1988/02/1689
City M-ll, Am~heimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTOKNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER: Art Daw
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:00 p.m. on February 12, 1988 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. 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; City of Anaheim vs.
Anaheim Hotel Partnership O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(b)(1).
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:05 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.
(1:30 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Pastor Don Crider, Free Methodist Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member MirlamKaywood led ghe assembly in the Pledse of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Medical Assistant's Week in Anaheim - February 22-28, 1988.
119: DECLARATION - HONORING ALUMNI ASSOCIATION FOUNDERS: Declarations
honoring the founders of the Anaheim Al-mni Association were unanimously
adopted by the City Council honoring the 7 founders of the Association:
2O5
9O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Ronnie Anzevino, Harold Bastrup, Ed Dumon, Earl Gust, Carl Miller Jim Riley
and Chuck McGinnis (posthumous).
These individuals helped create an organization to unite Anaheim Alnmni which
ultimately has helped to improve the quality of life for the residents of the
City. Mrs. McGinnis received the declaration on behalf of her husband.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,796,300.22, in
accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, Were approved.
WAIV~ OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-74 through 88R-78, both
inclusive)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 88R-74 through 88R-78, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 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 Dela Cathey, James Cathey, Jr., Vanessa Cathey,
Helen C~they, James W. Cathey, Sr. and Motti Lusa for bodily injury and
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
September 29, 1987.
b. Claim submitted by Ronald D. Ferguson, Sr. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 23, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by Georgia Baker for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 24, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Benjamin Thomas Creamer for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 31, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by Grover Hobson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 19, 1987.
f. Claim submitted by Kerry King for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 2, 1987.
206
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
g. Claim submitted by Jorge Leonardo for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 9, 1987.
h. Claim submitted by Lonni Langlois for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 27, 1987.
i. Claim submitted by Ruben Alvarez for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 2, 1987.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - Recommended to be Denied:
J. Claim submitted by Penhall Company for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 17, 1987.
o k. Claim submitted by L & L Investments Forklifts Sales, Inc. for
property d-,~ge sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
January 27, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Minutes - Golf Course Advisory Commission, December 17, 1987.
b. 105: Minutes - Public Utilities Board meeting of January 21, 1988.
c. 105: Minutes - Community Redevelopment Commission meeting of
January 13, 1988.
3. 156/159: Authorizing the Fleet Manager to donate two used police
motorcycles to the Criminal Justice Training Center of Golden West College for
use in their Motorcycle Training Academy.
4. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial A~alysis for five months
ended Npvember 30, 1987.
5. 160: Accepting the low bid of Floor Fashions, Inc. in the amount of
$21,966 to remove existing and replace floor tile in the Visitor's Locker
Room, Anaheim Stadium, per Bid #4566.
6. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of $65,240.88 to upgrade 120 Traffic Control Program Modules with
controller and communications software.
7. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $20,791.90 for central
communications equipment- Traffic Engineering - in accordance with Bid #A-4535.
8. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $27,274.86 for
interface computer equipment for the traffic control system in accordance with
Bid #A-4555.
207
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $12,853.56 for
thirty-six modems and five modem chassis in accordance with Bid #A-4547.
10. 153/152: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH
PART-TIME CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE EXEMPT SERVICE THAT HAVE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT
CLASSIFICATIONS. (that have full time equivalent classifications, in order to
provide a process for timely filling of part time positions)
11. 175.123: Approving an amendment to the agreement with Fluor Technology
Inc. to provide consulting services in connection with the preliminary
engineering and preparation of the bid specifications for the Combustion
Turbine Peaking Plant.
12. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES
HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (north side of La Jolla
Street, east of Red Gum Street - R/W 3455)
13. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-76: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINATJ.Y ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK - ACCOUNT
NOS. 12-793-6325-FOl10 AND 51-484-6993-00710. (La Palma Street Improvement,
East Street to Anaheim Boulevard, and authorizing the notice of completion be
recorded - R. J. Noble, Contractor)
14. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-77: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ~gAHEIM FINA]3~ ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (WAGNER
- SUNKIST STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT NOS. 43-791-6325-E1580,
51-484-6993-00710, 52-606-6329-08011, 17-792-6325-E2440, 51-479-6993-00589,
15-793-6325-E3210). (and authorizing the notice of completion be recorded -
John T. Malloy, Inc., Contractor)
16. 158% RESOLUTION NO. 88R-78: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIMACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88R-74 through 88R-78:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-74 through 88R-78, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
172: TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CYPRESS STREET BETWEEN COFFMAN STREET AND EVELYN
DRIVE: Submitted was report dated February 9, 1988 from the City Engineer,
Gary Johnson, recommending the subject closure in a manner acceptable to the
City Engineer.
208
City Hall, An-heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood. There seems to be a conflict between what the neighbors
wanted and the wall that was to be erected. She asked for clarification on
what was happening relative to the temporary closure and if that was what the
neighbors wanted.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The two properties on Cypress Street have
recently been acquired and these properties wish to have Cypress Street at
Evelyn Drive vacated. The closure is still a condition of approval of a
conditional use permit granted to Young Lion Development. A temporary closure
will be effected until the rest of the conditions and requirements of the
neighbors are fulfilled. Traffic is going to stop so that the applicant can
get occupancy permits. Otherwise those cannot be issued until Cypress is
closed at Evelyn.
Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer. The ultimate proposal for Cypress is that it
will be abandoned as indicated in the map attached to the report from the
easterly property line of lot 19 on the north side of Cypress to Evelyn
Drive. The portion of Cypress that is not within the Evelyn Drive area will
be incorporated within the proposed development along with construction of a
wall along the easterly property line of the Evelyn Drive properties. The
existing portion of Cypress off of Evelyn will be retained by those property
owners for access into their garages. Lots 19 and 19A will be incorporated as
one development. The original proposal for the closure of Cypress was that it
would be a closure that would provide for a crash gate type of effect for the
Fire Department which would include the grass blocks. Since that proposal was
submitted, the development on lots 19 and 19A were submitted whereby they were
proposing to abandon that portion of Cypress Street. The intent at this time
is to provide a very temporary closure so that Young Lion can get occupancy of
their units and allow the time to pass so that the abandonment can be
processed and finalized.
Jack White, City Attorney. If the motion is to approve this item, he would
recommend that it delete the word temporary even though it is understood this
is a clbsure that will be later followed by an abandonment that willbe
permanent in nature. State law does not recognize temporary closures as
distinguished from a simple closure. The action should be based upon a
finding by the Council that this street, as a through way is no longer needed
for vehicular traffic.
Mayor Bay. When hearings were held involving Evelyn Drive and Coffman Street
and decisions made for multi-housing in the Coffman Street area, the people on
Evelyn wanted the closure. He assumed it was going to be on the line that
divides parcels between those two areas and that the property line between
that line and Evelyn Drive would be more than likely given back to the
adjacent property owners. What is new to him are the parcel changes
shortening Cypress on the east side of that line. He still does not
understand it. He feels a one week continuance is necessary so that the
Council can understand what is happening. He would also like to see sketches
of the plans.
After further discussion between Council and staff, Hugo Vazquez, Young Lion
Development, answering Councilman Pickler, stated that a week's delay would
209
86
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
not be a problem for him. Another developer has purchased the other two
parcels. Evelyn Drive representatives are present. They have had help from
the Engineering Department in meeting with the Evelyn Drive residents and his
representative to come up with a satisfactory resolution. It was determined
that it would be foolish for him (Vazquez) to put in all the improvements and
if the abandonment is then approved turn around and demolish $50,000 to
$60,000 worth of improvements. It was concluded that a temporary closure
would satisfy the need. If the abandonment was not approved, their 36-unit
project would not be given an occupancy permit.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of authorizing the
temporary closure of Cypress Street between Coffman Street and Evelyn Drive
for one week. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: ATTORNEY SERVICE AGREEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the
Attorney Service Agreement with the law firm of Stevenson, Epstein &
DePasquale, as recommended in memorandum dated February 8, 1988 from the City
Attorney's Office. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134/179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 237~
RECLASSIFICATION NO2 87-88-24AND VARIANCE NO. 3746 - PROPOSED PROJECT AT
LINCOLN AND MUT.T.~R: Request for rehearing and Declaration of Merit- GPA 237,
Reclass 87-88-24, Variance 3746 - Submitted by Hugo Vazquez in connection with
denial of the above at public hearing held February 9, 1988. Property which
is the subject of these applications is located at 1925 W. Lincoln (Lincoln &
Muller).
Councilman Pickler moved to grant the subject rehearing request. Councilman
Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated if there is a redesigned
plan for the project, then it should start back through the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Bay. That is what the developer is trying to avoid especially since the
Planning Commission had approved this project and the Council subsequently
denied it. He suggested that the maker of the motion include some sPecifics
on the redesign being first presented to staff.
Councilman Pickler asked the developer when he plans to have his redesign back
to the PlanningDepartment; Hugo Vazquez, Young Lion Development. He will
have the plans to the Planning Department tomorrow afternoon and would hope
for a public hearing within a 30-day period.
Councilman Pickler thereupon included in his motion that plans are to be
submitted to the Planning Department by the end of this week.
Francis Nutto, 621 Jambolaya. The City heavily subsidizes zoning petitions.
The cost is about $4,000. The petitioner pays a small fee. In the case of a
rehearing, he suggested that the Council might have the petitioner pay for the
full cost of the rehearing.
210
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. There is a variation in the cost for public
hearings. Hearings and rehearings for major proposals involve a great deal of
staff time as opposed to applications for a simple variance and conditional
use permit request. A fee schedule has been established whereby there is
approximately a 50% return to the City for costs incurred to the Planning
Department for processing. He confirmed, however, that it would be more
expensive to take this particular hearing back through the Planning Commission.
Councilman Pickler stated that he would like to get the full cost back from
those requesting rehearings and ask that staff look into that possibility.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion granting the request for the
rehearing with the proviso that the developer submit revised plans to the
Planning Department by the end of the current week. MOTION CARRIED.
It was also confirmed that there will be a total renotification of adjacent
property owners when the date of the public hearing is established..
104: HF2%R_ING - FORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 1984-1: The City
Council on January 26, 1988 established this date and time for any and all
persons having objections to the proposed improvements to be made under the
Street Lighting Act of 1931, in Street Lighting District 1984-1, to appear and
show cause why the proposed improvements should not be carried out.
The location of Street Lighting District 1984-1 is generally Citron and Water
Streets, and includes Tract Nos. 1453, 1401, 1400, 1374, 335 and 217. The
beginning of the Assessment period will be July 1, 1988.
Submitted was report dated January 20, 1988 from the Public Works Engineering
Department, recommending that the Council declare that there was not a
majority protest against Street Lighting Assessment District 1984-1 (Tract
Nos. 1453, 1401, 1400, 1374, 335 and 217). Their office has not received a
majority protest to date either written or oral.
Mayor Bay opened the hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak to the
formation of the District.
Mr. Laverne Wilson, 714 So. Janss, Anaheim. He asked if in two or three years
he decides Co sell his property, who would be responsible for paying off the
street llghtln~ district assessment fee. Would it be the person who Buys his
home or would he still be the responsible party.
City Attorney, Jack White. The assessments are levied against the property
and placed on the tax bills. Whoever is the legal owner of the property at
the time each yearly assessment is made and receives that tax bill will have
the obligation to make the payments.
There were no further persons who wished to speak. The hearing was closed.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-79)
211
City H~ll, A-~heim; California - COUNCILMINUTES - February 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay moved to waive the readtng in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-79 for adoption, declaring there was
not a majority protest against Street Light District 1984-1. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECIA1LING THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT 1984-1.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-79 duly passed and adopted.
179/142: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO BIT.Ia0ARD REGULATIONS: Submitted were
proposed revisions to Billboard Regulations, submitted as draft ordinances as
requested by the City Council at their meeting held January 12, 1988. This
matter was discussed at and continued from the meeting of February 9, 1988, to
this date. (See report dated January 27, 1988 from the City Attorney attached
to which were the three proposed ordinances. The two-page report contained
the main features of the ordinances).
Councilman Pickler. He suggested that the Council authorize staff to work
with all the billboard agencies to come up with something that is beneficial
to all concerning billboards as was done in Santa Ama. He has received
comments from most of the people who have billboards in the City and they
woul~ be willing to share information they have with staff. Perhaps something
can be put in place within two or three weeks relative to an equitable fee
structure.
Councilman Hunter. He feels something can be put in place today. The
proposed ordinance relative to Section 3.20 would amend the business license
tax provisions of the Code relating to billboards to impose a tax on
billboards based on square footage. He is going to offer it for first reading
today. Too many years have gone by where the City has done nothin§ to collect
fair share revenues from billboard companies. Staff report dated January 5,
1988 from the Planning Director and Zoning Administrator, Page 3, recommends a
fee schedule and he is incorporating that fee schedule into the proposed
ordimance (Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti, briefed that portion of
the staff recommendation).
Councilman Pickler was not agreeable to taking such action today since no
input had been received from the billboard companies or the public.
City Attorney White clarified that the wording of the current proposed draft
differs from the staff report in the way boards are broken down by square
footage. The draft says 0 to 600, 600 to 672 and over 672. The second
212
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
portion is all other billboards meaning anything other than freeway billboards
broken down on the same square footage basis. He also confirmed for the Mayor
that draft ordinance pertaining to Section 3.20 does not permit freeway boards
as yet.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She requested again that they continue to prohibit all
freeway billboards. What they want to accomplish can be done very easily
without having to allow freeway boards. She thereupon moved that the City
Council continue to prohibit all freeway billboards in the City of Anaheim.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, discussion followed between Council Members with
input from the City Attorney relative to the provisions contained in draft
ordinance Section 4.08 of the Code which at the present time does not allow
~reeway boards.
Councilman Ehrle. He believes there should be in the industrial areas a
limited amount of freeway billboards, not just Regency boards but all other
companies should be able to apply for a CUP and then perhaps limit the number
to 10 or whatever number might be determined. He also wants to see billboards
in the interior of the City come down.
Councilman Pickler. No boards can be erected in the City at this time. Now
he is hearing, put more billboards on the freeway and take the ones down in
the interior. He is concerned about freeway boards. Adding more freeway
boards is not solving the problem. Regency does not own any inner city boards.
M~,~? Bay. He is speaking against the motion on the floor because it
pr~.-empts one alternative that may be a viable alternative in working with the
problem and how they may be able to establish an overall reduction of
billboards in the City.
CouncilMoman Kaywood. Her concern is that it is a subterfuge to get freeway
billboards for Regency and she would like that to be clear.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to prohibit all freeway
billboards in the City of Anaheim and failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood and Pickler
Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
None
Councilman Pickler. He suggested that Regency meet with all the other
billboard companies and sit down with staff to see if they can come up with a
solution.
Mayor Bay. He reiterated his intent. He is looking for a way over a
reasonable period to (1) find a legal way to reduce billboards in the City and
(2) find a way to pay for reducing the number of billboards since billboards
cannot be taken down without just compensation under the law. The issue is
213
8Z
City ~,11, A--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
whetker the City is going to reduce billboards overall and put them under a
reasonable control that will not put them out of business.
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, representing Regency. There is no question
about the fact that Regency does have some outdoor sign state permits. In
talking to members of the industry, Foster & Kleiser (now Patrick Media) and
Gannett have admitted that they also have permits from the state and probably
as many as Regency. The information is a matter of public record as to who
has state permits in the State of California.
Councilman Pickler stated that at least four other companies have state
permits in the State of California other than Regency. He has a record of
where those boards are located which he received from Caltrans. He then
reported on the number of state permits held by Regency, Gannett, National,
Patrick and United have on Route 57, Route 99 and Route 5. Discussion then
followed between Councilman Pickier and Mr. Farano regarding state permits,
i.e., type, whether they cover one side or two sides of a board, square '
footage, etc.
Marilym Ryan, Coast Advertising, 836 North Richmond, Fullerton. Once a state
permit is obtained by another company, no other company can go in and compete
for a bid on that piece of property. The one getting the "ax" is the property
owmer who does not have the luxury of looking around for a better bid.
Companies have gotten their state permits and then try to wear down the City
Council for the next three or four years in order to get things their own
way. Nobody has considered the property owner. If the Council is interested
in the property owners who have elected them, they only have to answer to them
and not Regency or any other company.
Mayor Bay called for a five minute recess. Councilman Ehrle seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:32 p.m.)
Councilman Hunter offered the remaining two draft ordinances for first reading
along with the first draft.
ORDINANCE NO. 4903: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING, AMENDING AND
REPEAt?NO VARIOU~ §RCTION§ 0P VARIOUS C~PTER§ OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BILLBOARDS.
ORDINANCE NO. 4904: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION
3.20 OF TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODEANDADDING NEW CHAPTER 3.20 TO
TITLE 3 OF THE ANABEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ~ATING TO ADVERTISING.
ORDINANCE NO. 4905: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
4.08.020 AND SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 4.08.050 OF CHAPTER 4.08 OF TITLE 4 OF
THE ANAMEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS AND
STRUCTURES --NEARFREEWAYS.
214
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay. The issues are now offered and, therefore, the Council has
something specific to debate and for the public to comment on as well as any
or all billboard companies. Such debate normally takes place at the second
reading of the ordinance. He emphasized Just because they have been offered,
it in no way suggests that the ordinances are going to be adopted. No vote is
required at this time.
Discussion followed between Council members regarding when further discussion
will take place, whether after public hearings today or automatically at the
next Council meeting. Councilman Pickler preferred to come back to the issue
after public hearings. If they have a hearing, he would like to have a night
public hearing on the matter. The Council's next night hearing is scheduled
for March 1, 1988.
Mayor Bay. The draft ordinances, in his opinion, will never be approved by a
majority of the Council the way they stand. The intent of offering the three
ordinances is to get down to the specifics to center the debates between the
different viewpoints on the Council. They will come back on the agenda and
anyone can speak at second reading of the ordinances.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to have the second reading of the ordinances set
for the next scheduled evening meeting on March 1, 1988. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay was opposed because it would preclude doing any work on the
issue at the next meeting.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the
following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MF/iBERS:
NOES: 'C0UNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood and Pickler
Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
None
179: PUBLIC HEARING ABANDONMENT NO. 87-16A: To consider request submitted by
Roger L. Williamson, to abandon and relocate a portion of Avenida de
Santiaso. Resolution No. 88K-16 declared the City Council's intent to abandon
this property, and this resolution was published January 22 and 29, 1988 in
the Anaheim Bulletin.
Submitted was report dated January 11, 1988 from the City Engineer,
recommending approval of the abandonment.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition to
the proposed abandonment; there being no response the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the
determination of the City Engineer that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the
215
8O
City R~_ll, An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-80)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-80 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 87-16A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING AND R~LOCATING A PORTION OF AVENIDA DE SANTIAGO.
(ABA~q)ONMENT NO. 87-16A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-80 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2975 & NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Philip Delgado, et al. (c/o Robert S. Sklar)
712 East Ball Road,
Anaheim, Ca. 92800
AGENT:
Farano & Kieviet
100 So. Anaheim Blvd.,
Annheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider waiver of code requirement for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2975 to permit a liquidating sales outlet with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces at 712 East Ball Road - Phil &
Jim's Appliances. (Ball Road and Lewis Street)
PLANNING COMMI$$ION ACTION: CUP NO. 2975 was denied by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held January 4, 1988 (PC88-19), and an appeal
filed by Farano & Kieviet~ 100 South Anaheim Blvd.~ on behalf of the applicant.
HEARING SET ON:
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Farano & Kieviet,
Agent for the Applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 4, 1988.
Posting of property February 4, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 4, 1988.
216
City Hall, Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 4, 1988.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, Attorney representing Phil &
Jim's.
He first submitted a black booklet entitled Phil & Jim's and
briefed the Council on the material contained therein as well as
the information contained in detailed letter dated February 11,
1988 from his office which described the property and land use,
gave reasons why the liquidation center is an appropriate use of
the property and is compatible with existing uses, the economic
benefit derived by the City and Justification for the parking
waiver backed by a parking analysis of the site prepared by
Great & Company. (Mr. Farano's presentation was also
supplemented by slides showing the liquidation center). He
emphasized in concluding that because of the nature of the
operation, this is a proper location for the business. They do
not believe the City would want the merchandise sold in Anaheim
in a regular retail area. In addition, the Anaheim Municipal
Code permits the use if found to be compatible and similar to
other uses in the area. The operation is a positive
contribution to the City of Anaheim.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilman Bay asked if anyone wished to speak on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2975 either in favor or in opposition; there
being no response, the public hearing was closed.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Making an exception in this case would make it difficult to not
give approval to everyone else requesting the same waiver. When
the original permit was granted in 1984, it was specifically for
warehouse and industrial use with no retail.
Floyd Farano.
They are not asking the City to change its ordinances. The
mature of the operatiom is such that this is not a new sales
retail outlet.
Bob Sklar, Vice-President, Phil & Jim's.
In this type of operation, there is more income to the City than
a warehouse and would be a reason to grant the request.
Councilman Pickler.
He feels the operation is a plus to the City and not a
detriment. It would not hurt the area by allowing the request
to permit the liquidating sales outlet. Although retail sales
are not allowed in the City's industrial areas, it is necessary
to look at each case individually. He then asked for
clarification relative to the result of the parking study
reported by Mr. Farano.
217
City Ma!l, An-helm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
There were two studies submitted. The original study did not
conform to the parking provision that was later incorporated
into the design. Subsequently a revised study was submitted and
it was found that adequate parking will be provided. That did
not find its way into the staff report because it was after the
fact.
Mayor Bay.
He first complimented Phil & Jim's on their operation in the
City of Anaheim. He continued that the argument over sales tax
benefits to the City is not an excuse or logic for changing
zoning or making zoning decisions. He does not buy the logic
that it is okay to sell used or damaged inventory retail in an
industrial zone. His main concern is maintaining the integrity
of the industrial zone which generates jobs in the City.
Councilman Ehrle.
He agreed with Councilman Pickier that each situation should be
looked at on a case-by-case basis. He sees this as a unique
opportunity to bring in more revenue. Since it is a conditional
use permit, if at any time there is a problem, an order to show
cause hearing can be held. There is a difference between new
items being sold and items that are damaged. It is not
infringing on the industrial area.
Councilman Hunter.
The issue is whether retail sales use is acceptable for the
industrial zone and does it service the industrial community.
The answer the Planning Commission came up with was no. He
agrees and is going to vote to sustain their decision.
Floyd Farano.
Because the request involves a 133,000 square foot operation,
they would like some time to consider potential alternatives
that may be more acceptable to the City. He requested that the
Council allow a one week continuance since the matter is such a
serious one.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2975 and negative declaration therefor for one
week. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4899 - ZONING PROCEDURES: Amending Chapter 18.03 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to zoning procedures - to remove
reference to transfer of zoning files from Planning to the Clerk's Office.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4899)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
218
City Hall, A--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4899 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4899: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER
18.03 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING
PROCEDURES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4899 duly passed and adopted.
~79: ORDINANCE NOS. 4901 AND 4902: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance Nos.
4901 and 4902 for first reading, adding and amending various sections and
subsections and chapters of Title 18 relating to zoning for convenience
markets and commercial retail centers; and amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 68-69-37(19), located at the southwest
corner of Coronado and Red Gum Street, from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the ML
zone,
ORDINANCE NO. 4901: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND AMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS OF VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR CONVENIENCE MARKETS AND
COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTERS.
ORDINANCE NO. 4902: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE R~TATING
TO ZONING.
179: O~DINANCE NO. 4900 - POLITICAL SIGNS: Repealing, adding and amending
various subsections and sections of Chapter 4.04 of Title 4 and Chapters 18.04
and 18.05 of Title 18, pertaining to advertising structures and political
signs. Submitted was report dated February 3, 1988 from the City Attorney
recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4900 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4900: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING, ADDING AND
AMENDING VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS AND SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 4.04 OF TITLE 4 AND
CHAPTERS 18.04 AND 18.05 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO ADVERTISING STRUCTURES AND POLITICAL SIGNS.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She questioned the provision allowing a political sign
to remain in place 120 days.
City Attorney, Jack White. The proposed ordinance removes the current Code
requirement that temporary political sign structures obtain building permits
provided the sign does not exceed 35 square feet in area, and is removed
within 120 days following erection, or within 30 days after any election to
219
City M~ll, Anaheim, Cml~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
which it relates. The ordinance does not say all political signs are limited
to 120 days. In fact, he would be concerned about proposing an ordinance that
limited how long a political sign could be posted on property.
Constitutionally that could present a difficulty. The matter is before the
Council today because of his concern over existing provisions in the Code and
reflecting upon prior political campaigns and the City's inability to enforce
the existing Code. His goal is to present an ordinance which could be
~nforced. The intent of the ordinance in its entirety is to "clean up" the
current ordinance to get it to the point that it is enforceable, not only
relating to political signs but also all other advertising signs as well. The
120 days is not to limit signs to 120 days or less but to provide if they are
up for more than 120 days and attached to a structure of any kind, they would
need to obtain the building permit for that structure.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
161.114/177.114: REQUEST TO RESCIND ACTION TAKEN JANUARY 19, 1988:
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is asking one more time and in the form of a motion
that the Council rescind the action taken at the January 19, 1988 Council
meeting increasing compensation to Council Members for meetings of the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim Housing Authority. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Councilwoman Kaywood donated $250 to the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Foundation for the Oak Canyon Nature Center.
148/114/175: RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES - WASTE WATER
ISSUE: Mayor Bay referred to the subject resolution, corrected copies of
which were received today. Copies will be submitted to the Council. The
re~olution will be presented at the March 10, 1988 meeting of the Orange
County League. The resolution will be agendized for the February Z3, 1988
Council meeting for consideration by the Council as to whether they wish to
support it.
144: JOINT POW~RR AUTHORITY MEETING - EASTERN AND FOOTHILL CORRIDORS: Mayor
Bay reported that at the recent meeting of the Authority, the cities Orange,
Tustin and Irvine submitted their routing recommendations on the Eastern
Corridors and their respective Councils have all agreed. The Board did not
take action other than to receive and file the recommendations primarily
because they had not seen them in detail before the time.of the meeting. Each
city included a list of their caveats and the Board wants staff to look at
them before any action is taken.
220
City Hall, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:57 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
55
221