1987/03/17City H~!i~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT
ABSENT:
VACANCY
PRESENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CITY TREASURER: Mary Turner
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Mary McCloskey
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:45 p.m. on March 13, 1987 at the Civic Center front lobby window,
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. 40-92-46.2.
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(c).
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:11 p.m.)
AFTER CLOSED RECESS: The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. and
welcomed all those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Reverend Harold Headriek, We~t Anaheim United Methodist Church,
gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
197
211,0.'
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
American Association of University Women Week in Anaheim, March 15-21, 1987,
Rotary International Weekend in Anaheim, March 19-22, 1987.
Sandra DiSario accepted the American Association of University Women Week
proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held February 24, 1987. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 34,693,890.02, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
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. 87R-78 through 87R-84, 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 Euoenis Sanchez for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 6, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by Evelyn Scaglione for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 5, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by Mercury Insurance Group (William G. Conoway,
insured) for property damage sustained purportedly due tO actions of the City
on or about October 18, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Howard Joseph Prescott for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 9, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence; (on file)
s. 156: Police Department--Fourth Quarter 1986 Crime Report.
198
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
3. 156/106: Accepting $2,790 for the support and expansion of the Police
Canine Program, increasing Account Nos. 01-182-6540 and 01-182-7121 by $1,000
and $1,790, respectively, and increasing Revenue Account No. 01-3187 by ~2,790.
4. 175/123: Authorizing an Easement Agreement with Orange County Water
District granting the City easements for well sites and appurtenant pipelines
on the west side of Anaheim Lake (R/W 3977).
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Environmental Images, in the amount of
~700, to provide landscape architect services to revise plans and
specifications in connection with the Route 91/57 overcrossing slope
landscaping.
6. 175/123: Authorizing Southern California Edison Company to execute, as
Operating Agent of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Modification No.
5 to the Department of Energy Utility Services Contract No. DE-SC05-84UE7541
and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to forward said
authorization to Southern California Edison.
7. 153/123: Accepting the bid of Boston Mutual to provide $100,000
individual excess stop loss coverage for the Employee Self-funded Medical Plan
and to provide basic term life insurance; authorizing the Human Resources
Director to sign application on behalf of the City and an administration
agreement with Boston Mutual, and Equicor for individual excess stop loss
administration, to be effective January 1, 1987; and to notify Equicor of the
City's intent to cancel the existing basic life insurance contract.
8. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-78: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (1986-87 Alley
Improvement, first Alley w/o Euclid Street between Crone Avenue and Beacon
Avenue, first Alley w/o Anaheim Blvd. between South Street and Vermont Avenue,
first Alley w/o Olive Street between Valencia Avenue and Vermont Avenue,
Account Nos. 01-793-6325-E3130 and 54-484-6993-00710; and opening of bids on
April 16, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
9. 181: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF A/~AHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (ED LAYTON
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best
responsible bidder, Ed Layton Construction Company, Inc., for the Anaheim
Museum Rehabilitation, 241 South Anaheim Boulevard, Account No. 46-928-6325,
in an amount not to exceed $563,447.00)
10. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-008 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS WITH FULL-TIME
EQUIVALENTS. (Amending Resolution No. 86R-008 which established rates
compensation for unrepresented part-time Job classifications with full-time
equivalents, effective October 17, 1986 through October 15, 1987)
11. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-290 ESTABLISHING THE MANAGEMENT PAY
PLAN BY ADJUSTING THE MANAGEMENT SALARY STRUCTURE, ESTABLISHING RATES OF
199
City Hall~ An-beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (Amending Resolution No. 86R-290 to change the
salary range of the Convention Center Operations Manager to XSR09, effective
March 20, 1987)
12. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-103 AND AMENDMENTS
THERETO. (Establishing rates of compensation for unrepresented part-time Job
classifications and superseding Resolution No. 86R-103 and amendments thereto,
effective March 20, 1987)
13. 161: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-83: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE IN THE KATELLA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. (Approving a representative Project Area
Committee (PAC) for the Katella Redevelopment Project Area)
14. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-78 through 87R-84:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-78 through 87R-84, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar.
124/106: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE - BETTERMENT III
- PROPOSED CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION: Authorizing appropriation of an
amount not to exceed $1,231,000 from the General Benefits Fund into the
Convention Center Fund to be administered by the Community Center Authority to
implement the design development and construction document phase of
Betterment III.
Mayor Bay. He removed the item from the Consent Calendar first to make it
clear to the public that if the funds are authorized, the money will be loaned
out of the General Benefits Fund and will be paid back when bonds or
certificates are issued for the expansion. Secondly, he is concerned with the
additional costs involved in talking about the expansion of one parking
structure plus a second structure. In his mind, the costs have escalated by
another $30 million to ~35 million and when discussions took place relative to
the expansion, the costs were around ~25 million.
Mayor Bay then asked staff for additional financial information on Betterment
III by providing a cost breakdown in order to determine what the total is
going to be. This will involve not only the Betterment III expansion but also
2OO
City Hal!, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
the actual new square footage that will be added to the Convention Center, the
modernization costs, the parking structure cost, etc. He would also like to
know the net return on investment at the present time on an annual basis and
when they refinance or bond for the expansion, how much of a negative or
positive position the City will be in when making payments on those bonds, at
some estimated interest, in order to have a better picture of the total cost.
City Manager Talley noted that the Convention Center General Manager was in
the audience and unless the Mayor wished to question him at this time, Mr.
Thompson has made notes with regard to the Mayor's questions and will provide
that information to the Council.
Mayor Bay stated that he did not expect the answers right at this time. He
thereupon moved to authorize the appropriation of an amount not to exceed
$1,231,000 from the General Benefits Fund into the Convention Center Fund to
be administered by the Community Center Authority to implement the design
development and construction document phase of Betterment III (proposed
Convention Center Expansion), as recommended in staff report dated March 9,
1987 from Lynn Thompson, General Manager, Anaheim Convention Center.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT - 901 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD (KOCYLA):
Authorizing a Development Agreement with John Kocyla, to permit a
commercial/retail complex, and, thereby, exempt subject parcel from the
requirement to develop commercial-recreational uses on property located at 901
South Harbor Boulevard. Submitted was report dated March 9, 1987 from the
Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti, that the proposed development is not
detrimental to the public, health, safety or welfare and that the proposed
agreement for development be approved.
Councilman Pickler. He removed the item from the Consent Calendar because he
has concerns relative to the location especially with regard to circulation
and traffic. He referred to Beach Boulevard which was going to be a "super
street" and if that works out well, Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue are
two alternatives the Transportation Commission was looking at as possible
"super streets". He feels developing a shopping center on property that is 95
feet by 120 feet is too much for that corner. Traffic is very heavy in both
directions.
Annika Santalahti. The parcel is adjacent to an existing motel and any
development of the property would have to either occur in connection with the
motel or then something else. The project as approved originally complies
with applicable regulations of the commercial/recreation zone as to site
development as well as the necessary street dedication. Since the adjacent
property is already developed and until those properties go together to
something else, it would be hard to imagine what type of use there might be
other than a retail activity.
Councilman Pickler expressed further concern that in the staff report (Page 2)
health spas and physical fitness centers were listed, amongst other uses, as
permitted primary uses in the CR zone.
201
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti explained the only reason those uses were included, the
parking requirement of a health club of a small size is the same as retail and
a permitted activity in the CR zone under certain circumstances. With a small
enough health spa they can meet the applicable parking standards but cannot
extend that size. If the size was less than 4,000 square feet they could
develop that by right but they could not build anything larger even if they
wanted to.
Councilman Pickler asked if at this point there was anything the Council could
do relative to the proposed development; City Attorney White explained the
Council is not mandated to approve the agreement. If the Council does not
approve the agreement, it will still be subject to the interim ordinance that
limits the uses. It is currently limited to CR uses. If that is made
permanent in the future, the project would have to be consistent with those
uses.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she is very uncomfortable with the proposed
agreement especially because of the situation that developed when a health spa
went into what use to be a supermarket on Magnolia and Broadway which has
resulted in overflow parking in that area.
Mayor Bay, addressing the developer who was present in the Chamber audience,
clarified that if the Council was going to approve the agreement, that health
spas and physical fitness centers be removed from the list of permitted uses.
Mr. John Kocyla, 120 South Lakeview Anaheim, stated he had no problem with
that. He had submitted a list of uses he could live with, which uses were
partially from the CR list and partially from the CL list. He started the
project in 1985 and has already paid for the street widening, the signals,
electrical, etc. to get the CL. Then he got caught in the middle when the
proposed CE limitation was established. He reviewed the list of CR uses as
well as CL that he could possibly conceive could go into the small center. It
is a small location and became smaller as more easements and dedications were
required. He already has two easement agreements with the motel for access in
both directions. He believes most of the uses on the list would fit into the
tourist category. It is not leased out at the present time. He would not
object to deleting health spas and physical fitness centers.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-85 ~or adoption, authorizing a
Development Agreement with John Kocyla, to permit a commercial/retail complex,
and, thereby, exempt subject parcel from the requirement to develop
commercial-recreational uses on property located at 901 South Harbor
Boulevard, including the stipulation by the applicant that there will be no
health spa or physical fitness center in the development. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN REFERENCE
THERETO. (KOCYLA)
Roll Call Vote:
202
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-85 duly passed and adopted.
123: ATTORNEY SERVICES AGREEMENT - WERVE AND STAFFORD: Approving Attorney
Services Agreement with the law firm of Werve and Stafford.
Mayor Bay asked if these were open call contracts referring to this item and
the proposed agreement following this item.
City Attorney White answered yes. He is authorized to assign them the
litigation within the confines of the City Attorney's budget. There was no
annual limit but an hourly limit and it was up to him to limit the amount of
expenditures in accordance with the budget or request additional budget from
the Council.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the Attorney Services Agreement
with the law firm of Werve and Stafford, as recommended in staff report dated
March 3, 1987. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO ATTORNEY SERVICES AGREEMENT - COTKIN, COLLINS &
FRANSCELL: Councilman Bay moved to approve the first amendment to Attorney
Services Agreement with the law firm of Cotkin, Collins & Franscell, as
recommended in staff report dated March 3, 1987 from the City Attorney's
Office. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - NEW GENERATION PRODUCTIONS:
City Attorney White explained that the item came to the City yesterday and it
was, therefore, unable to be placed on the printed agenda. The application is
for a public dance permit to hold a dance on March 21, 1987 at the Anaheim
Convention Center. The Police Department has been contacted, reviewed the
applicant and recommended approval.
In order for the Council to act, it is also necessary under the recent
amendments to the Brown Act for the Council by unanimous vote to make a
finding that the need to act upon this application arose since the agenda was
prepared on Friday.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved first to waive the provisions of the Brown
Act finding that the need arose after the Council's printed agenda was posted,
and also to approve a Public Dance Permit submitted by Nick Kamirez, for New
Generation Productions to hold a dance on March 21, 1987, from 8:00 p.m. to
1:00 a.m. at the Anaheim Convention Center, in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he would be concerned if there
was going to be a tendency for late requests on these kinds of permits and
questioned if the lateness in submitting the application was an exception.
203
204
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney ~hite stated it was an exception and it would not become a habit.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CAR/~IED.
000/142: ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENT FOR RETUltNED CHECK FEE: Amending Section
3.04.230 of Chapter 3.04 of Title 3 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
Business License (returned check fees). Submitted was report received
March 13, 1987 from the City Treasurer Mary Turner, recommending adoption of
the proposed ordinance relating to establishing a fee for returned checks
tendered in payment of Business Licenses.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4814 for first reading.
OKDINANCE NO. 4814: AN OKDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
3.04.230 OF CHAPTEK 3.04 OF TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
BUSINESS LICENSES.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that another action would be required to make the
policy effective Citywide, i.e. that a fee be established for payment of
returned check fees throughout City Departments.
Mayor Bay stated he had no problem with making the policy Citywide but he has
not seen any backup data telling him that is the true cost of handling those
checks. He would like to see figures and background on what banks charge for
returned checks.
City Treasurer, Mary Turner, explained that bank charges for returned checks
vary but many are currently charging $15.00. It is not only what banks are
charging to the City but also the cost incurred by staff in reversing the
check back into the general ledger and the cost of collecting it. Many cities
already have a $15.00 fee for returned items and some cities are charging
$25.00. She clarified for the Mayor that in her mind, $15.00 was a fair
charge for returnedchecks.
City Attorney White recommended in answer to the Mayor that the Council
proceed with the subject proposed ordinance relating to returned checks for
business licenses only, which will be finally acted upon at the next Council
meeting. In the interim, his office will prepare an all-encompassing
ordinance. If in the future the Council intends to amend the Business License
Section it will drop out of that Section and at that point the all
encompassing ordinance will be in effect. In the meantime this will give
coverage for Business Licenses, will not be in conflict and will automatically
cease in the future.
Staff was thereupon directed to prepare an additional ordinance relative to
establishing a requirement for payment of returned check fees encompassing all
departments Citywide.
181/106: INTERNATIONAL MUSIC OLYMPICS - REQUEST TO ABSORB COSTS: Request
submitted by John Schroeder, Chairman, that the City absorb costs incurred by
the 1986 International Music Olympics competition at Glover Stadium.
Submitted also was report dated March 11, 1987 from the Director of Parks,
204
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Recreation and Community Services, Chris Jarvi, recommending that the Council
consider the request to absorb 3315 in costs for services provided to the
Music Olympics by his Department to be appropriated from the Council
Contingency Fund.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to absorb costs incurred by the 1986
International Music Olympics Competition at Glover Stadium in the amount of
3315 to be appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
179: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-543 NUNC PRO TUNC: Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution No. 87R-86 for adoption nunc pro tunc, to amend conditions
of approval pertaining tO Variance No. 3588. Refer to Resolution Book.
KESOLUTION NO. 87R-86: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE'CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING ONE, ADDING ONE AND RENUMBERING TWO CONDITIONS IN THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF VAKIANCE NO. 3588 AS SET FOKTH IN RESOLUTION NO.
86R-543, NUNC PRO TUNC.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 871{-86 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4813: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4813 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4813: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE FRT.&TING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 86-87-15, RM-1200, 2648 West Ball Road)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4813 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4815: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4815 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4815: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 86-87-3, RM-1200, 2900-2920 East Lincoln Avenue
205
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
144: RA~TERN/FOOTHILL CORKIDOK JOINT PONEKS AUTHORITY MEETING: Mayor Bay
reported on the March 12, 1987 meeting of the subject Authority where many
issues were discussed. He reported that the San Joaquin Hills Corridor is a
project connected with the Congressional Bill HR2 tied into the Transportation
Bill, the bill which they worked on extensively at the National League of
Cities meeting held in Washington D.C. There has also been a change written
into HR2 that will allow toll roads to obtain some percentage of Federal
Funds. Up to now, any toll road in the United States has been unable to get
any Federal Funds in support of it. The last he heard, up to 17% of the total
cost could be Federal Funds and still be a toll road. One of the Specific
Orange County Projects written into HR2 is the San Joaquin Corridor.
101: SUPERBOWL SITE FINALIST FOR 1991: Mayor Bay announced that the City of
Anaheim is one of the five finalists in contention for the 1991 Superbowl.
The next presentation the National Football League (NFL) will be in San Diego
in May. He then complemented staff on the fine work they have been doing to
secure a Superbowl for Anaheim; Councilwoman Kaywood especially thanked the
City's Public Information Officer for the time and effort spent in support of
the project.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session
and until public hearing time at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (2:38 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (3:00 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2875:
APPLICANT:
Jack Satchwell
1158 Columbia Avenue
Ontario, Ca. 91764
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a granny unit on RS-7200 zoned property
located at 514 North Zeyn Street, with Code waiver of minimum structural
setback and yard requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-16 denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2875; the project was determined to be categorically exempt.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Jack Satchwell, owner.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 5, 1987.
Posting of property March 6, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 6, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 19, 1987.
206
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Jack Satchwell, 1158 Columbia Avenue, Ontario, Ca. 91764.
He first submitted before and after photographs of the subject
property which he purchased three years ago and which he has
improved considerably. The property next to his has had a
granny unit for approximately 30 years. Staff report dated
January 19, 1987 lists 7 addresses which were approved for
granny units within the past year. He personally visited each
which were approved with waivers including maximum lot coverage,
minimum structural setback, minimum number of parking spaces and
rear yard setback. In viewing these, he began to wonder if for
some reason he was being singled out in the decision of denial.
He asked the Council's consideration of his request.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Hunter questioned the need or a reason for the
request for a granny unit; Councilman Pickler asked if he was
going to rent it out.
Mr. Satchwell.
He felt the proposal was a wise use of his land and he did
intend to rent the unit.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Renting the unit out is the problem. The only granny units
approved in Anaheim are for family members of those already
living on the property and no renters. Further, Mr. Satchwell
does not live on the property. Granny units have never been
intended as rental units.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-87 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2875, upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-87: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2875.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
207
City Na!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-87 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC wRAKING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2879 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Grady E. Hanshaw
519 South Brookhurst
Anaheim, Ca. 92804
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a 672-square foot, double-face billboard
on CH zoned property located at 519 South Brookhurst Street, with Code waiver
of maximum permitted height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-19 denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2879; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by owner, Grady Hanshaw.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 5, 1987.
Posting of property March 6, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 6, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January'19, 1987.
City Clerk Sohl announced that the item was denied by the Planning Commission
and subsequently appealed by the owner, Grady Hanshaw. Letter dated March 11,
1987 was received from Dave Ryan of 3M National Advertising Company stating
that Grady Hanshaw and 3M were withdrawing their appeal of denial of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2879.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone was present to speak on the matter; no one was
present. Since the Council had received a letter requesting withdrawing the
appeal, he was willing to accept that. Therefore, there would be no need for
a public hearing on the matter.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the withdrawal of the request of
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of denial on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2879. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3597 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Hugo A. Vazquez and Tak Watanabe
2240 West Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim, Ca. 92801
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a 3-story, 4-unit apartment building on
RM-1200 zoned property located at 202 South Olive Street with the following
Code waivers: (a) Maximum structural height (deleted), (b) maximum site
coverage, (c) minimum recreational-leisure areas (denied), (d) minimum area of
private recreational-leisure areas (deleted), (e) minimum width of pedestrian
accessways.
2O8
,97
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-10 granted Variance No. 3597,
in part, approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of February 10, 1987 and public hearing scheduled this
date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 5, 1987.
Posting of property March 6, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 6, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 19, 1987.
Mayor Bay asked if the applicant or a representative was present to speak to
the Variance request; there was no response.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to trail the item to later in the meeting.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
(3:20 p.m.)
Later in the meeting, 5:45 p.m., Mayor Bay asked if anyone was present to
speak to the issue also noting that Mr. Vazquez was now present in the Chamber
audience. It was determined that two other people were present. Mayor Bay
thereupon opened the public hearing to give one person who indicated he would
not be able to return if the public hearing was continued an opportunity to
speak.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
IN OPPOSITION:
William Ranney, Chairman, Community Redevelopment Commission.
He referred to letter from the Redevelopment Commission dated
February 4, 1987 previously submitted to the Council and asked
to read paragraphs 3 and 4 from that letter reflecting the
Commission's position on the requested Variance:
"The applicants, Hugo A. Vazquez and Tak Watanabe, have revised
this project to reduce it from five units to four units,
however, there are still several waivers required: maximum site
coverage, maximum recreational leisure areas, as well as width
of pedestrian accessway. In addition to these waivers of which
site coverage and lack of recreation areas are of most concern,
we are also concerned with parking and driveway access,
including curb cuts on Olive Street which is not typical of this
neighborhood as alley access serves most of Olive Street
properties. There are eight parking spaces on the alley, but
there are also two parking (uncovered) spaces on Olive Street
frontage, along with a two-car driveway.
209
City Hall~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
One other issue raised by the Commission is the possible
splitting of the lower unit which originally had a large
recreational room in the plans and now has been changed to a
three-bedroom, two-bath unit that could easily be converted to
two units totalling five units as originally submitted."
Mr. Ranney stated that the Commission is very unhappy with the
design of the project and the Project Area Committee on
January 27, 1987 also denied the request.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on Variance No.
3597 to Tuesday, March 24, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Hunter noted that Donna Berry was present
in the Chamber audience to speak to the matter. He asked if she could return
in one week; Ms. Berry indicated that she could be present in one week.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the hearing be the first one scheduled on
that date.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. One Vacancy.
MOTION CARRIED.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS NOS. 214-I; 214-II AND 214-III
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.-274:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 214-I - To consider an Amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan to establish a new designation
tentatively identified as "Business Office/Service" for application
to include a portion of the area bounded by the Southern California
Edison Easement on the north; the Anaheim City limits on the south;
the Santa Ana River Channel on the east; and, the Santa Ana Freeway
on the west. Land use designation proposals changing the current
General Industrial, Commercial Professional, General Commercial and
Commercial Recreation designations to the Business Office/Service
designation with varying levels of intensity will be considered.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 214-II - To consider Amendments to the
General Plan Circulation Element text and map to redesignate the
following arterial highways:
STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD - Between Ball Road and southern City limits
from a Primary to Major Arterial Highway;
ORANGEWOOD AVENUE - Between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard
from a Secondary to Primary Arterial Highway;
PACIFICO AVENUE - Between Haster Street and State College Boulevard
from a Secondary to Primary Arterial Highway;
CERRITOS AVENUE - Between Anaheim Boulevard and Sunkist Street from a
Secondary to Primary Arterial Highway;
LEWIS STREET - Between Katella and Ball Road from a Secondary to
Primary Arterial Highway; and,
210
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
LEWIS STREET - Between Katella Avenue and Pacifico Avenue from a
Local Street to Primary Arterial Highway.
FURTHER, to
Realign Lewis Street to connect with East Street in the vicinity of
Ball Road; and, to designate the following as Critical Intersections
which may require the dedication of additional right-of-way on both
sides of the Arterial Highway for a distance of up to 600 feet from
the Arterial Intersection.
Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road
Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Ave.
Lewis Street/Ball Road
Lewis Street/Katella Avenue
State College Boulevard/Ball Road
State College Boulevard/Cerritos Ave.
State College Boulevard/Katella Ave.
State College Boulevard/Orangewood Ave.
Katella Avenue/Howell Ave.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 214-111 - to consider an amendment to
the Safety and Seismic Safety Element text and map to designate a
fire station in the general location of Pacifico Avenue between
the Santa Ama Freeway and State College Boulevard.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-28 recommended to the City
Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 214-I Land Use Element (Exhibit
la) and text; Resolution No. PC87-29 recommended adoption of General Plan
Amendment No. 214-II to the Circulation Element (Exhibit 2B) and text;
Resolution No. PC87-30 recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No.
214-III Safety and Seismic Element (Exhibit iA) and text; recommended
certification of EIR No. 274 as being in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City and State CEQA guidelines with the
statement of overriding considerations.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 6, 1987.
Posting of property March 5, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 5, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See extensive Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 2, 1987
including Exhibit.
The following substantial documents were also submitted: Anaheim Stadium
Business Center - City of Anaheim - Proposed General PlanAmendment - Draft
Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Anaheim dated June, 1986
and Anaheim Stadium Business Center - City of Anaheim - Proposed General Plan
Amendment - Final Environmental Impact Report - response to comments prepared
by the City of Anaheim dated January 9, 1987. (Both documents bound in white
binders - made a part of the record).
211
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
STAFF INPUT:
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
In October of 1985, the City Council directed the Planning Staff
to commence the General Plan Amendment process for the Anaheim
Stadium Business Center. This followed the completion of the
Anaheim Stadium Area Study that produced the land use strategy
that provided the guidance and direction that staff is currently
tracking for future growth in the Stadium Area. The GPA is
considered to be an important step in implementing the strategy
to assure that the Stadium Business Center develops in a
coordinated, orderly fashion. Approval of the GPA will not
authorize any new development construction. Implementation of
the Plan will require subsequent zoning approvals and in this
case staff is recommending that a specific plan follow the
General Plan direction.
He then introduced Mary McClosky, Senior Planner, to give a
synopsis of the extensive study.
Mary McClosky, Senior Planner, then briefed various aspects of
the proposed GPA which was contained extensive data presented to
the Council (see previously mentioned staff report to the
Planning Commission and the February 2, 1987 draft and final
Environmental Impact Report and also minutes of the Planning
Commission hearing of February 2, 1987 wherein Mrs. McCloskey
outlined the General Plan and each of its components) as well as
working from the posted Exhibits on the Chamber wall. She also
briefed the levels of intensity for land use alternatives.
Levels 1 and 2 did not address the demands already reflected by
the area and are not being recommended. Level of intensity 3
would allow for minimal additional growth and level 4 is based
on the anticipated maximum market capture. Present demands
suggest that this would be a conservative project for General
Plan long-range planning purposes. With approved projects,
there would be less than 6 million square feet of additional
development that could be approved with approximately 3.2
million pending. This is the level of intensity that the
Interim Fee Program was based on which was adopted in December
of 1985. Level of intensity 5 was developed during the GPA
study process and projects growth which is beyond that projected
by the market demand analysis that was conducted through the
Stadium Area Study. In staff's opinion, level of intensity 5 is
the most realistic level o~ growth ~or long-range planning
purposes and is more reflective of the emerging character and
demands of the area and an additional 10.9 million square feet
of development could be accommodated.
In concluding her presentation, Mrs. McClosky recommended first
that the Council certify EIRNo. 274 and adopt the statement of
overriding considerations and subsequently adopt the proposed
Resolutions as recommended by the City Planning Commission.
212
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She referred to letter Just submitted from an owner whose
property is located on the north side of State College Blvd. and
Ball Road (see letter dated March 17, 1987 from H.S. Stan Viall,
made a part of the record). She asked if that location was
included in the Plan.
Joel Fick.
Property north of Ball Road would not be included in the land
use redesignation portion but properties that are at the
critical intersections could be involved with critical
intersection designations in accordance with the report. He
Just received a copy of the letter, the intent of which seems to
address the circulation portion and the critical intersections.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Stan Vlall, 938 South Chaucer, Anaheim, Ca. 92806.
He read the information contained in his letter which expressed
his concerns relative to the proposed General Plan Amendment.
He believes he represents the only residential property affected
by the proposed General Plan Amendments. As an individual
property owner of a unique property, a fourplex at 1150 South
State College Blvd., being involved with a business center
development, some dispensation might be proper. Because staff
is discussing that right-of-way may be necessary to be taken
from the property, until such time as that issue is settled, the
resale value of that property has been diminished greatly
because it is under a cloud. He believes there is a logical
solution by a variation of the street critical intersection to
take cognizance of the fact that intersection bears down upon a
residential rather than business property. If the street were
to be widened at that intersection, it would leave one apartment
and 3-bedrooms exposed to such high volume, high speed traffic
that he cannot see that it is conceivable. The solution is to
restrict the widening to the commercial portion of State College
Blvd., which extends for approximately 350 feet from the
intersection and provide a barrier turn out for the bus. In the
last paragraph of his letter, Mr. Viall proposed the following
solution. "In granting approval of the Critical Intersection
portion of General Plan Amendment 214-II, it is directed,
notwithstanding other specifications of this Plan, that the
eastern side of State College Blvd. north of Ball Road to the
southeast corner of Almont Ave. shall not exceed a total
right-of-way width of 65 feet from centerline and that
right-of-way on the eastern side of State College Blvd. north of
Almont Ave. shall not exceed the existing 53 feet from
centerline."
Jerry Murphy, City of Orange, Planning/Development Services
Department.
The City of Orange is pleased to be able to support the
recommendation on the GPA from the Planning Commission and staff
213
Cit7 aall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
of Anaheim. He referred to letter dated February 2, 1987 from
the City Manager of Orange wherein concern was expressed for the
magnitude of development proposed in Alternate 5 (see Page 2 of
the letter) but Orange does not have problems with Alternative 4
as recommended by staff. He then referred to the request in a
letter that full public hearings be required for any extension
of development beyond Level 4 and that the City of Orange be
given an opportunity to make comment on those requests if there
are specific proposals to go to the maximum level of
development. The City of Orange expresses appreciation for the
staff's cooperation and the discussions which have occurred
relative to the General Plan with regard to resolving issues
particularly in this part of the two cities and look forward to
again working with Anaheim staff to continue to resolve the
matters.
Mr. Murphy then stated in answer to the Mayor that the City of
Orange was pretty well satisfied with the responses to comments
given in the EIR. Their basic concern is with a development of
an infrastructure plan for the area and they have volunteered to
work with the City of Anaheim and Anaheim, staff to do that both
in the Orange area as well as Anaheim to work out something that
is mutually agreeable in terms of a fair share analysis with
regard to infrastructure construction. Hopefully the
infrastructure plan can be developed as a meaningful and
financeable tool to implement development in both cities.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Murphy if it is the intent to
develop to Level 4 or beyond in that portion of the City of
Orange.
Mr. Murphy answered that Orange is in the process of developing
a strategy plan for the area basically west of the Santa Aha
Freeway, not only the area immediately south of Anaheim Stadium,
but also areas surrounding the City Shopping Center. As part of
the implementation of that strategy plan, they will be setting
for public hearings a specific plan process and the
implementation of vehicles to go with that similar to Anaheim's
specific plan on the area which talk about the various levels of
development that might be possible. The decision as to the
intensity of development in Orange has not been made at this
time.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Bay.
He was concerned that Level 5 might be too ambitious. Level 4
and the data to back up that level of intensity did not concern
him near as much as Level 5. He understands tb~t Level 5 is
more in the area of a 20-year plan or even longer. He has been
looking for a way that the Council could approve a level of
214
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
intensity of 4 and retain and hold back on the final decision
relative to Level 5. When he looks at the difference in the
level of intensity on 4 vs. 5 and the difference on the cost of
the infrastructure and service improvements involved, he sees a
big Jump in cost. Circulation is around $96 million on Level 4
and increases to ~162 million on Level 5. Total estimated costs
of infrastructure service improvements increases to ~72 million
from Level 4 to Level 5. If the Council approves the GPA, he
wanted to know if they were going to start estimating fees and
costs based on Level 5 of ~192 million as they start to
implement the changes that occur in the area. If staff is
estimating what developers will be charged as they do the
development, is staff going to look at ~192 million and base
fees on that amount right from the beginning vs. an approval of
Level 4 and if so would staff look at lower fees from the
beginning?
Joel Fick.
Staff looked at Alternate 5 during the land use strategy
discussion. It was apparent that Level 4 was going to be pushed
very quickly. From an impact standpoint, it would be good to
take a look beyond that and that is what generated the look at
Level 5. In the analysis conducted, the only way Alternate 5
could be mitigated was through the implementation of "flyovers"
at the intersections. As a result they now have the best of
both worlds in their recommendation by recommending a cap at
Alternate Level 4 growth and looking at implementing the
alternate five improvements minus the "flyovers" which is the
most expensive dollar item in Alternate 5. In preliminary looks
at the costs, staff believes fee wise they are still in the
"ball park" and are not looking at adjustments at the moment.
Depending upon what happens with the redevelopment plan and the
subsequent studies and precise engineering, they will be back to
Council with a recommendation up or down. He reiterated the
recommendation is a cap at 4 with the Alternate 5 improvements
minus the "flyovers" and then depending upon where the growth
might be proposed, it may be conceivable to look on a
case-by-case basis beyond Level 4, but as Orange has requested,
it would be separate review, scrutiny and hearing where the
Council could weigh all the facts.
Mayor Bay.
If that is the alternative, the City Attorney was going to have
to suggest how that can be done if it is the consensus of the
Council. Further, when talking about the ultimate development
of that large area, he is concerned primarily with the impact of
traffic. The General Plan says nothing about residential or
housing. Developments in Irvine have a great deal of open space
between buildings and he still sees the traffic problems that
have been created even with all that open space. Since the
Subject General Plan does not have open space and no immediate
surrounding housing where people might walk to work, the traffic
215
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
estimates concern him. He is not anti-growth. He sees great
opportunities in the area but does not think Planning should be
so intense that if extra lanes on the Santa Ana Freeway and the
57 Freeway do not come about, that the City does not create
something that cannot work because of gridlock.
Joel Fick.
Relative to the housing issue, what they would like to do in the
specific Plan study is to examine the feasibility of some
incorporation of housing into the business complex and bring the
matter back to the Commission and Council; Mayor Bay stated he
would like to see that. He would like to think there are
high-rise condominiums for people who are going to be working in
the area. Otherwise, there are rather dramatic impacts at
Level 5.
Joel Flck.
He wanted it made clear that although they were recommending the
adoption of Alternate 5 that it be kept at the Alternate 4
Level, the reason being, if Alternate 4 is adopted then on a
case-by-case basis they could also be considering a General Plan
Amendment and processing-wise, it would be more difficult.
Councilman Pickler.
Traffic is a major concern not only locally but throughout the
County as Mayor Bay is aware with his involvement on the Eastern
Corridor Joint Powers Authority and his (Pickler's) involvement
with the Transportation Commission. Ail cities in Orange County
and the County itself are looking at not only transportation
issues, but also land development. Whatever is done in one area
has an effect on all areas. He has also seen where they have
developed residential on top of C-O. It is working in other
places and he feels it can work here.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
The Council's concerns are those that staff has been working
on. The intensity of Level 4 they are proposing and the
mitigation measures at Level 5 will permit an additional cushion
for an acceptable level of ~ervtce ~o they are no longer talking
about service Level E or F but service Level D. There will
always be worsening traffic problems in Orange County but it is
not going to be caused by the proposed development. It is
generally a acumulative impact throughout the County. It is a
project they are working on Jointly with Cai-Trams and the City
of Orange. He feels this will be a benefit to the City and not
cause gridlock. They are making some very serious and
productive inroads into alleviating traffic along the I-5
Corridor and this project is within that Corridor.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
When staff first started looking into the matter it was with
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 in mind and then Level 4 was added.
216
City ~.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
Since it was already at Level 3 it was necessary to look at
Level 5 with some kind of leeway on how they can handle proper
growth so that it benefits everyone instead of creating
gridlock. It is a masterful plan where it is possible to have
advance reaction in order to avoid problems that have occurred
elsewhere.
Councilman Hunter.
Relative to Mr. Viall's concern as well as others, "a General
Plan is not a precise plan and does not intend to show the exact
land use pattern which will occur." The details of the plan are
not determined and it is difficult to know exactly what is going
to occur; Paul Singer noted that the intersection about which
Mr. Viall was concerned was a critical intersection. A
consultant is now working on a specific EIR for all of the 28
intersections involved and all questions should be addressed in
that specific EIR which will be coming to the Council the latter
part of the year.
Councilman Hunter noted when the public hearing is held on that
EIR, Mr. Viall will again have an opportunity to address his
concerns but at this time it was premature for the Council to
specify something this detailed in the GPA.
Mayor Bay.
He asked for assistance from the City Attorney. He sees
consensus on the Council where they are favoring Level 4
theoretically and for long-term planning talking about Level 5.
Jack White, City Attorney.
The first action would be for the Council by motion to certify
EIRNo. 274 including the comments and responses to comments
that have been received and are included in the staff material
and incorporating therein any comments and responses received
today at the public hearing and adopting the statement of
overriding considerations as set forth.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 274 - CERTIFICATION - WITH STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: Environmental Impact Report No. 274 having been
reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to
be in compliance with City and State guidelines in the State of California
Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and
belief as well as comments and responses to comments that have been received
and are included in the staff material and incorporating therein any comments
and responses received today at the public hearing the City Council acting
upon such information and belief does hearby certify on motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay that Environmental Impact Report No. 274
is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and
State guidelines and adopted a statement of overriding considerations as
recommended by the City Planning Commission. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
217
190
City Hall~ Anabeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Jack White, City Attorney.
He suggested that the resolutions be offered as recommended by
staff but including the limitation on development consistent
with Level of intensity 4 as identified in EIR No. 274 and the
Anaheim Stadium Area Study and further providing that any
increase and intensity of development to a greater level be
deferred to future studies and determinations.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 871{-88 through 87R-90, both inclusive,
for adoption approving General Plan Amendment No. 214-I Land Use Element
(Exhibit la) and Text; General Plan Amendment No. 214-II to the Circulation
Element (Exhibit 2B) and Text; General Plan Amendment No. 214-III Safety and
Seismic Element (Exhibit IA) and Text; and that any increased intensity of
development to a greater level than Level of intensity 4 be deferred to future
studies and determinations. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-88: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 214-I EXHIBIT I-A (LAND USE
ELEMENT AND TEXT).
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 214-II EXHIBIT II-B (CIRCULATION
ELEMENT AND TEXT).
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 214-III EXHIBIT I-A (SAFETY AND
SEISMIC ELEMENT AND TEXT).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 871{-88 through 87R-90, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that staff be directed to proceed relative to a
specific plan for the subject area. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: The Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:14 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (4:21 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC NFARING - TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 1703 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2525: The hearing on both Conditional
Use Permits was initiated by the Anaheim City Council to (1) consider
termination or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 1703, to permit
resource recovery and recycling operations on approximately 6.4 acres located
218
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
at the southeast corner of Frontera Street and Newktrk Road, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum front setback, (b) required block wall;
and (2) consider termination or modification of Conditional Use Permit No.
2525, to permit resource recovery and recycling operations including an
automobile dismantling business with wholesale and retail sales of auto parts
on property located at 3200 East Frontera Street, both relating to Orange
County Steel Salvage.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 8, 1987.
Posting of property January 9, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 9, 1987.
STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report from the Community Development and Planning Department dated
January 13, 1987, recommending that the Council terminate Conditional Use
Permit Nos. 1703 and 2525, pursuant to provisions of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.03.092.
This matter was continued from the meetings of January 20 and February 17,
1987, to this date. (See minutes those dates where extensive input and
discussion took place as well as minutes on the discussions that took place at
Planning Commission hearings).
Mayor Bay asked to hear from staff.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor.
This afternoon, he inspected Mr. Adam's property (Orange County
Steel Salvage - OCSS). The overhead crane has been dismantled
and it is no longer in view from outside the premises. The
shredder operation has ceased as of March 6, 1987. The majority
of the shredder waste pile has been moved to the southern
portion of the property where it is not as visible. The
landscaping has been installed and is sufficient. This morning
he had a conversation with the Arizona State Health Department.
Arizona has stopped the shipment of shredder waste to their
State. Their results still indicate that the waste from Orange
County Steel Salvage is hazardous even though 0CSS has submitted
other independent testing to the contrary. Arizona is still
standing by their test results. If they do accept that waste
they are doing so at their own risk. Whoever accepts the waste
is responsible for it and, therefore, Mr. Adams cannot ship the
waste to Arizona. Mr. Don Robinson, State Attorney General's
Office is present today. It appears that there have been
meaningful negotiations with Mr. Adams regarding a stipulated
injunction. If that injunction is agreed upon, he (Poole) feels
it would resolve a number of the issues the Council has had to
deal with. In essence, it would put the matter in the State's
"Ball Park".
Mr. Don Robinson, Deputy Attorney General, State of California
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, 3580
Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, Ca. 90010. 219
Cit7 Hall~ An-heim~ Califor~ta - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
The State is still in the process of negotiating with OCSS and
are close enough that he felt it appropriate to give a couple of
more weeks. That is why the hearing on the injunction was
continued. One thing that concerns him, as of February 13,
1987, OCSS had ceased shipping new waste off the property as
they were required to do under the Temporary Restraining Order.
They are unable to do so because of the situation with Arizona.
To him, that excuse is not sufficient. He subsequently got an
agreement from OCSS that they would enter into a supplemental
Temporary Restraining Order saying that if OCSS could not
resolve their problems with the State of Arizona by the close of
business on March 6, 1987, they would have to cease all
shredding of automobiles and other appliances. In order for
them to open up again, they cannot do so unless and until they
first remove the waste accumulated since February 13, 1987.
That is the Restraining Order they agreed to. It was under
those conditions that the hearing was continued. The attorney
for OCSS agreed to that on March 5, 1987.
Mr. George Adams, Orange County Steel Salvage.
The shredder is shut down. He does not plan to resume operation
of the shredder until he can work out some solution on disposing
the waste legally. What he would like the City Council to do
today is to drop the revocation hearing and allow the current
use permits to stand and that all shredder waste has to be
removed within 3 or 7 days after it is generated. The Court
Order puts him in a position where the shredding will not start
up again until the situation is resolved. He does not
anticipate that happening for awhile. They have complied with
everything they can. He does not know what else they can do to
resolve the problem other than working on the Remedial Action
Plan (RAP) to dispose of the waste that is there. (See Council
minutes of February 17, 1987 where the Remedial Action Plan was
discussed).
Councilman Pickler.
He has always been concerned that OCSS not shred any more
waste. The fact that the shredding has stopped is positive. He
wanted a stipulation that if OCSS continued to operate, that Mr.
Adams would not start shredding again until he resolved how to
get rid of all the shredded waste - the new pile and the old
pile.
George Adams.
At present, he does not have a solution for eliminating the big
pile and it is going to be there for awhile. He is not in a
good bargaining position. He does hope to solve the problem
someday and that he will be able to run the shredder again in
order to have enough money to resolve the problem. The
resolution of the pile might take a few years.
220
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler.
He wanted a commitment from Mr. Adams. He does not want the
pile sitting there for another couple of years. He has to see
the old pile being moved out. He would then have no qualms with
the shredding operation as long as the old pile was being
eliminated.
George Adams.
The RAP is something that will happen over a period of months.
The plan is supposed to come up with a solution to get rid of
the shredder waste pile. The biggest stumbling block is money.
The fines he is being requested to pay are far beyond his
ability to pay. His attorneys are not even present today
because it is too expensive. The State is asking for 3200,000
in fines. He also explained for the Mayor that a few weeks ago
OCSS employed 88 people; today that figure is 15. He was going
to continue to try to buy cars and ship those out to another
plant in Fontana which is not having a problem. He was also
continuing to try to run the auto-wrecking portion of the
business and the recycling center. They will work through the
RAP and also keep their operation going.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor.
Staff looked at a possible way to modify the Use Permits so that
Mr. Adams could continue but with safeguard that the shredder
could not be operated until he addressed the problem of the
waste that has been on the property since January 6, 1987. The
proposed modification Just being submitted to the Council will
go along with the Temporary Restraining Order currently in
effect. If for some reason that order was rescinded, there
would still have to be a safeguard. The modification he
proposed is as follows - "That the operator of Orange County
Steel Salvage shall immediately cease all metal shredding
operations, including but not limited to the shredding of
automobiles, appliances, and other related items, until the
operator submits proof satisfactory to the Code Enforcement
Supervisor that all shredder waste produced since January 6,
1987 has been lawfully removed from the premises and disposed of
in a lawful manner. Manifests 8hall be submitted to satisfy the
above specified removal requirement which shall indicate the
shipment of at least one thousand (1,000) tons of shredder waste
per month."
This only addresses the shredder waste created since January 6,
1987. His understanding in talking with Mr. Robinson is that
the stipulated agreement they are negotiating with Mr. Adams
would address the old shredder waste and they would enter into
some sort of program where the waste would be hauled away
regularly until the pile is gone.
221
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
Pursuant to questioning, Mr. Robinson again outlined the RAP
process as discussed in previous meetings which includes as one
of the initial steps a feasibility study. This feasibility
study tells 0CSS to look at the alternatives, evaluate those in
relation to protection of the environment and public health and
then recommend a remedy and the RAP which is the plan for
implementing the remedy. The State is asking 0CSS, in
negotiating the stipulated injunction, to doing that. Further,
Mr. Adams stated the only stumbling block is the issue of the
penalties. He (Robinson) has offered to 0CSS attorneys to leave
the issue of penalties out of the picture at this time and
resolve that issue at a later date. The most important thing is
to get some agreement on a plan to perform the studies and a
RAP. The penalties are not holding up any agreement. Foremost
is to have a commitment from 0CSS to do everything necessary in
evaluating the conditions on the site in its entirety and then
following the process set forth.
Councilman Hunter.
Code Enforcement has proposed a modification to the CUP's. He
can go along with that and hope that the State and Mr. Adams
(0CSS) can work together on a RAP. The problem is coming down
to dollars and cents. He would assume that economics is going
to control the RAP that Mr. Adams is going to get involved in.
He would follow Code Enforcement's lead.
Councilman Pickler.
His problem is the 50,000 tons of shredder waste that has been
sitting on the property. He wants to see something done now
while the plan may entail years. The longer it sits there the
longer it will create problems. He wants the shredding stopped
until the problem is resolved for both the old and new shredder
waste.
Mr. Robinson.
The State feels the same way. There will be no settlement of
the case that does not involve both the old and the new waste.
Relative to time schedules, it will be 60 days for remedial
investigation, another 30 to 60 days for the feasibility study
and RAP. If everything is done according to schedule, it will
be in the vicinity § months before arriving at a plan that will
be implemented immediately. Regarding the possibility of
migration of the hazardous material from the site by way of rain
water and wind, this would also be a part of the injunction that
OCSS take whatever steps are necessary to prevent escape or
release of PCB waste while studies are being conducted. They
want 0CSS to begin to look at all the alternatives. It is the
responsibility of the property owner and operator of the
facility.
Extensive discussion then followed between Council Members, Mr.
Robinson and Mr. Adams mainly revolving around the ultimate
disposition of the existing (old) shredder waste pile. Mayor
222
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Bay emphasized that since it was going to take money to solve
the problem, stopping Mr. Adams' operation will preclude his
making the money needed to solve the long-range problem.
Otherwise, the taxpayers will be left to pay the $18 million
estimated to remove the pile. Mr. Adams agreed that the only
chance he had of pulling himself out of the ~messN is by being
able to run the shredder again. The RAP has key provisions in
it which he does not believe will allow the pile to sit on the
property for another 5 or 10 years. He asked the Council to
approve the proposal by Mr. Poole that the CUP's be modified as
he recommended.
Councilman Hunter stated it appeared that the State was finally
doing something and things were happening. Code Enforcement has
suggested a modification of the CUP's that limits exactly what
Mr. Adams can and cannot do. If new shredding takes place,
there are limitations and Mr. Adams knows that the new "fluff"
is going to be hauled away pursuant to Code Enforcement and the
State. It would not be wise to pull the CUP's at this time. He
suggested to Mr. Adams that the shredder stays down until he
enters into some type of stipulated in]unction for him to enter
into a RAP with the State because part of the plan is to look at
possible migration of the PCB's and to alleviate all of their
fears. If there is no migration, Mr. Adams could go back into
operation. Then' all the other possibilities could come into
play, i.e., take the shredder waste and temporarily put it some
place. He asked Mr. Adams about that possibility.
Mr. Adams stated he was 100% for that.
Mr. James McNally, State Department of Health Services, first
stated he has been working with Mr. Robinson on the matter and
also Mr. Adams and his lawyer. He then explained in even
greater detail how the process would work relative to the
feasibility study in the RAP.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Hunter offered Resolution Nos.
87R-91 and 87R-92 amending Condition No. 11 of Conditional Use Permit No. 1703
and amending Condition No. 11 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2525 with entirely
new wording to read as set forth by the Code Enforcement Supervisor as
follows: "That the operator of Orange County Steel Salvage shall immediately
cease all metal shredding operations, including but not limited to the
shredding of automobiles, appliances, and other related items, until the
operator submits proof satisfactory to the Code Enforcement Supervisor that
all shredder wasted produced since January 6, 1987 has been lawfully removed
from the premises and disposed of in a lawful manner. Manifests shall be
submitted to satisfy the above specified removal requirement which shall
indicate the shipment of at least one thousand (1,000) tons of shredder waste
per month." Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 871{-91: A tLESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM MODIFYING CONDITION NO. 11 OF RESOLUTION NO. 77R-670.
223
i84
City Hall~ An,heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM MODIFYING CONDITION NO. 11 OF RESOLUTION NO. 84R-299.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated he assumed when the
conditions are met and the shredding starts again that the
Council will be notified; Mr. Poole assured the Mayor that he
would so notify the Council.
George Adams.
He stated that the shredder will not start without the other
issues first being resolved.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
Pickler
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-91 and 87R-92 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street commented on his concern relative to
3-story structures being built in residential neighborhoods, the main points
being: Variances are too numerous on some of the 3-story units that have been
approved; the Central City area has had problems in the past with the builders
and they do not want to see a repetition in other neighborhoods; more
deliberation and in depth screening of proposed projects should take place
before they are allowed to be built.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed to Closed
Session. (5:52 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (8:28 p.m.)
ADJO~NT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (8:29 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
224