1988/08/16City B~!!, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT
ABSENT:
PRESENT
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
COUNCIL MF~iBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
CITY TREASURER: Mary Turner
TREASURY MANAGER: William Sell
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:00 p.m. on August 16, 1988 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the meeting to order at 12:05 noon.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball
Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No.
40-92-4~; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership, O.C.S.C.C.
No. 46-96-59; City of Anaheim vs. Equitable General Insurance Company
O.C.S.C.C. No. 48-62-10.
b. To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.6.
c. To discuss personnel matters - 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 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.
AFTER RECESS:
being present,
(1:52 p.m.)
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Father John Lenihan, St. Boniface Church, gave the Invocation.
8O8
City Mmll, A~beim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Fred Hunter led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION OF EXCHANGE STUDENTS FROM MIT0, JAPAN: June Lowry,
President of the Sister Cities Committee presented 21 Japanese Exchange
Students from Mito, Japan, first introducing Miss Hiroko Seya, who carried
greetings from Mito and expressed for the students how pleased they were to be
in Anaheim.
Mayoz Bay and Council Members personally greeted the students who were
presented with small tokens of their visit to the City. In turn, Mayor Bay
was presented with a gift from the Mayor of Mito, Kazunobu Sagawa, accompanied
by a letter.
119: DECLARATIONS OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Thornton Piersall,
President of the Orange County Branch of the American Society of Civil
Engineers acting on behalf of the Los Angeles section. Mayor Bay and Council
Members congratulated the Society on their 75thAnniversary and welcomed them
to their Anniversary Banquet to be held in Anaheim.
A Declaration was unanimously adopted congratulating the First Presbyterian
Church on years of outstanding service to the City of Anaheim. Den Dexter and
Harvey Taylor accepted the First Presbyterian Church Declaration.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Cabbage Patch Kids Day in Anaheim, August 20, 1988.
Dean Davisson, accompanied by an assistant, presented Councilwoman Kaywood
with a Cabbage Patch adoptee, and accepted the Cabbage Patch Kid Day
proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held July 19, 1988. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,960,693.60, in
accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chambers. (2:20 p.m.)
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances on the Consent Calendar were read by the City
Manager. (Resolution Nos. 88R-319 through 88R-321, both inclusive, for
adoption and Ordinance Nos. 4955 and 4956, for introduction)
Councilman Pickier moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and
ordinances. Councilwoman Kmywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
809
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
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-319 through 88R-321, both inclusive, for adoption,
and Ordinance Nos. 4955 and 4956 for introduction. Refer to Resolution Book.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken
as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Robert A. Landwehr for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 1, 1988.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment
Commission meeting held July 27, 1988.
A3. 173: Receiving and filing correspondence from Airport Flyer Express
regarding their application with the State of California for shuttle service.
173: Receiving and filing correspondence from California Public Utilities
Commission regarding the application of Joseph Logo for expansion of his
passenger service.
175: Receiving and filing correspondence from California Public Utilities
Commission, Application No. 88-08-001 from Southern California Gas Company
for a change in rates.
A4. 123/160: Approving the first amendment to the agreement with Truck
Hydraulic Equipment Company regarding compensation for inspection services on
aerial devices in accordance with bid proposal #4597.
AJ. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to American Seating Corporation, in the amount of
$67,225.12 for 808 new seats required at the Anaheim Stadium.
A6. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to Mintie Corporation, without solicitation of sealed
bids~ in the amount of $20~137 for duct cleaning service at the Convention
Center.
A7. 155/175: Approving a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA findings, for
the construction of approximately 800 linear feet of 12-inch water main in
Ninth Street (from existing Well #36 to Cerritos Avenue).
AB. 175.123: Approving a permit with The Walt Disney Company to enter the
Disneyland theme park property for the sole purpose of relocating certain
electrical lines in connection with the realignment of the Ball Road I-5
overpass by Caltrans, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
agreement on behalf of the City. (Councilman Ehrle abstained)
A9. 175.123: Approving the second amendment to the agreement with Municipal
Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) to provide educational services to
810
154
City Hall, Anaheim, Cs]~fornia - C0UNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Anaheim schools on subjects related to water, with a change in the fee
schedule from $1 per student to $1.05 per student.
AiO. 175.123: Approving an agreement with Bechtel Construction, Inc., for
providing bid evaluation and construction management services for the
combustion turbine peaking plant at a total cost not to exceed $398,965 and
directing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said agreement.
All. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 10982 (REV.2), (Tract 10982 is
located on the southwest side of Monte Vista Road, west of Weir Canyon Road,
and contains 6.607 acres divided into 15 lots in the RS-5000 (SC) Zone). The
developer is Kaufman & Broad and the engineering is provided by Wagner
Pacific, Inc.
Al2. 123: Approving the first amendment to a lease agreement with the Anaheim
City Elementary School District for use of a portion of Patrick Henry School,
and authorizing the Mayor to execute said amendment.
123: Approving the first amendment to a sublease agreement with the Boys and
Girls Club of Anaheim for use of a portion of Patrick Henry School, and
authorizing the Mayor to execute said amendment.
Al3. 123: Approving an agreement with the County of Orange to allow the
Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Supplemental Food Program use of space at
the George Washington Community Center, and authorizing the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
Al4. 123: Approving the first amendment to the agreement with Graffiti
Removal in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to continue services for fiscal
year 1988-89, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said
amendment on behalf of the City.
Al5. 107/149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4955: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENLING SECTIONS 6.44.170 OF CHAPTER 6.44 OF TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO NUISANCES-PARKING OF VEHICLES ON FRONT LAWNS, AND PENALTIES
THEREFOR.
Al6. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-319: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-264 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT.
(Amending Resolution No. 88R-264 by adding the classifications of Planning
Division Manager and Zoning Division Manager to Administrative Management, and
deleting the classification of Senior Planner)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-320: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-265 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESGINATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY.
(Amending Resolution No. 88R-265 to add the classification of Senior Planner
to the Middle Management/Supervisory Unit)
Al7. 171/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4956: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AALAHEIM FIXING
AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON FULL CASH VALUE OF ALT. PROPERTY WITHIN THE
CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988/89.
811
151
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Al8. 123: Approving a contract with MIchael Feerer and Associates to conduct
a space planning study at the Anaheim Civic Center for a comprehensive space
needs assessment, at a cost of $39,800 for 22 weeks of service.
Al9. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-321: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A FIRE ADMINISTRATION WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM.
(Amending Resolution No. 87R-64 to expand the size of, and rename the Fire
Prevention Work Experience Program by establishing the Fire Administration
Work Experience Program)
A20. 123: Approving the first amendment to an agreement with RalphAndersen
and Associates to conduct a comprehensive Management classification and
compensation study in an amount not to exceed $230,000 plus expenses.
A21. 114: Receiving and filing correspondence from the City of Tustin
relating to the operation and administration of alcohol and drug recovery
facilities licensed by the State Department of Social Services. (Continued
from the meeting of August 9, 1988, Item A-11.)
A22. 101/152: Authorizing Stadium management to participate in preparation
and presentation of a Southern California regional proposal to the National
Football League in an effort to bring the 1993 Superbowl to Southern
California. (Continued from the meeting of August 9, 1988, Item A-23.)
A23. 123: Approving a grant agreement with Orange County Job Training
Partnership Agency in the amount of $114,287 for the period of July 1, 1988
through June 30, 1989, to provide funds for program administration under the
JTPA, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of
the City.
123: Approving a grant agreement with Orange County Job Training
Partnership Agency in the amount of $27,983 for the period of July 1, 1988
through June 30, 1989, to provide funds for the operation of the City's
Title II-A 3% older worker's program, and authorizing the City Manager to
execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
123: Approving a grant agreement with Orange County Job Training
Partnership Agency in the amount of $40,375 for the period of July 1, 1988
through June 30, 1989, to provide funds for the operation of the City's
Title III dislocated worker's program, and authorizing the City Manager to
execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
123: Approving a grant agreement with Orange County Job Training
Partnership Agency in the amount of $370,894 for the period of July l,
1988 through June 30, 1989, to provide funds for the operation of the
City's Title II-A 78% program for youth and adults, and authorizing the
City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
123: Approving a grant agreement with Orange County Job Training
Partnership Agency in the amount of $100,000 for the period of July 1,
1988 through June 30, 1989, to provide funds for the operation of the
City's Title II-A 6% recruitment, intake and assessment center activities
812
1,52
City Mail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
for youth and adults, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City.
123: Approving a grant agreement with Orange County Job Training
Partnership Agency in the amount of $6,593 for the period of July l, 1988
through June 30, 1989, to provide funds for the operation of the City's
8%/50% program for supportive services to clients, and authorizing the
City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88R-319 through 88R-321:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler and Bay
None
Kaywood
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-319 through 88R-321, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. Councilwoman Kaywood was temporarily absent.
MOTIONS CARRIED. (Councilman Ehrle abstained on Item No. A-8)
123/160: ACCEPTANCE OF BID - COLEMAN SECURITY PARKING ENFOKCEME/~T CONTRACT -
STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM: Accepting the bid of, and approving a contract with
Coleman Security Services in the amount of $207,908 to provide security
personnel who would issue citations for illegal parking violations for the
street sweeping program and parking structures for one year, effective
September 1, 1988, with the option of renewal for two additional years at
negotiated cost increases not to exceed 5.5% the second year and 7% the third
year, in accordance with bid proposal #4610, as publicly advertised.
Submitted was report dated August 12, 1988 from the Purchasing Agent, Diane
Hughart, recommending acceptance of the iow bid of Coleman Security Services
of Los Angeles.
Mr. David Paul, Bonafide Security Service, 611 South Harbor Boulevard,
Anaheim. Referring to the August 1, 1988 staff report, he stated his
presentation will give reasons why Bonafide would be the contractor most
advantageous to the City. He then briefed his detailed two-paged letter of
August 12, 1988 attached to which was a sheet explaining what Bonafide
suggested at the June 17, 1988 Pre-Bidder Conference and a partial list of
merchants in the City who would directly benefit from Bonafide being awarded
the contract (letter made a part of the record).
At the conclusion of Mr. Paul's presentation, Councilman Pickler moved to
accept the bid of, and approve a contract with Coleman Security Services in
the amount of $207,908 in accordance with Bid Proposal 4610 and as recommended
in memorandum dated August 1, 1988 from the Purchasing Agent. Councilman Bay
seconded tt~ motion. Councilman Ehrle voted no. Councilwoman Kaywood was
temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Bay. To explain his vote, he has heard numerous arguments and
complaints while a member of the Council relative to bids. While he does not
disagree with some of the arguments made by Mr. Paul in attempting to change
the parameters of the proposal, the problem is that they are not changed and,
813
149
City M~ll, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
therefore, the proposal put out by the City was clear in the way it was
proposed and that is the way the bids came in. Generally it is the intention
of the Council to accept the low bidder if at all possible unless there are
other kinds of extenuating circumstances. The suggestions made by Bonafide
during the prebidding were not part of the proposal and have nothing to do
with the decisiou to bid on it.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chambers. (2:27 p.m.)
Councilman Ehrle. Explaining his no vote stated that generally he agrees with
staff recommendations. In this case, staff estimated the cost at $220,000.
The Company that was awarded the contract was approximately $12,000 less than
Bonaiide but in consideration of the Company's performance when they took over
the contract for four months after Continnental abandoned it, having done an
exemplary job, and for being a local business with other local businesses who
would benefit, he feels the $12,000 difference could be made up within no time
just based on Bonafide's performance. He is also a strong supporter of the
local business community.
Counctlwoman Kaywood- Although she was temporarily absent, she was able to
hear the entire discussion and is voting yes on the motion.
The vote on the foregoing motion was amended to reflect a yes vote for
Councilwoman Kaywood.
000/108/142/106/111: CONTINUED HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 3 AND
4 BUSINESS LICENSES, AMUSEMENT DEVICES AND HAT~JOWEEN PARADE AND FESTIVAL: To
consider proposed ordinances which would amend Titles 3 and 4 establishi~,g a
revised schedule of business license fees. This matter was discussed at and
continued from the meeting of July 26, 1988 - see minutes that date.
City Treasurer, Mary Turner, asked the Treasury Manager to present the staff
report.
Bill Sell, Treasury Manager. He first summarized what had occurred to date
relative to the business license tax proposal and ordinance. He then
explained that the revised business license tax ordinance will increase the
tax generated from $1.5 to approximately $3.6 million with an additional
$425~000 bein~ generated from application processing fees. This will move
A~ah~im from 352 per license to ~170 per lleense which i~ the average rate for
cities with the population of between 100,000 and 250,000. He further
explained other changes that had taken place since the proposal was first
submitted (see report dated August 8, 1988 from the City Treasurer).
Discussion followed wherein Council Members posed questions to the City
Treasurer for purposes of clarification relative to the methodology used in
setting the tax rate especially regarding gross receipts. Councilman Hunter
stated that is the area of most complaints and he questioned if the City was
being fair, equitable and reasonable across the board under the gross receipts
methodology.
814
150
City Hall, A~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Bill Sell. He reiterated what he had reported at prior meetings that there
have been many different court cases particularly in Los Angeles where the
courts have consistently upheld the gross receipts as the most equitable
method to use for taxing purposes.
Councilman Hunter. As reported, the tax generated will increase from $1.5 to
approximately $3.6 million. He questioned why it needed to jump so much so
fast. He knows there is a need ior a revenue stream for Police 2000. He
would like see staff take the flat rate schedule and what revenue that would
produce and any increases be instituted in "little bites".
Councilman Pickier. He has no problem with putting the increase in place over
a period of two years. Perhaps some sort of compromise can be worked out.
Mayor Bay again opened the hearing to public input.
John Amador, District Manager, Southern California Gas Company, 1919 State
College Boulevard, Anaheim. If the new tax is based as written which excludes
Section 3.04.135 - Exemption - Public Utilities, Southern California Gas
Company will be assessed approximately $10,000 in additional taxes. The Gas
Company is always willing to pay its fair share is not looking for special
treatment but fair treatment. Consideration should be given to the amount of
revenue paid by the Gas Company to Anaheim each year. In 1987, they paid
approximately. S900,000 in taxes, $515,000 were franchise fees based on gross
receipts and $385,000 in ad valorem taxes, permits and other fees. Any
additional tax based on gross receipts would be double taxation and
inequitable. (See letter dated August 8, 1988 submitted by the Southern
California Gas Company - made a part of the record).
Larry Slagle, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber agrees
conceptually with the breakdown by the City Treasurer's Office but what they
do not agree with is the tax rates that came along with the categories which
were multiplied several times over and are excessive in tax rate amounts.
They were talking about 6~ to 12~, not 196 and 386. Mr. Slagle then briefed
his letter of August 12, 1988, wherein it emphasized that the Chamber strongly
opposes the proposed business license tax ordinance and lists three main
reasons of concerns (see letter dated August 12, 1988 - made a part of the
record) ·
In closing, he urged the Council to reconsider some of the damaging parts of
the ordinance and to look at the bigger revenue picture that business
generates and not endanger economic development by excessive rates. He then
explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the Chamber believes that changes have
to be made but no one specifically asked them what the Chamber thought about
196 or 38~. It is not their position to come in with a program of taxation
for the City to charge them. If the tax ordinance were more moderate, there
would be less opposition.
Earl Grothe, Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing. He agrees with what Mr. Slagle said.
Taylor-Dunn will be looking at a 555% increase in its business license tax.
There is no way they can pass those kinds of increases on in their pricing and
815
147
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNClLMINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
remain competitive. Such increases will cause businesses to move and to go
out of business.
Jack Smith, Delco Remy, 1201 North Magnolia. It was his understanding
originally this was to be a revenue neutral situation. It was mentioned the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 305%. Their business license tax will go from
$2,000 to $13,000 which is close to 700%. Some rate increase is Justified but
not at the level proposed.
Tom Seburg, California Angels. He concurs with the previous speakers. Their
percentage increase is over 300% which is too exhorbitant. He asked the
Council to reconsider the matter.
Mary Turner, City Treasurer. It is recognized that there is an increase to
the businesses involved. When staff was directed several months ago to go
back and look at the proposal, they did so. They took into consideration the
business license tax in Santa Ana, Long Beach and other surrounding cities.
It put Anaheim in the "ball park" for cities of 100 to 250,000 population.
That is how the percentage tax increase was derived. Staff also tried to
retain the consultant's recommendation on the profitability of the rates
established. In response to Mr. Amador, a franchise fee is in a form of a
rent for the privilege of using the City right-of-way. It has nothing to do
with business tax. If the Gas Company had to rent those public rights-of-way,
it would cost many thousands of dollars to do so. It is fair to treat the
utilities in the same fashion and not give preferential treatment.
Mayor Bay. The original proposal that was reviewed by the Chamber a couple of
years ago was supposedly revenue neutral. He does not believe anybody was
trying to convince the Chamber or the business industry that this proposal was
revenue neutral. He feels it was clear from the beginning it is not revenue
neutral but rather an important new revenue for the City. He wanted to
clarify that point, not because he is supporting this increase because he is
not. He will not vote for it. However, it was never the intent by Council or
staff to try to fool anybody that the proposal to change the business license
tax would have it end up even.
A lengthy discussion followed between Council and staff wherein questions were
posed to staff comcerning· what would occur if either only a percentage of the
proposed increases were adopted under gross receipts or if there was only a
flat rate increase.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chambers indicating' she had a personal
emergency. (3:00 p.m.)
At the conclusion of discussion, the following ordinances were offered for an
amended first reading.
Councilman Ehrle offered Ordinance No. 4950 for amended first reading,
changing the staff recommended tax rate on gross receipts per $1,000 from 196
to 9.56 and from 386 to 19.0~.
816
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4950 for amended first reading,
changing the staff recommended tax rate on gross receipts per $1,000 from 196
to 13~ and from 38~ to 26~.
City Attorney Jack White. Next week there will be three ordinances before the
Council relating to the business license tax - the original ordinance which
was introduced at the meeting of July 26, 1988 as recommended by staff and the
two just offered for amended first reading by Council Members Ehrle and
Pickier, any one of which can be adopted at that time.
Councilman Pickler. He would also like a flat rate for the Gas Company; Mayor
Bay stated that would be an additional amendment.
City Manager Bob Simpson. He does not want staff to leave the meeting with
mixed signals. He is hearing two different things - concern about the amount
of revenue being generated by the tax. He is hoping there is not an
assumption on the part of the Council that the amount of tax generated will
necessarily decrease in proportion to the reduction made in the rates because
that is probably not true. If the concern is the inordinate increase for a
certain number of businesses, would it make sense to consider - if the
percentage increase to businesses is over a certain level that those be
staged. He has a concern they are opening up the entire ordinance again. He
has heard the business community say that some form of tax increase is
probably in line, but it is the amount that is of concern to them. If that is
the case, perhaps the methodology which everybody has bought off on, if it is
okay, perhaps the rate is okay too, but it is a question of how that is staged.
Mayor Bay. It is not trying to change the concept but only the rates.
City Attorney White asked if it is the Council's intent to continue the matter
as an open public hearing; it was determined by Council consensus that the
hearing will also be continued until the meeting of August 23, 1988 when the
proposed ordinances will again be presented to the Council.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the hearing on the proposed
amendments to Titles 3 and 4 Business Licenses Amusement Devices and Halloween
Parade Festival to Tuesday, August 23, 1988 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Ehrle
seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilwoman Kaywood. (3:57 p.m.)
179: PURLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3009, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT,
CLAS~-3, AMEND CONDITION:
APPLICANT: OWNF~ll$:
Jerry L. Madren and Judy A. Madren
503 South Vicki Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92804
817
145
City Hall, A~_aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
LOCA~ION/REQUEST: The property is located at 503 South Vtcki Lane.
petitioner is requesting deletion of Condition No. 4 of Resolution
No. 88R-243, to permit a 640 square-foot "Granny Unit".
The
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3009 was granted by
the Planning Commission (PC88-127) and a review of the Planning Commission's
decision requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of May 31, 198~.
Conditional Use Permit No. 3009 was granted with certain conditions of
approval at public hearing held before the Council on June 21, 1988. A
rehearing was requested and denied by the Council on July 26, 1988. The
petitioner subsequently requested amendment of conditions of approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 4, 1988.
Posting of property August 3, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 5, 1988.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Judy Madren, 503 South Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804.
She did not fully understand Condition No. 4 when the CUP was
approved by the Council on June 21, 1988. When she was asked to
accept the condition that the CUP would terminate on the sale of
the property, she asked if the new owners could apply for a new
CUP and the answer was yes. She thought any removal or
modification would be the burden of the new owners and had no
idea that the burden would be her responsibility. She did not
receive a full explanation of what Condition No. 4 entailed.
After reading it, she realized it is an unfair, unreasonable and
unnecessary condition that they be asked to accept. She would
hope that the City Council would not ask them to accept the
hardship and burden of cost that the condition creates. Of ail
conditional use permits for "granny units" approved in the past
in the City, none have had the need for the additional
restrictions as stated in Condition No. 4. A Planning and
Zoning Representative commented it was an unusual condition to
impose. She believes that the restrictions indicated in
Condition No. 2 which the state saw fit to mandate to assure the
proper use and re§ulation of the "§tanny unit" are sufficient.
Condition No. 2 states that the owner of the property shall
restrict the occupancy of the "granny unit" to one or two adults
both 60 years of age or older and shall record a covenant
against the property so restricting the occupancy of said unit.
The covenant to be recorded against the property is adequate to
take care of restricting the occupancy. She does not believe or
understand that a second covenant is necessary because upon sale
of the property, the new owners have to comply with all the
restrictions of Condition No. 2. Therefore, she is requesting
an amendment to the resolution of approval deleting Condition
No. 4 in its entirety.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
818
146
City Hall, Anmheim, Cmlifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES -August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Jean Mann, 2776 Bridgport Avenue.
In doing some research, she could find no evidence that a permit
was ever obtained for a room addition already on the subject
property. She is opposed to the deletion of Condition No. 4.
It is all the neighbors have as protection against the
construction of other apartments in their single-family
neighborhoods.
Don Low, 441 Vicki Lane.
He is opposed to the deletion of Condition No. 4. He does not
want to see a zone change. At the previous meeting, Councilman
Ehrle stated the only protection was to have the kitchen removed
before any sale could be completed and that was agreed to. The
neighbors are willing to live with the approval of the "granny
unit" as outlined in the resolution. He also feels there is no
way the "granny unit" addition could cost $80,000 as reported.
Irv Wilkings, .503 Shields Drive.
He is of the opinion the applicants got what they requested and
he is glad but still feels Condition No. 4 should remain.
Sophia Howes, 2772 Bridgeport.
The last time the concern seemed to be for the applicant's
elderly parents, now the concern is about the resale of their
home. The request is not fair. The neighbors are also
concerned about the value of their homes. It is not right to
come back and ask for more. If the applicants get what they are
requesting, then they will have everything they wanted and the
neighbors will have nothing.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
William Centovene (Brother of Mrs. Madren).
He is going to build the unit. He does not know how anybody
else builds a project for $25,000 of the caliber being
proposed. They spent the extra money so that the project would
fit in with the neighborhood. It was not explained when the CUP
i~ taken away, they had no idea they could not walk away from
the house when it was sold. That is why he asked his sister to
ask if the CUP could be reapplied for by the next purchaser. It
is ludicrous to remove the unit. They are 'and have been
sensitive to the needs, desires and wants of the neighborhood.
It has been unfortunate they have been through a Planning
Commission meeting and to Council public hearings over a great
period of time on a project he thought was going to be accepted
and even praised by the neighborhood. The Council can see how
concerned the neighborhood is over anything that might change so
they have taken special care not to put anything into the
project that would look out of place. There is nothing
underhanded going on. They are trying to build a unit under
state mandated Code and have asked for nothing special. The
819
City Hall, Amaheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - Ausust 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Planning Commission looked at it carefully and voted 7-0 to
approve it. Condition No. 4 is adding a covenant onto a
covenant. He has never heard of that. Condition No. 2
specifies exactly what can be done. There is no reason for
Condition No. 4.
Councilman Hunter.
Condition No. 4 is not talking about physical removal of the
"granny unit" but says that the unit has to be modified so that
it no longer qualifies as a "granny unit". He does not believe
that would entail a great deal - perhaps taking the stove out,
but not physically tearing down the "granny unit".
After further discussion between Mr. Centovene and Councilman
Hunter, Mayor Bay asked the City Attorney to explain exactly
what Condition No. 4 means.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay first closed the public hearing.
City Attorney White.
As he understands the applicant's concern, they will be forced
as existing owners of the property to either remove the entire
unit or to remove the kitchen facilities, or if the Code is
changed between now and the date they decide to sell the
property, they would have to remove whatever facilities would be
required to comply with Code. The City does not monitor or
police every sale of property in Anaheim. This would
practically come to the City's attention in the following
manner: when the Madrens sell the property, they would enter
into an escrow. A preliminary title policy would be obtained by
the escrow agent on behalf of the proposed new owner and that
would disclose the existence of the "granny unit" and the
requirement that the unit either be removed or converted. At
that time, it would be legally possible for the proposed new
owner as a condition of closing the escrow to either require
that the Madrens comply with the terms of the covenant or to
seek from the City the right to continue the "granny unit" in
existence at that time by either applyin§ for a new CUP or
seeking an amendment to the existing conditions imposed under
the present CUP. It may be somewhat premature to even discuss
this because it only comes into play when there is a sale of the
property.
If the new owner is in a similar situation and has a person who
would legally be entitled to occupy the property and not
constitute a rental of the second unit, which is the City's only
real concern - that there not be a second unit that is rented
out - that could be addressed at that time and the problem
solved by the facts as they would exist at the time of sale.
The Madrens are seeking something which is not a matter of
right, but a matter of privilege. Therefore, the Code may be
82O
City Hall, A~_aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
changed and whatever the changes are under the covenant would be
required to be complied with at the time of sale. That is a
risk the property owner will have to assume if they wish to
excercise the privileges the Council is granting. State Law
does not mandate the City to grant a "granny unit" on the
property.
Councilman Ehrle.
If the condition is not included in the resolution, one person
indicated it would change the zone from its Ri designation. He
asked if it would then be considered a duplex and if so that is
what the neighborhood is objecting to.
City Attorney White.
He answered yes, but he does not disagree with the comment that
Condition No. 2 is meant to protect the utilization of the
"granny unit" as a second dwelling unit that would be rented out
as a duplex but the City does not forceably go into every piece
of property to find out if someone is complying with the Code.
It is possible the property could be sold and the unit rented
out in violation. The protection the City and the neighbors
have is Condition No. 4 that is going to be triggered at the
time an escrow is entered into and the condition disclosed in a
preliminary title report. At that time, the problem can then be
addressed either by the new owner, assuming it is subject to
that obligation to remove it or to make it comply! or to seek
relief from the condition and obtain a new conditional use
permit showing that they somehow comply with the requirement.
Mayor Bay.
The intent of the "granny unit" was to take care of people
within the family. What Sacramento created is exactly what the
neighborhood is concerned about, using the intent of the "granny
unit" to establish a rental on existing single-family property.
He personally supports retaining Condition No. 4 and does not
think the wording is even strong enough. As the City Attorney
explained, the CUP is a privilege and they owe protection to the
rest of the neighborhood.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-322)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-322 for adoption, denying the
requested amendment to conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 3009. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-322: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SET FORTH IN
821
141
City Hall, Anabe{m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-243 ~F.]ATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3009.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
Pickler and Bay
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-322 duly passed and adopted.
108: PUBLIC HEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION PERMIT NO. 1003:
APPLICANT:
Seiyu Yogi
5035 Greensboro Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 30 East Orangethorpe Avenue.
The request is to establish a 64-machine amusement arcade.
A public hearing on the application was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at
the meeting of June 28, 1988. The request was subsequently withdrawn by the
owner, Mr. Yogi. The petitioner then withdrew his request to withdraw the
application permit at the meeting of July 26, 1988.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 4, 1988.
Posting of property August 5, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 5, 1988.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Dr. Steve Minnick, 12269 Skylane, Los Angeles, 90049.
He is the owner of the shopping center being developed on the
southeast corner of Orangethorpe and Lemon Street. He
voluntarily came to represent Mr. Yogi who wants to operate a
video arcade in his shopping center.
Mayor Bay interrupted and asked how many were present in opposition;
were none.
there
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Mayor Bay.
In his opinion, the issue on this arcade was a
misunderstanding. Another arcade application by Mr. Yogi was
being discussed at the meeting of June 28, 1988 and the owner
took for granted when the Council denied that application, this
one would also be denied. Councilwoman Kaywood set the matter
for a public hearing and subsequently Mr. Yogi withdrew his
application and then reinstated his request. He (Bay) has no
problem with the application.
822
142
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler.
The corner of Orangethorpe and Lemon Street is heavily traveled
and putting a 64-machine amusement arcade at that corner is only
asking for more problems. There is too much already there.
Dr. Steve Minnick.
He clarified that the maximum number of machines is now 45 and
not 64 because the space has been cut down. The space is 30%
smaller than what was originally leased.
Councilman Ehrle.
He is speaking in favor although he generally dislikes amusement
devices and arcades primarily because he feels they become a
hang-out for young people who should be doing other things.
This is a light industrial area and adjacent to shopping
centers. If there are problems, the City will know about them
quickly. He does not see any problem in this case giving Mr.
Yogi an opportunity to be successful.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve Amusement Arcade Application No. 1003
to establish an amusement arcade at 30 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Councilman
Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Hunter added that the arcade be approved
for a maximum of 45 machines and not 64 as previously requested.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
She clarified that there is approximately 1,653 square feet
reducing the floor area by approximately 30%. The other
business plan for the development is a convenience market.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion with a limit amended to reflect
a limit of 45 machines:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickier
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kayw00d
179: PUBLIC ~F~d{ING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-01, VAILIANCE NO. 3809 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
Charles D. Bolerjack and Dorothy A. Bolerjack
3625 Savanna Street,
Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT:
Michael K. Frazier
18200 Yorba Linda Boulevard, #201,
Yorba Linda, CA 92686
823
139
City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 3625 Savanna Street. The
request is for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense
zone. To construct a 3-story, 16-unit "affordable" apartment complex with
waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum
structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum floor area of
dwelling units and (e) permitted encroachment into front yard.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Reclassification No. 88-89-01 was denied by the
Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC88-174; Variance No. 3809 was
denied by the Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC88-175; denied
Negative Declaration status.
HEAR/NG SET ON:
An appeal of the Planning Commission's action was filed by Michael Frazier,
Agent for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 4, 1988.
Posting of property August 5, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 5, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 6, 1988.
Mayor Bay asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent; there was no
response.
Mrs. Dorothy Bolerjack, one of the owners, stated although she is present
today, she had not planned on speaking. The agent, Mr. Frazier, filed the
appeal and he was expected to be present.
Mayor Bay. He suggested that the public hearing be continued unless she
insists on the hearing be held today.
Mrs. Bolerjack. She does not have any opinion or input. They are currently
in escrow and the property is due to close on August 22, 1988.
Councilman Pickler. With the requested waiver, it is not something he would
favor and he does not want a continuance. He feels the proposal is out of
line; Councilman Hunter agreed.
Mayor Bay. If it is the Council's intent to proceed with the hearing, that is
what will happen, he asked Mrs. Bolerjack if she would like to go on with the
hearing.
Mrs. Bolerjack answered that she would like to go on.
Mayor Bay opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Art Stahovich, 805 Bramblewood Drive.
He is opposed to loading this little lot with 16 units.
824
They
140
City H~l], Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988~ l:30 P.M.
are asking for things unheard of. The Planning Commission
turned the proposal down. There has been a great deal of
opposition for all of the proposals recently requested in the
area, but the projects were approved. The developer is asking
for all kinds of waivers. He is asking for RM-1200, but he does
not know how that can be accommodated. He does not oppose
development of the property.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
She was able to contact the architect who misunderstood and
thought the hearing was going to be in September. He asked that
the public hearing be continued at least one week.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue public hearing on Reclassification
No. 88-89-01, Variance 3809 and Negative Declaration therefore to Tuesday,
August 23, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Bay reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency with Agency Member
Kaywood absent. (4:43 p.m.)
161.123/114: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: To
consider the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment
Agency and Armando C. and Mirta L. Hernandez, Co-Trustees of the Hernandez
Trust (211 and 217 N. Clementine - Downtown Project Alpha).
PUBLIC NOTICEREQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 3 and August 9, 1988.
Submitted was staff report dated August 9, 1988 from the Community Development
Department, recommending:
A): That the Redevelopment Agency: 1) By Resolution, Certify an
Initial Study with respect to the Disposition and Development
Agreement, make certain findings with respect thereto, and authorize
recordation of a Notice of Determination; 2) By Resolution, approve
the Disposition and Development Agreement and authorize its execution
by the Chairman; and 3) By motion, approve the Basic Concept Drawings.
B) That the City Council: 1) By Resolution, certify an Initial
Study with respect to the Disposition and Development Agreement, make
certain findings with respect thereto, and authorize recordation of a
Notice of Determination; and 2) By Resolution, approve the
Disposition and Development Agreement and find that consideration for
the sale of the property is not less than fair market value according
to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
City Clerk Sohl announced that staff has recommended and requested that the
subject public hearing be continued to August 30, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. due to the
fact that the Redevelopment Commission has not yet considered the agreement.
825
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Agency/Council Member Bay moved to continue the subject public
hearing to August 30, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. Agency Member Pickler seconded the
motion. Agency Member Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Bay adjourned the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting. (4:44 p.m.)
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chamber. (4:45 p.m.)
179/000/108: DISCUSSION - BI!~BOARD BUSINESS LICENSE FEES AND PROPOSED CODE
CHANGES: Discussion regarding potential billboard business license fees and
proposed code changes as requested by the City Council. This matter was
continued from the Council meetings of June 7, June 21, July 12 and July 26,
1988, to this date.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak; there was no response.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The titles of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4952)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4952 for adoption, amending the
Anaheim Municipal Code to establish a revised schedule of billboard license
fees. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4952: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 0FANAHEIMREPEALING CHAPTER
3.20 OF TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS
3.04.260, 3.04.270, 3.04.280, 3.04.290, 3.04.300 AND 3.04.310 TO CHAPTER 3.04,
AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 3.20 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO ADVERTISING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MF~MBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4952 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Vince Taormina, Anaheim Disposal. He annonunced the second in a series of
Toxic Waste Round-ups to take place from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday,
August 20, 1988 located at CVT Recycling & Transfer (Anaheim Disposal Co.)
2761 E. White Star Avenue, Anaheim. He also submitted flyers to be available
for distribution at City Hall.
179: ITEMS C1 - C5 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JULY 28, 1988 -
DECISION DATE: AUGUST 4, 1988 - INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PEEIOD ENDS
AUGUST 19, 1988:
826
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Cl.
VARIANCE NO. 3820 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: CHI KEUNG KWOK, et al, P.O. Box 6551, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 506 South State College Boulevard
To establish a 738 square-foot donut shop with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
Variance No. 3820 DENIED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA88-45.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Letter of appeal filed by Kathleen H. Martin, Agent for Harm Ouy Chau.
The Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by the applicant and
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
C2.
VARTANCE NO. 3815, CATEGORICAT~Y EXEMPT~ CLASS 3-A:
OWNER: RICHARD E. COLLIVERAND JUDY J. COLLIVER, 382 Silverbrook
Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: PETER E. LARSON, 10600 Magnolia, Suite I, Riverside, CA 92505
LOCATION: 7460 East Humm{n~bird Circle
To construct a 2-story, 34.5 foot high, single-family residence with
waiver of maximum structural height.
Variance No. 3815 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA88-46.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that a height waiver greater than 25 feet was again
approved for the subject location and the next item was also approved
(Variance No. 3821). A 25-foot height limit is established in the Scenic
Corridor. She asked the decision of the Planning Commission at yesterday's
meeting regarding the height limitation in the Scenic Corridor.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission continued
the discussion on that subject.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned with granting waivers in the meantime;
Councilman Pickler stated if Councilwoman Kaywood would like to set the matter
for a public hearing, he will second the request.
A reviaw of the Zoning Administrator's decisi0m was requested by Council
Members Kaywood and Pickler and, therefore, a public hearin$ will be scheduled
at a later date.
C3.
VARIANCE NO. 3821~ CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3-A:
ROBERT L. DAVIS AND AMINTA D. DAVIS, 6503 Marengo Drive, Anaheim, CA
92807
AGENT: THOMAS MAURER & ASSOCIATES, ATTN: RICK CRANE, 150 E1 Camino
Real, No. 200, Tustin, CA 92680
LOCATION: 6980 E. Avenida de Santiago
To construct a 2-story, 33 foot, 6-inch high, single-family residence
with waiver of maximum structural height.
827
City I~11, A~=heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Variance No. 3821 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision
No. ZA88-47.
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Council
Members Kaywood and Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled
at a later date.
C4.
VARIANCE NO. 3827 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: JACK NOSEK, et al, 1206 W. Ash Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92633
AGENT: THOMAS MAURER & ASSOCIATES, ATTN: Rick Crane, 150 E1 Camino
Real, No. 200, Tustin, CA 92680
LOCATION: 806 W. Romneya
To construct a 3-story, 10-unit, apartment complex with waivers of
maximum structural height and maximum site coverage.
Variance No. 3827 DENIED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA88-~,8.
Approved Negative Declaration.
C5. VARIANCE NO. 3825 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: ALLYN B. SCHEU AND ROSEMARY B. SCHEU, P.O. Box 250, Upland,
Ca 91785
LOCATION: 1003 N. Euclid Street
To establish a take-out pizza restaurant with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
Variance No. 3825 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA88-49.
Approved Negative Declaration.
End of the Zoning Administrator Items. MOTIONS CARRIED.
107/129: SPRINKLER ORDINANCE: Councilman Pickler. He was at a recent
meeting of the Anaheim Board of Realtors where Fire Chief Bowman spoke. He
(Pickler) would like to again place on the agenda the sprinkler ordinance so
that the Council can act on it.
Assistant City Manager James Ruth. The Fire Chief has completed his report
but the City Manager's Office has not yet seen it. It will be reviewed in a
few days and subsequently will come to the Council.
114: COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL USED AS ACCESS WAY: Councilman Pickler
referred to a recent Anaheim Bulletin newspaper article by Klm Erwin regarding
a popular short cut taken by school kids living in the Glenoaks-Fern Street
area - through a flood control channel owned by the County. Apparently School
Board President Tom Daly told parents that the ball was in the City's court.
He wants the School Board to know communication is a two-way street. If there
is something bothering him about City schools, he will call the School Board.
Re would hope that School Board Members would call him if they had a concern.
It does not look good to first see such concerns in the paper. The Flood
Control Channel is not owned by the City, but the County, and the County
should be taking action to close the tunnel access since it poses a danger to
children.
828
136
City Hall, A~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay also expressed concern over the article. The tunnel runs under the
Santa Ana Freeway and there is no easy solution to prevent school kids from
using it. The Water District should put a heavy grate on the tunnel entrance
so that no one can go through it. It is not a City problem and he agrees that
the School Board should first call the Council before issuing such statements.
Councilman Hunter. He has known of the problem since he was on the Police
Force. Grates have been put up over and over again to prevent the kids from
using it as an access but it does not work. It is a 23-year old issue and not
a new one.
RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. for a continued public
hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 210, Circulation Element, to designate
critical intersections. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (5:15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:35 p.m.)
134/172: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 285,
GENERAL pLaN AMENDMENT 210 - CIRCULATION E].~MENT - RECOMMENDED CODE AMENoMENT:
APPLICANT:
OWNERS:
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
REQUEST/LOCATION: EIR NO. 285 and GPA No.
critical intersections:
Anahelmand Ball*
Anaheim and Cerritos*
Ball and Beach
Ball and Brookhurst
Ball and Euclid
Ball and Harbor
Ball and Lewis*
Ball and State College*
Beach and Lincoln
Brook_burst and Katella
Brookhurst and La Palma
Cerritos and State College*
Convention Way and Harbor
Convention Way and Haster
Euclid and La Palma
Euclid and Lincoln
Harbor and Katella
210 to designate the following
Harbor and La Palma
Haster and Katella
Howell and Katella*
Katella and Lewis*
Katella and State College*
Kraemer and La Palma
Kraemer and Orangethorpe
La Palma and Imperial Highway
La Palma and Lakeview
La Palma and Magnolia
La Palma and State College
La Palma and Tustin
Lincoln and Magnolia
Lincoln and State College
Orangethorpe and Imperial Hwy.
Orangewood and State College*
*Previously adopted as critical intersections in General Plan Amendment
No. 214 on March 17, 1987.
This General Plan Amendment proposes to enhance the intersections by up to 12
feet for a distance of 600 feet from the corner right-of-way line. The intent
829
133
City Hall, AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
is that prior to issuance of building permits, Conditional Use Permits,
Variances or other related zoning and building actions on the adjacent
properties, that the property owners make an irrevocable offer to dedicate
such additional right-of-way as required. The cost of widening will be borne
either by the City or major property developers.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommended certification of ELR No. 285. The
GPA No. 210 circulation element was approved by the Planning Commission under
Resolution No. PC88-117. The City Planning Commission also recommended staff
to prepare a draft ordinance for Code Amendment to provide for acquisition of
Right-of-Way, per Exhibit No. 1.
This matter was continued from the meetings of July 12 and July 26, 1988, to
this date (see minutes those dates).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 30, 1988.
Posting of property June 24, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 24,
1988.
PLAN~ING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1988.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
Introduced the City's Traffic and Transportation Engineer, Paul
Singer, to make a presentation on the proposed General Plan
Amendment No. 210.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He then gave the staff presentation on the proposed General Plan
Amendment (GPA) for critical intersections which was basically a
reiteration of the presentation made at the Council meeting of
July 26, 1988 (see minutes that date - presentation made by
staff and input received from the public). Mr. Singer also
again narrated a brief slide presentation which included an
illustration of the critical intersection design configuration.
Gary Johnson.
~e relteratad that citizen surveys conducted over the last three
years have consistently shown that the number one concern of
people in Anaheim is traffic congestion and relief of that
comgestion, not only from residents but also people in the
business community. The major focus of the Vision 2000 Plan to
relieve congestion is the adoption of the proposed GPA for the
critical intersection designation and following that,
implementation of the Plan.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Singer by the Mayor regarding
the number of through traffic lanes that will be added at the
critical intersections and if not feasible to implement the full
improvements as proposed, how many and what lanes would then be
proposed or added.
830
City N~l 1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
The GPA is simply a planning tool to put the land use element at
an equal level with the circulation element. It will protect
the right-of-way that will be needed in the future. Each
intersection would first be analyzed. The implementation would
not be to develop the full critical intersection at one time,
with some exceptions. Therefore, it is conceivable at some of
the intersections it may be 15 to 20 years before there is a
need for the fully implemented GPA. However, if planning is not
done now for that right-of-way and buildings are allowed to
encroach, it will foreclose any future opportunity to make
improvements that the community really needs for the densities
allowed under the land use General Plan. He also explained for
Councilman Ehrle why the intersections were not prioritized.
Mayor Bay again opened the floor to public input. The following people spoke
to the critical intersection plan as proposed under GPA No. 210 and expressed
opposition, posed questions or offered comments regarding the plan as
s,,mmarized below:
Sam McGidd, property owner, corner of Ball and Euclid.
A lien will be placed on every single piece of property under
discussion. The potential is taking away 12 feet of property in
the future whether or not it is needed which may be 5, 10 or 20
years from now.
Frank Cozza, 217 West Ball Road.
Private property should not be tied up for an indefinite time
whether it is eventually going to be used or not. If the
property is not used within five years, the lien on the property
should be eliminated.
Howard Sachar, 1728 West Ball Road.
The solution being proposed is not the best solution. It will
be disruptive to the community and affect hundreds of people.
The City has not analyzed the traffic problem or other
alternatives. A cloud will be hanging over the private property
owner which will make it impossible to sell property to anyone
but the City and the City has no money to buy it.
Julia Araiza, 740 West Ball Road.
There has not been proper notification of property owners. If
oD-ly those within 300 feet of the intersection were notified,
there are approximately 400 or 800 additional property owners
involved within the next 300 feet. There should be proper
publication of the issue.
Fred Galloway, 106 D North Kodiak, property Manager and Trustee
for the Dow property at the corner of Brookhurst and La Palma.
Traffic problems in Anaheim are unique. People are
circumventing the freeways to take the streets through Anaheim.
Widening the roads will result in a worsening of traffic.
831
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Gary Jaquith, Attorney for the Zaby Family, property owners at
the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue.
A City cannot take private property for the public good unless
it puts that property to public use within a reasonable period
of time; Case law shows 7 years as the outer limit, 20 years is
not reasonable under any circumstances. The proposal will have
a disproportionate impact on a very few owners supposedly for
the benefit of the entire community.
Mayor Bay at this point asked the City Attorney to clarify an irrevocable
dedication given at this time even though the property will not be used for 15
or 20 years and the lien that would cloud the title on the property, as that
seems to be a repeated concern.
City Attorney White.
An irrevocable offer of dedication is a deed for the
right-of-way for property that does not come to fruition until
it is accepted by the City. In legal terms, it does not
constitute a cloud on the title, but it is an encumberance on
the property. As long as it is an irrevocable offer of
dedication outstanding, the City at any time may accept that and
cause the dedication to occur.
Mayor Bay.
He assumes, then, that it has an effect on the value of the
property in the open market.
City Attorney White.
In his opinion, yes - a lessening of the amount of property that
could be developed by the property owner. Relative to the GPA,
he confirmed for Councilman Hunter that the amendment of the
General Plan by itself does not constitute any obligation on the
property - it does not amount to a taking of property. If the
General Plan is amended, that plan has to be implemented for
there to be a taking. For the City to acquire the property
through purchase or eminent domain or to require the dedication
in connection with some permit or entitlement that the property
owner comes to the City requesting. If the plan is amended, the
property owner doe~ nothing with the property and the owner does
not come to the City seeking any permit or entitlement for the
property, nothing happens in connection with the GPA. The only
thing that could trigger acquisition of the property - the City
going out and attempting to voluntarily purchase the property
from the property owner or to exercise rights of eminent domain
which also requires payment of the value of the property that
would be taken. In legal terminology there is not a clouding on
the title by adoption of the GPA.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
There are two issues involved, the GPA and the implementation of
the plan which are public policy considerations. The Planning
Commission recommendation was for implementation, full 832
132
City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
compensation for right-of-way in any case whether a building
permit is required or not. Staff recommendation differs from
the Planning Commission in that due to cost consideration, staff
feels that the dedication on issuance of a building permit is
appropriate. It is a relaxation of the current ordinance but
clearly it is a policy issue dealing with compensation for that
right-of-way and there are good arguments on either side of the
issue as identified in the staff report. There are two options
for the Council to consider on implementation - one would
require dedication on building permit issuance, and the other
would not.
Dorothy Perusio.
Her home is at 1680 Chateau Avenue (Euclid and Chateau) which is
just past 600 feet from Ball Road. (Mayor Bay clarified that
the plan would have no affect on her property). They live under
terrible conditions of traffic and noise. That area should
automatically go commercial. The City should take the houses
and open up all the side streets.
David Chavez, 4420 East La pa]ma (within 200 feet of the
critical intersection of Lakeview and La Palma). This will be
the third time he has dedicated property. He has concerns
relative to safety and if in the future the City installs
another lane, his home and business will be adversely affected.
Wally Hoss, First Congregational Church, 515 North State College
Boulevard.
Going from two lanes to three lanes at every intersection and
back to two lanes will be a traffic problem. Staff also
clarified for Mr. Hoss that recent changes in the Municipal Code
provide for expansion of 1,000 feet or 2,000 in two years
without the dedication requirement. Minor building permits are
exempt. With minor conditional use permits and variances, staff
would typically never request a dedication.
Bill Talunis, property owner at State College and Katella Avenue
(Real Estate Broker).
He agrees with the concerns expressed thus far. There needs to
be just compensation because the City is taking property.
Chuck McNees, 1721 South Manchester (Katella & Haster).
Their property extends 600 feet in each direction. They
originally had 20 acres and now have 5. Eminent domain is a
right of the City. It is unfair and unjust to dedicate land to
the City for the rights of all and for many who do not live in
the City but merely travel through it. Property owners should
be compensated if the City takes private property.
Jim Tisthammer, 2013 West Ball Road.
It is unjust and a hardship if the burden of improving the
intersections is based on only the people who own the land at
those intersections.
833
129
City Ma!l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Billy Mitchell, owner, Billy Mitchell's Coffee Shop.
He does not own the property but the business. His concern and
responsibility is to his customers. The critical intersection
plan will not solve anything. There will always be traffic but
heavy traffic is during limited times only.
Frank Aratza, owner of property at 1740, 1744 and 1748 Ball Road
near Euclid.
The ultimate solution is what the freeways can handle. He
suggests synchronized traffic lights so that motorists can drive
at a certain speed without having to stop at intersections.
Rich Chrtstiansen, Manager of property at 1818 So. State College
Boulevard. He asked staff for clarification relative to the
consequences if tenants made modifications to their businesses.
Their questions were answered by Paul Singer.
Berry Gauthier, Franchise Operator, 7-Eleven Market, Ball Road
and Euclid.
The proposed plan is not the answer. Although there may have
been notification to property owners, there was no notification
to merchants. It will have an adverse effect on businesses by
taking away parking, possibly cutting into their building,
reducing sales, etc. As a leaseholder they get no help from the
City. He urged the Council to find another plan or method.
Judy Zrinski, 3821 East La Palma (Tustin at La Palma).
The plan is not going to make any difference in that location
unless Tustin is widened on the bridge.
Knoll Sweeney (Ward property at Lincoln and State College
Boulevard).
He has not received any information. The plan will eliminate
two islands on his station. If the intersection is cleared up,
it will be the same problem down the road when the street goes
back to two lanes.
Ann Barker, one of the property owners and 1720 West Ball Road,
(Ball and Euclid).
She is an attorney and her office is in that building. Ail who
have spoken this evening are opposed to the plan. She urged the
Council to look at the issue from the standpoint of balancing -
what are the advantages and disadvantages. Three advantages
might be - a reduction in traffic, will it be cost effective,
quality of life. Disadvantages - impact on values of property
at the intersections will decrease, impact on displacement, loss
of businesses, loss of quality of living, landscaping and
parking and increase in noise. She asked that the proposal be
sent back for additional study.
Vernon Sharp (Beacon and Euclid).
Notices should be posted every couple of blocks so that people
know what is going on at City Hall.
834
130
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Aa~drey Pashley, 4501 Fairfield, Corona Del Mar, owner of
property at the southeast corner of La Palma and Magnolia (Der
Wienerschnitzel). Because hers is a small piece of property,
dedication will have a large impact. She also posed questions
to staff answered by Gary Johnson.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Extensive discussion followed between Council Members and staff
which included a discussion of possible funding sources for the
24 critical intersections over and above the 9 such
intersections already established. City Engineer Johnson
explained that the Annual Capital Improvement Program would be
able to accommodate some of the improvements. He also explained
some of the things that occur in the transportation arena each
year which could be of assistance. He emphasized there is quite
a mix of funds, and if spread over a 10 to 20 year period there
are also Redevelopment Agency funds since some of the critical
intersections .are in the project area. There are no definite
plans for the entire 20 years. The $30 million Bond Issue that
was approved for the ballot recently would get the plan started
in the right direction but not as clearly defined as the
improvements in the Stadium area.
Mayor Bay.
They are going to have to find a way, if the intersections are
going to be improved, to pay for them. Not all because some are
already planned. There are many different alternate ways to pay
for the critical intersections. What they are looking at
tonight is how the $30 million in bonds, if they pass by a 2/3's
vote in November - those bonds will be paid for by every
property owner in the City which, as a guesstimate, will cover
about 1/3 of the total cost of the plan which he estimates will
be approximately $90 million. He later emphasized the fact that
what cost the City and taxpayers a great deal of money was the
widening of Anaheim Boulevard from downtown to Broadway and down
to Ball Road and on, because there was no long-range plan and
the City did not hold the setbacks on that street. Setbacks
were held in the northeast industrial area and on Ball Road in
the Industrial area between East Street and State College
Boulevard. They are not talking about the implementation at
this time but justifying the need for the plan which is the
first portion of the issue. If they cannot look ahead to the
year 2000, they are not doing any planning.
Councilman Hunter. If they go forward he is concerned over
individual property owners who have worked hard for many years.
To take 12 feet for 600 feet each way is a great deal of land.
They should do everything in their power that is going to be
fair and equitable to all concerned. He might be agreeable to
approving the GPA but he is not ready to implement any type of
ordinance tonight that will involve the taking of property.
835
127
City ~mll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
It is her intent, and she assumes the intent of the Council,
be fair and equitable.
to
Councilman Pickler.
To say the City does not need what is being proposed would be
closing their eyes. It is necessary to look at the total
picture and compensation is a big part of that picture. The GPA
is a must.
Councilman Ehrle.
He feels there are other alternatives and he is not certain they
have all been looked at. He is not convinced widening the
streets is the answer. Good planning must take place and
alternatives found. He would like to know how the voters feel
in November and then to see if they want to proceed. Nothing
can be done to implement the plan until the voters themselves
say they are willing to put out the dollars necessary to pay for
the improvements called for in the plan. He supports the intent
of the GPA but would like to see how the voters are going to
react to the $30 million bond issue.
Mayor Bay commented that more intersections would have been
improved if the Katella Redevelopment Plan had been successful.
Increment tax funding would have solved many of the circulation
problems without any increases to taxes to anybody. In Project
Alpha in the northeast industrial area, the improvements can be
made with the tax increment that is coming in on Redevelopment.
The first thing to be determined is whether or not the Council
agrees with the plan. If they do not agree, the rest is a waste
of time. There are other ways such as setting up assessment
districts. The people paying taxes are the ones who will pay
for the improvements.
Before concluding discussion, City Engineer Johnson again
explained the things that are occurring relative to regional
planning and the leadership role being taken by the Orange
County Transportation Commission (OCTC) relative to traffic and
circulation countywide. The weak link in the system is not the
midblock capacity, but the intersections and Anaheim is out
front in this regard. The Chamber and the Economic Development
Board felt Anaheim should be out front. A lot of cities are
looking to Anaheim to see what it is going to do. The General
Plan process is the way to begin - implementation is the more
difficult decision. Staff feels it is timely - it is good
planning and it makes sense.
Mayor Bay.
If the Council approves the General Plan this evening and the
EIR Finding, he asked if it would then be possible to hold off
on the introduction of the ordinances including the introduction
on.the dedication and implementation which he does not feel the
Council is ready to resolve this evening.
836
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney White.
The Council can adopt the GPA which can be effective the date it
is adopted or effective at a later date. If the Council delayed
implementation of the GPA to January 1, 1989, for example, it
would not be necessary for the Council to take immediate action
with regard to amending the ordinances currently in effect
because the City would not be in a position to require those
dedications until the implementation date. It would also give
the Council the opportunity to study the voter's reaction in the
November, 1988 Elections but it would put the City on record by
taking a position as a planning document, and that the critical
intersections and their widening are necessary for planning
purposes. It would not immediately require anybody to give up
or dedicate or allow the City to start a grandiose acquisition
of private property.
Mayor Bay.
If the Council wanted to pass the GPA tonight setting the
effective date as January 1, 1989, they would then have the time
between now and then to see what comes out of the November, 1988
Ballot Bond Issue plus working on alternatives for implemenation
of the plan and how to fund it.
Additional questions were posed to the City Attorney by Council Members after
which the following actions were taken:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NO. 285: Having been reviewed by City staff and
recommended by the City Planning Commission for General Plan Amendment No. 210
and, having reviewed evidence both written and oral presented to supplement
draft Environmental Impact Report No. 285, the City Council finds on motion by
Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler that EIR No. 285 is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and City
guidelines and adopted a statement of overriding considerations. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-323)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywo0d seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-323 for adoption, approving General
Plan Amendment No. 210 with an effective date of January 1, 1989, with the
intent of leaving it open for further study and deliberations by the Council
on methods of implementing the planning, funding and finding the most
reasonable way to make it happen in an equitable manner. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-323: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND TEXT OF THE
ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 210.
837
157
City M~li, Anaheim, C~lffornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrie, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-323 duly passed and adopted.
114: SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mayor Bay stated the Council has
established a system by ordinance of setting public hearings with the intent,
rather than public hearings being set by one Council Member with the rest of
the Council disagreeing, that there be a second Council Member who concurs.
Now there is a standard commitment of two votes anytime a Council Member wants
to set a public hearing. Today two items under the Zoning Administrator
Consent Calendar were set for public hearing by a minority of the Council. If
there is going to be an overriding of the intent of not setting public
hearings, he asked if there are three Council Members who do not want public
hearings set, specifically on the two items that were set today, if a Council
majority could override the setting of those hearings under the current
ordinance.
City Attorney White answered no, not the way the ordinance currently reads.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She expressed her concern that not only was the right
of each Council Member to set a public hearing taken away, but now that there
are two Council Members who must concur, there is an attempt to override that
determination.
Mayor Bay. Since the majority still rules on the Council, if there continues
to be a circumvention of the intent of the majority of the Council on setting
unnecessary public hearings, he foresees another change to the ordinance by
three Members of the Council.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilman Hunter seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:40 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
838