaration on the subject project and
655
C~t¥ Hall. Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991. Ss00 P.M.
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code on the basis that the Planning Conanission/City Council
has considered the proposal with the mitigated Negative Declaration and
accompaying Monitoring Program, together with any co~nents 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.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONs The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 91R-284)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 91R-284 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 4113, subject to City Planning Commission decisions. Refer to
Resolution Book.
R~SOLUTION NO. 91R-284= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 4113.
Roll Call Votes
AYESs
NOES=
ABSENT=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-284 duly passed and adopted.
D2. 179= PUBLIC ~RING - VARIANCE NO. 3747 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION -
MODIFICATION OR DELETION OF CONDITIONs
AGENT= Steven B. Sherwood, American Engineering Services, 2925 E.
Ricker Way, Anaheim, 92806.
LOCATION/REQUEST= The property is located north of Nohl Ranch Road
and northeast of Old Bucket Lane - Tract 12576. The petitioner
requests modification or deletion of Condition No. 8 of Resolution No.
88R-108 (Variance No. 3747) ae it affects Lot 33 only.
Variance No. 3747 is for a waiver of maximum structural height not to
exceed 35 feet (lots 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 restricted to 18 feet) on
property within Tract No. 12576.
HEARING SET
Request to amend the original conditions of approval in Council Resolution
No. 88R-108.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BYs
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - September 12, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 11, 1991
Posting of property - September 13, 1991
PLANNING STAFF INPUTs
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 17, 1991, from the
656
City Hall. Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -$eDtamber 24, 1991. 5=00 P.M.
Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti recommending that the Council deny the
request to amend Conditions No. 8 of Resolution No. 88R-108 thereby retaining
the requirement that the building height on Lot No. 33 not exceed 18 feet. An
additional recommendation in the report is that the Council may wish to amend
Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 88R-108 as stated on page 1, thereby giving
the Planning Commission jurisdiction to consider any proposed deviations from
the height limitations established by the subject variance.
Mayor Hunter. He first questioned how this item is again before the Council
after the Council has had so many hearings on the subject. The people have had
to go through a number of hearings on the issue and it keeps coming back. He
wanted to know if it was ever going to be put to an end.
City Attorney Jack White. The owner of the property filed for a variance to
deviate from the previously imposed restriction and staff does not have any
authority to deny someone the right to apply for a variance. Such requests
come right to the Council since the Council is the body who imposed the
restriction. In that regard, under consideration at this time in accordance
with some other previous concerns is a code amendment which will send these
requests to the Planning Commission even though the Council acted as the final
approving authority, but until that amendment is in effect, such requests will
still come to the Council anytime there is a request to amend a previously
approved condition. Otherwise, if the proposed code amendment is approved, the
request will first go through the Planning Commission and only come to the
Council if the decision of the Planning Commission is appealed. The amendment
presently being worked on by his staff and Planning Department's staff will be
coming to the Council shortly. The Council will always be the final
authority. These items will be listed on the Council agenda under the 'B#
portion (Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator Consent Calendar Items).
Council Member Pickler. He has no problem with that; However, he feels that 35
foot height limitation is something that belongs in the subject area.
Mayor Hunter. In this particular area and property, balloon tests were
conducted showing how the building height would affect the adjoining
residents. A deal was struck and to change it now would be wrong and a matter
of bad faith.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT=
Steve Sherwoodv American Engineering Services. The situation
came about in 1988 first at the Planning Commission hearing. At
that meeting, lot 33 was not opposed to and the suggestion made
that it be deleted from the permit approval. It was not until
approximately four days afterward that a letter was sent to the
City requesting that lot 33 be included. Initially there was no
opposition. He has photographs with him tonight taken of the
site.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She clarified for
Council Member Pickler that lot 33 was included. It was a
typographical error in the Resolution but the remainder of the
resolution makes reference that will correct that. She has an
657
City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24, 1991~ 5500 P.M.
exhibit which was shown at those earlier hearings to show how lot
33 does sit relative to the east end boundary which is where the
majority of the opposition is located. It does sit in one lot
from the edge.
Steve Sherwood. On this particular residence, the height request
does not really affect anyone's view. Referring to the
photograph shown to the Council, he pointed out sheet #3, the
illustration showing the proposed structure. There is an
existing tree on the site which is about 21-feet tall. He used
that and did a paper cut out to illustrate an approximate 25 foot
height obstruction. Since they have pushed the residence into
the slope, it is not obstructing anyone's view. Lot 38 which is
on the side of Copa d'Oro closer to Nohl Ranch Road is
approximately 8-feet higher. That lot was exempt and it is
allowed to have a 35-foot height structure on it. If built that
way, it would have a roof line with an elevation of 510 feet.
They are asking for a roof line of approximately 493 feet which
is 17-feet lower than any potential residence that could be
constructed on lot 38. He had prepared an illustration showing
the line of site from the properties across the street which he
had with him which shows what would be affected. He requested
that the Council review these and that their petition to delete
lot 33 only from Variance No. 3747 be approved.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
IN OPPOSITION=
Gerald Bush, 450 Old Bucket Lane. He is opposed to the requested
variance. He could see if it was going to be 20 or 30% higher
but going up all most 100% is not acceptable. He has not seen
the pictures of the balloon test, but feels it is going to hinder
their view.
Annika Santalahti. She wonders if the speaker misunderstands.
The basic Variance No. 3747 was granted for 35-foot high houses
on most of the lots excepting this property and several others
which were restricted to 18-feet. The drawings given to her and
analyzed for the staff report shows a 23-foot height where
18-feet is permitted. The petitioner is suggesting 23-feet and
not 35-feet.
Robert Baumar, owner of the property. To the left of the house
is a bank which is about 30-feet higher than the subject lot.
The only reason he wants to raise the roof above 18-feet is to be
able to get good drainage in a basement garage. The civil
engineering problems draining a basement would be quite expensive
because they would have to run a long distance with deep pipes.
They are going to raise it about 4 or 5-feet for good drainage.
It would not bother anybody's view.
658
City Hall, Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991, 5=00 P.M.
Don VanHoff, 5202 Rolling Hills Drive. Also speaking on behalf
of Diane Roberts, 5200 Rolling Hills Drive. This is about the
6th or 7th meeting the residents have had to attend on this
issue. If it continues, they will be attending meetings
regarding all of the other lots as well. Approving this will set
a precedent. Currently building is in progress on lot 35 which
is directly behind him. The owner stayed within the variance
set. Presently, there is a roofing job in progress on one of the
houses and roofing paper stacked on the perimeter of the house
which is 3 feet high. That 3 feet makes a great difference in
the view. The height restrictions on the subject lots were voted
on and agreed to and it is not fair to change at this time. He
confirmed it will affect his view and it will set a precedent.
If the requested height is allowed, the houses will be looking
into each others windows. They bought their home 17 years ago.
It is an important quality of life issue.
Don Polero, 411 Brook Lane. He never thought he would be back
before the Council on this issue again. He empathizes with the
owner who is the third owner of the lot. Each one comes with an
appeal, each knowing the majority decision of the Council. This
is about integrity. The City is cutting budgets and he would
like to know how much this issue has cost the City of Anaheim and
its residents to keep coming back. He feels for the Council as
he does for himself and his family. They are trying to wear the
residents down. They keep coming before the Council. He
questioned where it would stop. At the time, the residents made
concession after concession. Eventually, a deal was struck and
they respected the Council for giving some leeway and making
concessions. He also asked about the rights of the gentleman
presently building his home at 18-feet. He bought in and played
by the rules. If Council sets a precedent, others do have a
right to ask for the same. He believes by following the
recommendations of the Planning Commission in saying no, the
Council will send a message to the other four lots if they come
before the Council, the Council will say no because they knew the
rules of the game. The matter has been ongoing for three years.
Prices of the lots have risen substantially and rumor has it, it
is because they feel as members of the Council change, they can
get at them and have the Council overturn their ruling and make
the properties more valuable. It is an issue on which the
Council has made a tough and long fought ruling. The majority
voted and the integrity of the vote must stand. They cannot say
lot 33 gets their way and on lot 35 because they did not ask must
abide by the ruling. He pleaded with the Council to let the
matter end with integrity. He appealed to them to abide by the
decision of the Planning Commission and say no.
Olga Moore, 5201 Rolling Hills Drive. She lives right behind lot
34. If the height is raised on lot 33, it will infringe a great
deal on the view she has fought for. She bought her property
primarily because of the view and privacy it afforded, never
659
City Hall. Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24t 1991. 5=00 P.M.
expecting that any of this would happen. Another house below
them, which has been granted a variance, has harmed their view.
Their view has changed considerably from the time they bought
their home. She urged the Council not to grant the variance. It
will only hurt those residents who have lived in the area for so
long.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
IN FAVOR= None
SUMMATION BY
APPLICANT=
Steve Sherwood. From the photographs he had shown, he believes
there is indication that lot 33 should have been exempted from
the variance at the outset. The height of the house will
actually be 20-feet below the slope he was pointing to from a
diagram. If a 3B-foot house is built on lot 38, it would be
encroaching. In his view, lot 33 should be exempted from the
height restriction. He reiterated, he is not asking for 25-feet
or 30-feet, but just an increase of 3-feet to allow proper
drainage. The Planning Department will not make a determination
one iota from what is written. He is looking at the high point
of the lot as the guideline and the Planning Department is
looking at wherever the foot print of the house touches. That is
where the 18-feet height restriction is measured from. If
interpreted from the high point, they would not be in this
situation. He is requesting that the variance be amended.
COUNCIL ACTION=
Mayor Hunter closed the public'hearing.
council Member Ehrle. He fought for no height limits in the Anaheim Hills
area, but the Council majority did cut a deal. When that occurs, there are
convenants placed on the properties and thereafter whenever someone buys a
piece of property they know what the height restriction is. It is not fair to
the home owners - once a deal is made, it is necessary to live with it. The
gentlemen who is building now and keeping to 18-feet, if he could do it, the
owners of the other lots with the height restriction will have to do it also.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONs On motion by Council
Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, 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. 91R-285)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
660
City Hallr Anaheimr California- COUNCIL MINUTES -September 24. 1991, 5~00 P.M.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 91R-285 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3747. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-285= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN VARIANCE
NO. 3747 AS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 88R-108.
Roll Call Vote=
AYES:
NOES=
ABSENT=
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
Simpson, Daly, Ehrle and Hunter
Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 91R-285 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT= Council Member Hunter moved to adjourn. Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:52 p.m. )
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
661