1986/01/2822]
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
CIVIL ENGINEER - DESIGN: Arthur Daw
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING: Norman J. Priest
MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR: John Roche
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend J. Stewart Kreiss, Canyon United Methodist Church, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
Imagination Celebration, March 7-18, 1986.
Liz Duncan, Coordinator, accepted the proclamation and thanked the City of
Anaheim for being in the forefront of support for the program.
119: RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRATULATIONS: Resolutions of Congratulations were
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to following Police
Officers upon their retirement: Officer Clarence Elam, Officer Ed Hofman,
Detective Ed Chmiel, Lt. Harry Easley, Captain Larry Hutcheson, Sgt. Bill
Donoghue.
MINUTES: Councilman Bay moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings
held January 14 and January 21, 198§. Councilman 0verh01t seconded the
motion. Councilman Pickler abstained on the minutes of January 21, 1986 since
he was not present at the meeting. 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 Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
41
222
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,085,853.71, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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. 86R-030 through 86R-036, 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 Stephen Hoyle for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 8, 1985.
b. Claim submitted by Barbara & Jack Reinhart et al. for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 2 1985.
c. Claim submitted by Mary C. Clapp for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 30, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Kyle Lewis for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 26, 1985.
e. Claim submitted by Kiyoshi Mimura for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 18, 1985.
f. Claim submitted by Laurence Aiello et al. for personal injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 27,
1985.
g. Claim submitted by Kurt Joseph Arnold for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 7, 1985.
h. Claim submitted by Michael Spruill for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 30, 1985.
i. Claim submitted by Fred Poindexter for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 17, 1985.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Yearly Report for 1985
and Monthly Report for December 1985.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of December 18, 1985.
3. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by
Jesus Munoz Frias, for the Empresa Frias, to hold a dance at the Anaheim
42
219
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Convention Center on February 1, 1986, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
4. 124/109: Approving the retailing of State lottery tickets at the Anaheim
Convention Center. (Councilman Bay voted No.)
5. 106/172: Authorizing appropriation of Regional SB821 funds in the amount
of $158,659 for design and construction of the Santa Aha River Bicycle Trail
into Revenue Account No. 17-3154 and Expenditure Account No. 17-798-6310-802.
6. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the five
month period ended November 30, 1985.
7. 123/106: Authorizing an agreement with Michael Thomas Corporation, to
provide 40 parking spaces in the Anaheim Stadium Employee Parking lot, between
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday only, for the term January 6,
.1986 through January 6, 1991, at a cost of 5400 per month the first 18 months,
5440 per month the next 18 months and 5480 per month for the remainder of the
agreement, funds appropriated into Account No. 61-3492.
8. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Scott G. McCurdy, Trustee,
et al, to install and maintain landscaping, concrete flatwork and garden wall
within the City's storm drain and access easements located at the southwest
corner of Crescent Drive and Chrisalta Way. (85-4E)
9. 160/186/123 (FILENET): Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a
purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of
5521,106 for an Electronic Routing and Micrographics System for the Police
Department, in accordance with Bid No. A-4282. (Councilman Bay voted No.)
10. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent tO
issue a purchase order to Vermeer of California at a cost of 517,468.80 for
one Vermeer Stump Remover, Model 665A, in accordance with their quotation
dated January 16, 1986. (Councilman Bay voted No.)
11. 160: Accepting the low bid of Amfac Electric Company in an amount not to
exceed $54,568.80 for 40,000 feet of 600 volt, U.R.D. Secondary Wire Code Name
(Wesleyan), in accordance with Bid No. 4294.
12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Brown Boveri Company in the amount of
5372,522.16 for one each 13.8 KV Outdoor Power Distribution Center and one set
of 1200 Ampere Contact Fingers, Option 1, and one set of Surge Attesters,
Option 2, in accordance with Bid No. 4243 and Specification E-30-85.
14. 160: Accepting the bid of Nobest Incorporated in the amount of 566,500 to
remove and replace approximately 16,750 square feet of concrete pads at the
Convention Center, in accordance with Bid No. 4302.
15. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-030: 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. (Police Department
43
220
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Communications Center, 425 South Harbor Boulevard, Account No. 01-987-6325;
and opening of bids on February 27, 1986, 2:00 p.m.)
16. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-031: 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. (Senior Citizens
Elevator Project, 280 East Lincoln Avenue, Account No. 25-807-7105-07060; and
opening of bids on February 27, 1986, 2:00 p.m.)
17. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-032: 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. (Flower Street
Street Improvement, Sycamore Street to East Street, Account No.
25-793-6325-E3990; and opening of bids on February 27, 1986, 2:00 p.m.)
18. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-034: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-269 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT.
(Amending Resolution No. 85R-269 which established rates of compensation for
classes designated as Professional and Technical Management, to provide for
bilingual pay effective October 4, 1985)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-035: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-268 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY.
(Amending Resolution No. 85R-268 which established rates of compensation for
classes designated as Middle Management/Supervisory, to provide for bilingual
pay effective October 4, 1985)
19. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-036: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-008, NUNC PRO TUNC. (Amending
Resolution No. 86R-008, nunc pro tunc to correct the salary schedule of
Principal Office Specialist-Confidential)
Roll Call Vote Resolution Nos. 86R-031, 86R-032, and 86R-036:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-031, 86R-032 and 86R-036 duly passed
and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-030, 86R-034 and 86R-035:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-030, 86R-034 and 86R-035 duly passed
and adopted.
44
217
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
123/155: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT - ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES - ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STUDY: Councilman Bay recommended that since staff was amending the
request for the EIR that consideration be given to the alternative of single
family development on Site No. 1. If the whole EIR study on Site 1 was
planned for multiple family condominiums, he questioned if the City would have
to then re-do portions of the EIR in order to look at the single family
alternative.
John Roche, Maintenance Director, was of the opinion that would not be the
case and the one EIR would suffice for whatever land density the Council
adopted.
City Manager William Talley stated that staff would accommodate the
alternative of single-family in the EIR as requested.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to authorize the First Amendment to an agreement
with Elfend and Associates for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
and General Plan Amendment for the Anaheim Hills Golf Course Development Plan
to provide for three separate EIR's and an increase in the contract from
~19,350 to ~26,850, as recommended in memorandum dated January 8, 1986 from
the Director of Maintenance. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
165: EXTENSION OF TIME AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EMMANUEL ENGINEERING:
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Council was also going to consider
accepting the completion of the subject contract in a following action. She
wanted to know if the damages would be deducted from the final payment on the
contract.
City Manager Talley stated if the Council approved the liquidated damages, the
amount of payment to the contractor would be reduced by that amount or ~6,656
unless the contractor did not agree. In that case, the contractor would have
to take whatever action he would choose to take.
City Attorney Jack White confirmed that the liquidated damages would be
deducted before the final payment was made to the contractor.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an extension of time of 2 days and
assessing liquidated damages in the amount of $6,656 for 52 days for Citron
Street - Cypress, Harbor and North Street Alleys, Account Nos.
24-793-6325-E3880 and 24-793-6325-E3890, Emm-nuel Engineering, contractor, as
recommended in memorandum dated January 15, 1986 from the City Engineer.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
165: ACCEPTING COMPLETION - CONSTRUCTION OF CITRON STREET~ CYPRESS; HARBOR
AND NORTH STREET ALLEYS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-033
for adoption accepting the completion of construction of Citron Street,
Cypress, Harbor and North Street Alleys, Account Nos. 24-793-6325-E3880 and
24-793-6325-E3890, Emmanuel Engineering, contractor, and authorizing filing of
45
218
City H. 11~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the Notice of Completion therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated
January 15, 1986 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-033: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETIONAND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ANDALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ~T~. WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CITRON &
CYPRESS STREET - ALLEYS AND HARBOR BOULEVARD - NORTH STREET ALLEYS IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM.
108: CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION - MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS AND MASSAGE
ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT - TENDER TOUCH MASSAGE PARLOR: Councilman Roth moved to
set the date and time to consider revocation of the Massage Technician Permits
and Massage Establishment Permit for The Tender Touch Massage Parlor, 219
South State College Boulevard for Tuesday, February 18, 1986, 10:00 a.m.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: TEST INSTAT.TATION TO CYCLE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS FOR LOAD
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize a test installation o~
approximately 15 temperature-activated switches by a licensed contractor on
residential central air conditioner units; approving an incentive
reimbursement for participating customers of l0 percent of their electric bill
for the period May though October 1986; and authorizing the Public Utilities
General Manager to initiate the implementation of this Load Management
Program, as recommended in memorandum dated January 17, 1986 from the
Secretary of the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: RATE STABILIZATION POLICY: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No.
86R-037 for adoption, amending the rates, rules and regulations for the sale
and distribution of electric energy as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 and
amended by Resolution No. 85R-445, in accordance with the City of Anaheim's
Rate Stabilization Policy, as recommended in memorandum dated January 20, 1986
from the Secretary of the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-037: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
71R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 85R-445.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay expressed concern with wording in the
staff report that the Rate Stabilization Account (RSA) be continued on a
permanent basis. The implication was that future refunds would be pre-decided
to go into the RSA. He felt strongly that (1) any refund should be considered
on an individual and specific basis by the Council and reviewed before any
action to move that refund into the RSA. He wanted to be certain adoption of
the resolution would not pre-decide the policy for the foreseeable future
beyond the present $18.7 million in total refunds from Southern California
Edison ($11.3 million already received and $7.4 million expected to be
received in April of 1986). (2) The City received notice dated January 17,
1986 of a Court ruling where it would almost certainly be receiving a refund
46
215
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28; 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
of $35 millon in 1987. Since the Scenario and graphs presented in the data
submitted did not take that figure into account, he wanted to make doubly sure
the Council was not presetting a policy that would automatically take that $35
million and put it in the RSA.
Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, explained that staff had
prepared Rule 19, it anticipated all monies received in the form of refunds
would go into that Rate Stabilization Account. That resolution could be
changed on any given Tuesday by the Council.
Additional input was then given by both Mr. Hoyt and City Manager Talley
relative to the RSA and present and potential refunds. Mr. Talley commented
that a positive relative to the proposed resolution was the fact that it
outlined a policy which staff would continue to implement until the Council
changed its mind, thus establishing a policy that was a comfortable one for
financial investors involved in the City's utility.
Councilman Overholt felt that the issue was, if and when a refund becomes a
certainty, that would be brought before the Council for a final determination
on how it was going to be handled; Mr. Hoyt confirmed that was the case.
Councilman Bay stated that was all he was asking for.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-037 duly passed and adopted.
112/114: CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURAL RULES - ABSTENTIONS: City Attorney Jack
White briefed his report dated January 22, 1986, recommending that Resolution
No. 79R-404 be rescinded which provided for the counting of abstentions as
votes in favor of any motion, resolution or ordinance where one less than the
necessary number of votes to approve the action would otherwise exist. The
second part of his recommendation was to consider adoption of a new resolution
requiring not less than three affirmative votes for the approval of motions or
appointments following nominations.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-038 for adoption, rescinding
Resolution No. 79R-404 relating to counting of abstentions as votes in favor
of any motion. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-038: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-404 RELATING TO ABSTENTIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
47
216
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-038 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler, after requesting an explanation from the City Attorney on
why the Council voted to institute the procedure in 1979 stated that it was a
system that had been working since then and he saw no reason to eliminate it.
Speaking to the second issue, Councilman Overholt stated his opposition
explaining that it might be a feasible recommendation with a larger Council
but with only five, it would be less workable noting the situation where there
were only four Council Members for a time when a previous Council Member had
left Office before the end of his term. He also felt that it would get away
from the concept of a majority vote. It was nice to have three votes but
where three votes were not required under specific ordinances, the Council
might find it to be a procedural handicap.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that the proposal would be too restrictive
especially if there was a prolonged absence of a Council Member due to an
accident or illness. The Council would then be unable to act on almost
anything; Council Members Bay and Roth were more in favor than opposed.
The Council took no action on the recommendation.
101/000/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4690 - INTERIM DEVELOPMENT FEES: Amending Section
17.30.020 of the Code, pertaining to Interim Development Fees - Anaheim
Stadium Business Center. Submitted was report dated January 22, 1986 from the
City Attorney recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance which would
allow greater flexibility in that projects found to be "substantially in
accordance" with the approved plans could qualify for the reduced fees.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4690 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4690: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
17.30.020 OF CHAPTER 17.30 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO INTERIM DEVELOPMENT FEES -ANAHEIM STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER.
119: INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT FOR 1986: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
receive and file the City Treasurer's Investment Policy Statement for 1986
with attached Treasurer's Guidelines as recommended in report dated
January 22, 1986 from the City Treasurer, Mary E. Turner. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: PARCEL MAP NO. 85-420 - SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARING: Councilman Pickler
moved to set the date and time for a public hearing on the appeal of Evedean
Miller on Parcel Map No. 85-420 as Tuesday, February 25, 1986 at 1:30 p.m.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: REQUEST FOR EVENING PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2738:
City Clerk Leonora N. Sohl announced that a letter received from Sheldon and
Dorothy Rubin requested that the public hearing on the subject Conditional Use
Permit be a late evening or a night hearing since 40 to 50 residents plan to
attend. (Re: Euclid Street Baptist Church, to permit Hope University, an
elementary school, a pre-school, and to construct a 2-story, 8-unit housing
facility in conjunction with a church on RSA-4300 zoned property located at
1408 So. Euclid Street with Code waivers).
48
213
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Pastor Bryan Crow, 6069 Morning View, stated although he was present on
another item, he appreciated the opportunity to speak on the matter noting
that he would be out of town on February 18, 1986 although it was not entirely
necessary that he be present since the church was being represented by
Counsel. Whatever was best for the community was agreeable to him.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to set the date and time for a public hearing
on Conditional Use Permit No. 2738 on Tuesday, February 25, 1986 at 7:00 p.m.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held January 6, 1986, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-43 AND VARIANCE NO. 3499: Submitted by Lucion
W. and Barbara Myles, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to
construct a 45-unit apartment complex on property located at 3609, 3613 and
3621 West Savanna Street, with Code waiver of maximum structural height.
The applicant withdrew his application.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2741: Submitted by Anaheim Hills Development
Corp., (Anaheim Hills Equestrian Center), to permit expansion of an equestrian
center on RS-A-43,000(SC) and OS(SC) zoned property located at 6352 East Nohl
Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-5, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2741 and granted a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2744: Submitted by Temple Beth Emet, to retain
a residential trailer on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1770 West
Cerritos Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-6, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2744 for a term of 3 years, and ratified the
Planning Director's categorical exemption determination, (Class 3).
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2745: Submitted by Pablo V. and Laura Knowlton
Dominguez, (Shell Service Station), to permit a self-service car wash in
conjunction with an existing service station on CL zoned property located at
1200 South State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-7, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2745 and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2751: Submitted by Jonathan T. Y. Yeh, et al,
(Arenal Motel), to construct an 18-unit addition to a 27-unit motel on CL
zoned property located at 420 South Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-10, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2751 and granted a negative declaration status.
49
214
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL ~LINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2752: Submitted by Jean K. Fogarty, to permit
an automobile repair facility on CL zoned property located at 2860 East
Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (deleted).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-11, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2752 and granted a negative declaration
status.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3526: Submitted by Jesse and Graciela Gutierrez, to
construct a 26-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at
2230 South Loara Street, with Code waivers of maximum structural height and
minimum recreational-leisure areas.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-12, denied
Variance No. 3526, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3527: Submitted by Gerald R. and Beverley V. Bushore, to
construct a single-family residence, guest house and detached accessory garage
on RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned property located at 381 South Henning Way, with Code
waivers of minimum side yard setback and minimum rear year setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-13, granted
Variance No. 3527, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination, (Class 5).
9. VARIANCE NO. 3529: Submitted by D & D Development Company, to permit a
4-lot, condominium subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the
south side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Rio Vista Street, with Code waiver of
required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-14, granted
Variance No. 3529, and previously certified EIR No. 259.
10. VARIANCE NO. 3530: Submitted by South Street Partners, to construct an
industrial warehouse facility on ML zoned property located at the northeast
corner of South Street and Olive Street, with Code waivers of maximum number
of small car parking spaces and minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-15, granted
Variance No. 3530, and granted a negative declaration status.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274 (READV.): Submitted by Orange County
Water District, (Walsh Engineering & Neff Contracting), to consider revised
plans and conditions permitting expansion of a truck and heavy equipment
storage yard on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 1124 North Richfield
Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-16, approved
Conditional Use Permit No. 2274 (Readv.), and previously approved a negative
declaration status. A public hearing is scheduled for a later date.
5O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar7 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
12. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10968--WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE:
Submitted by Boulevard Enterprises, requesting waiver of the Hillside Grading
Ordinance as it related to the location of manufactured slopes within
residential lots and within the tract boundary of Tract No. 10968, located
adjacent to Stagecoach Road and south of Nohl Ranch Road in the Anaheim Hills
area.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10968--Waiver of
Hillside Grading Ordinance, and therefore a public hearing is scheduled for a
later date.
13. VARIANCE NO. 3523: Submitted by Orville B. Woods, et al, to construct a
20-unit apartment complex on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1224, 1228 and
1236 East La Pa]ma Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) required type
of parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum structural
setback, (d) maximum wall height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-1, granted
Variance No. 3523, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
14. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 206~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-16~ AND
VARIANCE NO. 3524: Submitted by Ahmed Jahanpanah, et al, to consider an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the current
commercial professional designation to medium density or low-medium density
residential designation on property located at 1585 West Katella Avenue, a
change in zone from RS-10,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 48-unit apartment
complex, with the following Code waivers: (a) structural height, (b) minimum
recreational-leisure areas.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-2, -3 and -4,
denied GPA No. 206, Reclassification No. 85-86-16 and Variance No. 3524. (See
action taken under the Public Hearing section)
15. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2747: Submitted by McDonald's Corp,
(McDonald's Restaurant), to permit expansion of an existing drive-through
restaurant on CL zoned property located at 3210 West Lincoln Avenue, with Code
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-8, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2747, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the adjacent property
owners and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
16. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2748: Submitted by Steiny & Company, Inc., to
permit an industrially related office complex on ML zoned property located
north of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue.
51
212
City H~ll~ Anahe~% California - COUNCIL PLINU?ES - January 28~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-9, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2748, and granted a negative declaration status.
(See action taken under the Public Hearing section)
150: YOUTH CRIME REDUCTION STRATEGY: Submitted was joint report dated
January 13, 1986 from Jackie Terrell, Chair - Community Services Board; Joann
Barnett, Chair - Park and Recreation Commission; Susan Kerr, Chair - Youth
Commission; Christopher K. Jarvi, Director - Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department; Jimmie D. Kennedy, Police Chief - Anaheim Police
Department; attached to which was the City of Anaheim, Youth Crime Reduction
Strategy submitted for Council review and approval as recommended.
Jackie Terrell, Chair - Community Services Board, stated on behalf of the
Board, Parks and Recreation Commission and Youth Commission, that she was
pleased to begin the presentation on the submittal of the Youth Crime
Reduction Strategy for approval. She then gave an historic overview of what
had occurred since March 1985 when the Council directed the Community Services
Board, Parks and Recreation Commission and Youth Commission to review the
youth needs and behavior study submitted in late 1984. In concluding, Mrs.
Terrell stated that the resulting strategy encompassed in the report
represented a credible public-private sector partnership which offered both
short-and-long term action which would result in a reduction of youth crime in
the community. It had been formally approved by the Parks and Recreation
Commission, Youth Commission, Community Services Board, Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department as well as the Anaheim Police Department. The
funding for the strategy was budgeted in the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department for 1985/86 and also tonight after the Block Grant
Hearing, if all went well, the Board would like to have funding included in
the 1986/87 Budget. She thanked all who were involved in the two and
one-half-year project with special thanks to City staff and the Anaheim Police
Department for their vital input.
Bryan Crow, Chairman, Ad hoc Committee, Youth Task Force, then narrated a
slide presentation which was a briefing of the Youth Crime Reduction Strategy
report and recommendations. The presentation covered the following: The five
major areas of youth service needs requiring specific action, pilot project
areas, task force approach to project designs, agencies, funding, general
recommendations and outreach recommendations.
Joann Barnett, Chairperson, Parks and Recreation Commission then spoke to the
following needs and recommendations to accommodate those needs: Youth-Parent
education especially parenting workshops, fear removal/media education and
community networking. She emphasized it was imperative that the City act now
and place into effect a comprehensive crime reduction strategy such as the one
presented that would meet the needs of the City's young people and at the same
time be a wise investment in the safety of the community.
Mr. Dave Clark, Associate General Director, Anaheim YMCA, answered questions
posed by Councilman Overholt confirming that relative to the Outreach Program,
the "Y" would be used by youth groups when the facility was under utilized
and, further, that the "Y" would not be subsidizing the programs financially
52
209
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
but that the necessary funding would be raised through the private sector to
support the Outreach Programs.
Councilman Bay stated the report was very thorough and positive and there was
no question of where the $97,708 to implement the program was going to go. He
had been concerned earlier when he read the study by the consultant. He
wanted to compliment the group on taking the best of that study and developing
it into not only an exceedingly positive program, but also one that made sense
financially.
Mayor Roth and all Council Members commented and complimented all those
involved in bringing forth the Youth Crime Reduction Strategy report and for
the time and effort which brought the matter to fruition today.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the Youth Crime Reduction Strategy submitted
by the Ad hoc Youth Task Force of the Community Services Board, Parks and
Recreation Commission and Youth Commission and the implementation of said
recommendations. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(11:40 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:53 a.m.)
179: DISCUSSION - PROPOSED BILLBOARD SIGN ORDINANCE: Consideration of
proposed ordinances amending Chapters 3.20, 4.08 and 18.05 of the Code
pertaining to freeway oriented billboards. This matter was continued from the
meetings of May 28, July 16, and September 24, 1985, to this date (see minutes
those dates).
Mr. Floyd L. Farano, attorney representing and speaking on behalf of all
members of the Billboard Sign Industry with the exception of Foster and
Kleiser. He had the opportunity to review the presentation that staff
prepared since the September 24, 1985 meeting. He prepared a recapitulation
of the provisions of the sign ordinance with which the industry differed from
the staff's report. A copy of that data together with other exhibits had been
submitted to the Council comparing the extent to which staff in the industry
were not in accord. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, had
seen the material submitted to the Council. After reviewing the staff
proposal, it was determined that the industry was in essential accord with
most of the provisions but there were approximately 12 provisions with which
the industry was not in accord. Those were the issues he wanted to review
with the Council. Mr. Farano then briefed the data submitted identified as
Exhibit NA" (14 pages) with the staff proposal stated at the top of the page
and a comparable provision prepared by the industry at the bottom and specific
changes suggested by the industry underlined and marked accordingly
(Exhibit "A" made a part of the record after the Council meeting).
After briefing the comparison, Mr. Farano also commented on other aspects of
the issue as follows: The basic reason for Foster and Kleiser's objection is
a 7,000 percent increase in fees and the inability for them to be able to
53
210
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
install more signs, the City's present sign ordinance permitted three times
more billboards than the industry recommendations, the only reason the
proposal was looked upon as a negative was because it will allow a few more
signs on four and one-half miles or 16 percent of Anaheim freeways. A CUP
will be required under the ordinance for each and every sign considered. If
the Council were to adopt the industry proposal, there would be 104 inter-city
plus 21 signs maximum on the freeway or a total of 125. If the billboard
ordinance is allowed to exist as now, there could be 324 signs. He also
briefed the essence of A.B.-1279 (see data submitted on this Bill from
Medialease dated June 20, 1985) and although the Bill was defeated, it was not
dead and it could pre-empt local jurisdiction relative to freeway signs. In
concluding, Mr. Farano suggested that the Council place the proposed ordinance
in proper context which in essence would allow approximately 19 to 21
billboards on freeways and that it was not a detriment to the City but in its
best interest.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the material submitted by Mr.
Farano was delivered to her home marked personal and confidential without any
indication who it was from and inside it indicated it was from the Billboard
Sign Industry as though it was representing everyone. She continued that when
action was taken many years ago to remove freeway billboards, it opened up
every corner in the City to a possibility of a maximum of 8 signs. Staff
proposal was for two boards per intersection, and the submitted proposal is
for five, yet those were given in exchange for removing existing freeway
billboards.
Extensive discussion and questioning of Mr. Farano by Councilwoman Kaywood
followed including input by staff for purposes of clarification during which
Councilwoman Kaywood countered the "industry" proposal and emphasized some of
her objections: No trade-offs were being given, i.e., the industry was asking
for more without giving up anything, boards were not presently in potential
locations because there was no place to put them; the Council has the power
now if they wish to require a CUP for any sign; to have the Council make one
decision a year ago and the next year reverse themselves locking in all future
Councils was untenable.
After additional discussion and questions by Council Members, the following
people spoke to the issue:
Ron Cipriani, representing Foster and Kleiser, 11550 West
Washington Blvd., Los Angeles.
He first referred to his letters of January 8 and January 23,
1986 relating to the proposed changes in the ordinance
(previously made a part of the record). His company's position
had not changed and is still opposed to the opening of freeways
to billboards for the reasons stated in those letters. Relative
to the business license fees, Foster and Kleiser does not mind
paying a fair share but the proposal of the rest of the industry
and staff far exceeds what Foster and Kleiser feels is a fair
share. He referred to the consultant's study under way on the
analysis of the business license fees for all City businesses.
He was confident staff would subsequently establish a fair fee.
54
2O7
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL fG_NUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Relative to the existing ordinance allowing 8 boards per
intersection, Foster and Kleiser removed several signs years ago
in order for the City to have adopted the ordinance on the books
today. It was stated that a potential 324 billboards could be
installed in the inner city; however, the practicality was
questionable. If there were that many viable locations, his
company would utilize them as well as other companies.
Presently under a CUP they are allowed to build a 572 square
foot painted bulletin and they presently had three. Under the
proposal, he did not believe that would be allowed. They did
not want to see a change in the ordinance. Relative to the
benefit of the proposed ordinance, it would not remove any
structures from the City and increases their share of what they
feel is a fair price for a business fee. Foster and Kleiser is
probably the largest outdoor advertising company in the United
States and sold their boards at a certain set rate and not more
for freeway signs then surface streets. A fair share would be
percentage of gross since they did not require any City services
such as other businesses, i.e., fire, police protection etc.
Ken Keesee, 204 So. West Street.
The Foster and Kleiser representative stated his company was not
interested in freeway advertising. A year ago he was personally
approached and as late as four weeks ago he was contacted by
phone by Foster and Kleiser and asked if he had any agreement
with any other advertising agency on placing a board on his
(Keesee's) property on I-5 south of Katella and wanting to know
if he was interested in signing with them.
PhillipAnthony, 2157 Pacific Avenue, Costa Mesa.
The other half of the equation in addition to the industry are
the property owners in Anaheim who can benefit from the leasing
of sites for billboards. There are good sites for billboards on
the freeways as well as surface streets and also incompatible
sites in both places. He urged the Council to keep the
flexibility of potential sites as open as possible with the
necessary controls and limitations where the Council can make
the proper decisions on a case by case basis by the use permit
process. He commented, however, that he felt it would be
appropriate to leave the RSA-43,000 in the ordinance exactly as
the staff indicated since that zone is almost always a holding
type zone.
Donald Day, 30118 Lakeview Avenue.
He owns property on the southwest side of Cerritos and the 57
freeway which at this time is useless for anything but a
billboard. If the City were to adopt the State Billboard Code,
it would be fair to everybody. Regency Outdoor Advertising has
two boards directly across from his property on the east side of
the freeway and a lease for one 500 feet closer to Ball Road
where they plan to put another if proposal was approved. He was
asking for fair treatment. If a CUP was going to be necessary
in any case, then the State Code should be followed.
55
208
City ~-]lp Anaheim~ Cs]~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Fred Guido, Gannett Outdoor Advertising, 1731 Workman, Los
Angeles.
They are in support of the ordinance proposed by Mr. Farano.
Regarding the maximum potential of signs that could be built in
the City opposed to the number that could be built under the
proposed ordinance, there could be the potential of 324 signs
built throughout every intersection in the City but some of the
physical conditions on the property at this time did not permit
the maximum allowable signs. The numbers of boards they have
removed from the City because of new construction or obstruction
in some cases from year to year are greater than the numbers
they have replaced. As properties are developed and made more
desirable, companies will pick up the locations and lease them
and signs will be built. Thus, there was the potential in the
future where there could be 8 signs to a corner.
Council discussion followed on the issues involved relative to the proposals
prior to their final decision:
Councilman Pickler.
It benefits the City to go along with the ordinance proposed
allowing 19 to 21 freeway billboards. The CUP process would
give the Council the prerogative to approve or deny any boards.
He was considering the possibility of the potential boards that
could be constructed within the City limits. The proposal is a
plus and also brings tax dollars to the City. The potential for
inner-city boards is 324 compared to 104 plus 21 freeway signs.
That was a considerable difference and a positive situation.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
There is no benefit to the City. If the Council wanted to have
a CUP process to approve or deny any and all billboards within
the City, it was possible to do so without opening up the
freeways to additional signs. The scenic highway protects the
hill and canyon area from billboard intrusion but the rest of
the City does not have that benefit. Since people were not able
to vote on the issue in the November 1984 Election, if the
Council is considering opening up the freeways to billboards,
the issue should be placed on the June 1986 ballot, in her
opinion.
Councilman Overholt.
The three separate issues are: Is the Council willing to open
up the freeway to billboards, interested in placing further
restrictions on internal boards, and what the Council wants to
do regarding revenue derived from outdoor advertising in the
City. Mr. Farano does not represent the outdoor advertising
industry in the City but only 56 percent and 44 percent of the
industry (Foster and Kleiser) is not in accord with the proposal
presented. On the basis that the industry is not united in
coming to the City to update an ordinance in effect for 28
years, he could not support a change in the present ordinance.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay.
He was not sure the agreement between the City and the billboard
industry made many years ago was a good one, that of removing
the freeway signs but allowing 8 signs per intersection in the
inner city. He is considering the potential of 8 signs per
corner vs. 18 or 19 signs in primarily the industrial section of
the freeway. It was a question of what was best for the people
of Anaheim. Giving the industry au opportunity to reduce the
agreed-to potential of what he felt should be four boards per
intersection, with all others non-conforming, and allowing what
may be a maximum of 19 freeway boards under individual CUPs
would be a way of reducing the proliferation. He wanted to know
if "industry" was willing to agree to a maximum of four boards
per intersection instead of five.
Mr. Farauo stated on behalf of the industry, with the exception
of Foster and Kleiser, they will accept an amendment to the
ordinance of four boards maximum at each intersection, one on
each corner.
Councilman 0verholt presumed that Foster and Kleiser would not
join in that recommendation; the representative from Foster and
Kleiser indicated that was correct.
Councilman Pickler stated he would like to offer the ordinance
for first reading with the proposed amendments including that
only four boards be permitted at each intersection and that the
term of a CUP be ten years instead of five years.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification if it was Councilman
Pickler's intent to offer the ordinance for first reading
including the amendments proposed in Exhibit "A" as presented by
Mr. Farano as well as the other two changes as articulated.
City Attorney Jack White stated in answer to Councilman Overholt
that he did not have a copy of the amendments as proposed by Mr.
Farano; City Clerk Sohl also confirmed that a copy was not
submitted to her office.
City Attorney White stated since he has never seen the proposed
amendments, he could not guarantee he would have the proposed
ordinance incorporating the changes outlined in Exhibit "A" back
to the Council for the February 4, 1986 Council Agenda.
At the conclusion of Council discussion clarifying Councilman
Pickler's intent and the time contraints involved in preparing a
draft ordinance incorporating the proposed changes, Councilman
Pickler moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare a proposed
ordinance incorporating the amendments submitted by the attorney
representing a segment of the billboard industry including the
two additional amendments, (1) that there be a maximum of four
57
206
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:0O A.M.
billboards per intersection and (2) that the term of a CUP be
ten years instead of five years. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked for clarification
that the direction was to have the City Attorney prepare a draft
ordinance covering the proposals by the industry as given in
Exhibit "A" and that it be submitted to the Council for
discussion and possible first reading. If after discussion
there are additional changes, that there be an amended first
reading; City Attorney White stated that was his understanding.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated since there was a time constraint
for placing issues on the June ballot, she moved that the
freeway billboard issue be placed on the June, 1986 ballot to
let the people decide; Councilman Overholt stated he would not
second the motion at this time and suggested that Councilwoman
Kaywood bring it up again in one week.
City Clerk Sohl stated that the first date for requesting
consolidationwith the County for the June Election was
February 3, 1986 with the absolute date being March 7, 1986.
the meantime, legal notices would have to be published.
In
It was determined that the City Attorney prepare a proposed
ordinance incorporating the amendments submitted by a segment of
the billboard industry including the two additional amendments
articulated by Councilman Pickler and that the matter be
rescheduled when the draft was prepared.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be
held with its attorney regarding:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of
Anaheim, O.C. Superior Court Case No. 40 92 46; Dusen vs.
Hammond et al & Opriun vs. City of Anaheim.
Potential litigation pursuant to G0v't Code Section 5495§.9B1
and 54956.9C.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:09 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:48 p.m.)
121: HEARING - CONDEMNATION: Finding and determining the public interest and
necessity for acquiring and authorizing condemnation of certain real property
located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Harbor Boulevard, for the
widening and improvement of the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Broadway,
belonging to Roger and Barbara Pannier (R/W 3427-1).
58
203
City Hall~ A~beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
STAFF INPUT:
See report of the City Engineer dated January 7, 1986,
recommending the subject condemnation and authorizing the law
firm of Oliver Stover & Laskin, Special Counsel for the City of
Anaheim and the City Attorney to proceed with said condemnation
action.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak; the principals were not
present to speak on the issue.
Councilman Bay. Since no drawing was included in the
documentation, he did not know if the condemnation affects any
structures on the corner. He wanted to know how much of the
corner was involved.
STAFF INPUT:
Art Daw, Chief Design Engineer.
The width is 12 feet and there are no buildings involved. It
affected only the front portion of the landscaping. In the
future staff will include a map in the documentation. Only
Broadway Street is involved. The remaining sidewalk will be 7
to 9 feet. The traffic signal will have to be relocated on that
one corner.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
The street widening is necessitated by the added traffic that
will be generated by the Meyer Development.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-039 for adoption.
Resolution Book.
Refer to
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-039: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR
ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY.
(NORTHWEST CORNER BROADWAY AND HARBOR BOULEVARD - ROGER AND BARBARA PANNIER)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-039 duly passed and adopted.
121: HEARING - CONDEMNATION: Finding and determining the public interest and
necessity for acquiring and authorizing condemnation of certain real property
located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Clementine Street, for the
widening and improvement of Clementine Street, belonging to John A. Kunney.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report dated January 7, 1986, from the City Engineer
recommending the subject condemnation.
59
204
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak; the principals were not
present to speak on the issue.
STAFF INPUT:
Art Daw, Chief Design Engineer.
Explained that as a result of a meeting with the Real Property
section and Mr. Cooney on Friday, January 24, 1986, acceptable
terms were negotiated and an agreement signed. The condemnation
proceedings were no longer necessary.
No further action was taken by the Council due to the successful conclusion of
negotiations with the property owner.
134/179: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 206~ RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 85-86-16~ VARIANCE NO. 3524 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Ahmed Jahanpanah, et al,
520 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, Ca. 90210
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan from the current commercial professional designation to
medium density or low-medium density residential designation on property
located at 1585 West Katella Avenue, a change in zone from RS-10,000 to
RM-1200, to construct a 48-unit apartment complex, with the following Code
waivers: (a) structural height, (b) minimum recreational-leisure areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution PC86-2 -3 and -4 denied the General
Plan Amendment, Reclassification and Variance; approved EIR - negative
declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Madgy Hanna, agent for the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 16, 1986.
Posting of property January 17, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 17, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Madgy Hanna, 4000 Mc. Arthur Blvd., Suite 680, Newport Beach.
Th~ property ha~ b~n vacant for a 10ng p~riod. There is no
market to utilize it as commercial office. An apartment
building will improve the property since it is now covered with
weeds and marijuana and used as a play area. The residents are
unhappy and would like to see something done with the property.
He spoke with the property owners on the north side of Katella
and all expressed that they would like sometking done. The City
has allowed apartment buildings to be built along major
boulevards. The traffic increase from the proposed project will
be only one percent. The project will be built 72 feet away
from single family. The north elevation of the building will
have no openings at all to the single family residences thus
precluding any intrusion. A green belt will be provided with a
7-foot high block wall.
60
20]
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ !986~ 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC INPUT-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC INPUT-
IN OPPOSITION:
Joe Bryan, 1582 West Sumac Lane.
He is opposed to the project and it is his third appearance on
the issue, the two others before the Planning Commission. A
motel was proposed the first time and the residents were
opposed. The second time the proposal was an office building
which was acceptable but parking was abutting the block wall
which made it unacceptable. He then read a petition signed by
28 property owners bordering Sumac and Carnelian, all in
opposition for the reasons stated (petition made a part of the
record).
Bill Droessler, Insurance Agent, 1598 West Katella Avenue
(28 years).
Katella is mostly commercial and office buildings and it should
be used for those purposes. Apartment buildings will generate
more traffic on the already heavily traveled-Katella Avenue
which should be widened in any case. Residents of the
apartments will be using his property for parking on the
weekends.
Clarence Hutchinson, 18123 So. Bayless (in back of Mr.
Droessler's office). Traffic is a major concern. Katella is
heavily traveled. Accidents now occur at Ninth and Katella.
Parking will also be a problem especially on weekends. (As an
aside, Mr. Hutchinson reported a supposed problem with the
traffic signal at Ninth and Katella where he was recently
involved in an accident. The City Traffic Engineer, Paul -
Singer, was directed to investigate).
STAFF INPUT:
Paul Singer Traffic Engineer.
The residential use will generate 408 trips for the 1.34 acres
involved and commercial use will generate 402 trips per acre.
The staff report (Page 6-b) as pointed out by Councilman
Pickler, stated 188 trips for commercial office which referred
to the buildable area. The 408 figure is theoretical and a
County standard. The 188 is more likely the number and he would
rely on that.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Madgy Hanna.
They are providing 2.5 subterranean parking spaces per unit.
There is a security gate on the complex and it is unlikely
anybody would park across Katella. Apartments will not
contribute to a higher crime rate. The units will be rented for
approximately $700 a month for two bedrooms. The traffic
generated will be approximately 280 trip per day which is
negligible considering the 32,100 ADT (average daily trips)
61
202
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
count on Katella at present. Mr. Bryan will be pleased with the
project since the weeds will be eliminated and the 7-foot high
wall will secure his property. He (Mr. Bryan) expressed a
desire to work with Mr. Hanna and have something done on the
property. If the project is denied, Mr. Bryan said he would
meet with him (Hanna) and get all the neighbors together to work
something out.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Hundreds of apartments are being built with subterrenean parking
and the Council has not seen any. If they are not acceptable,
they will still be in existence for many years. There is a deed
restriction on the subject property until November of 1989,
limiting it to business and professional office use.
STAFF INPUT: Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
A list is in progress showing those projects that have parking
one-half below and above grade and those totally below grade and
will be submitted to the Council.
Joe Bryan.
Confirmed he had discussed the matter with Mr. Hanna. He
explained to him that he wanted the Council to vote today and if
the project was denied, he could talk to the neighbors about
working with Mr. Hanna. He would not be in favor of a
continuance for this purpose.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 206
Exhibit "A".
Before action was taken, Council Members gave the following input:
Councilman Pickler.
He is opposed to approval of the project. It is "spot zoning"
in an area that is close to the Convention Center. Even a one
percent increase in traffic will have a detrimental effect on
Katella Avenue and parking is another concern. It is zoned
commercial and the difference in daily trips of 188 vs. 408 is a
substantial one.
62
199
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The project contains two-bedroom units with two baths which
could be occupied by two couples. With 36 tandem underground
spaces people have to shift their cars to get in and out. It is
"spot zoning".
Councilman Bay.
The development consists of 48 units with 128 parking spaces,
the 2-story units are 62 feet from the property line with
another 25 feet to the closest structure and with no windows or
Openings of any kind on the north side facing single-family. It
will not cause an impact on residential to the north. Even 400
trips a day against a 32,000 ADT on Katella is not a significant
addition to traffic.
Councilman Roth.
There is residential to the east and west of the subject
property. The commercial on the south side of Katella was
originally single-family homes converted to commercial. There
is more residential than commercial.
A vote was then taken on the resolution of approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 206 and failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay and Roth
Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler
None
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-040 through 86R-042, both
inclusive, for adoption, denying General Plan Amendment No. 206 Exhibit "A".
Reclassification No. 85-86-16 and Variance No. 3524, upholding the findings of
the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-040: A1LESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AI~AHEIM DENYING GENERAL PLAN AI~ENDM~ENT NO. 206.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-041: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-16.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-042: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3524.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler
Bay and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-040, 86R-041 and 86R-042 duly passed
and adopted.
63
20O
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff to provide a report on the number of
single-family homes as opposed to apartments presently in the City.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2748AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Steiny & Company, Inc.,
2230 East 0rangethorpe
Fullerton, Ca. 92631
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To permit an industrially related office complex on
ML zoned property located north of the northeast corner of La Palms Avenue and
Lakeview Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-9 denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2748.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Denny Smith, Strock Architects.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 16, 1986.
Posting of property January 17, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 17, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Frank Lowry, Attorney, Farano & Kieviet, 100 So. Anaheim Blvd.,
representing the applicant.
He first described the project. The buildings had no setback,
landscaping or parking waivers. The Redevelopment Staff, City
Staff and Traffic Engineer all reviewed the project and agreed
that it has no significant impact on the environment or the
infrastructure in the northeast industrial area. There is a
question relative to the proposed 2-story industrially related
office building. They are asking for the same type of uses
previously approved by the Council for other projects in the
same area. They do not have a specific tenant in mind for the
building at this time.
COUNCIL CONCERNS.:
Councilman Overholt.
He questioned why the matter was before the Council. After
lengthy discussions, the Council previously amended the
ordinance permitting certain specific uses deemed to be
compatible with industrial uses in the subject area.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
The list of uses is essentially the same contained in the
ordinance which requires approval of the CUP.
64
197
City w-ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Jack White City Attorney.
First briefed the events leading to the action taken by the
Council in late 1985 adopting an ordinance allowing certain uses
in the industrial area provided that those uses requiring
approval of a CUP were demonstrated to be compatible with and
primarily serving the industrial zone. The subject application
appears on its face to be compatible, if staff Condition No. 13
is approved (see Page llg of the staff report to the Planning
Commission) which is a list of what the uses are. The last
sentence of that condition provides that each individual use
would require the approval of the Planning Department prior to
occupancy. The list is similar to what the Council has approved
in the past. The only difficulty with any such applications is
approving uses not known at the moment.
Councilman Overholt.
He did not understand why since the petitioner submitted a list
of the proposed office uses that the Planning Commission did not
approve the request for a CUP including Condition No. 13. The
Council had developed a "road map" that was not being followed.
Councilman Pickler.
He was concerned that the Planning Commission was going to deny
all such applications.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-043 for adoption, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2748, subject to all Inter-departmental Committee
recommendations including Condition No. 13. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-043: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 2748.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood spoke against the resolution of
approval. A prime industrial parcel is involved. Industrial parcels were
decreasing and would soon be gone. Traffic was a problem now, and would only
become worse with office uses.
Councilman Bay. He felt the same as Councilmen Overholt and Pickler. When
the Council made its decision on the changes to building uses for high
technology industrial development, it was clear in those decisions that the
Council delegated to staff the authority to approve or disapprove specific
65
198
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
uses as they came in. The items requested match the exact uses which were
approved on the last three similar issues before the Council. He questioned
the Planning Commission actions. Criteria had been set and if the Planning
Commission did not understand that criteria, perhaps it was necessary to
clarify the matter with them.
Councilman Pickler asked that the Planning Commission be informed of Council's
remarks regarding the issue.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-043 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss the balance of the items previously announced. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:12 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:09 p.m.)
RECESS - DINNER BREAK: By general consent the Council recessed for a dinner
break prior to the 7:00 p.m. portion of the City Council meeting. (5:10 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:25 p.m.)
174: PUBLIC HEARING - TWELFTH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM: To consider the Twelth Year (1986-87) Community Development Block
Grant Program Budget in an estimated amount of $2.5 million, to be submitted
to the State for A-95 Review. Submitted was report dated January 17, 1986
from the Community Development Department recommending approval of the 1986/87
program and budget as recommended by the Communitywide CDBG Citizen
Participation Committee for a total allocation of approximately 52.5 million.
Mr. Norm Priest, Director of Community Development and Planning, briefed the
subject report specifically Page 1, discussion, which explained the
Committee's budget recommendation in detail.
Mr. Herb Leo, Member of the Communitywide CDBG Citizen Participation
Committee, explained that the budget reflected a 15 percent reduction from the
City's 1985/86 entitlement grant amount. He then briefed Attachment No. 1,
Page 2 to the January 17, 1986 report which listed the Committee's recommended
budget for 1986/87 totalling $2,475,000 and a list of prioritized back-up
activities totalling 5265,500 for a total Committee recommended 1986/87 CDBG
budget of 52,740,500. He recommended Council approval of their program and
budget.
66
195
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The following people then spoke to the Twelfth Year CDBG Program and budget:
Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street.
He spoke for the graffiti removal program especially for a pilot
program to be instituted in the George Washington School area.
(Mayor Roth clarified that the graffiti removal program contract
was covered by the recommendations submitted).
Lyle Devine, 1431 Castle Avenue.
He was speaking on behalf of the residents in the Walnut/Goodhue
area urging that the south Anaheim area storm drain be
constructed with the next monies available. The residents had
to live with the situation caused by the lack of proper drainage
365 days a year. He felt that some of the problem was brought
about by City planning when they developed the area. Something
had to be done to preclude legal action by citizens against the
City.
STAFF INPUT:
Art Daw, Chief Design Engineer.
The total project south Anaheim storm drain is estimated to cost
$560,000. The high cost is attributed to the fact that in
conjunction with the storm drain, it would require construction
of a new sewer line and relocation of a water line. During
hearings, it was indicated there were other funds available to
pay for the sewer line or $60,000 leaving a $500,000 balance.
The Water Division has no funds which would be available for
that work. It is not within their water line replacement
program area. Two-hundred thousand dollars has been proposed
for 1986/87 which would permit the design of the storm drain and
the banking of a portion of the construction funds and the
balance of $300,000 to be budgeted in 1987/88. The concern
expressed is possibly due to potential cuts at the Federal
level, resulting in insufficient funds in 1987/88 to construct
the storm drain. The request is that the City come up with the
additional $300,000 to permit the design and construction in
1986/87. On the fifth year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
the project was scheduled for 1986/87 and for funding through
CDBG. The total cost is $500,000 and it was proposed that
$200,000 be budgeted this year. The Neighborhood Councils
agreed that would be one of the projects recommended in 1987/88
for $300,000 to complete the additional funds necessary.
Paul Ridenour, 1403 Goodhue.
He is one of the original property owners in the area being
discussed. He gave an historic overview of the events that had
taken place relative to drainage over the past 30 years. It is
his personal interest that the project be started and
acomplished now because of escalating costs and cost of having
to repair the street at least twice every 5 years because of the
existing situation.
67
196
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Art Daw, Chief Design Engineer.
He clarified that the City does not have a storm drain
assessment fee except in special areas predominantly in the hill
and canyon area. In the flat lands, the City has never had a
fee and to his knowledge there had been no discussions relative
to establishing such a fee.
Mr. H. Zepeda, 217 West Helena.
Relative to Little People's Park, he is concerned with the
problems he has seen there with people using drugs, smoking pot,
drinking in public, and weapons being used in the area. He
recommended that a police patrol drive through the area or that
a police officer walk through especially on Friday and Saturday
nights when most of those activities occurred. In answer to the
Mayor, he felt to get people in the area to join a group to
assist the Police Department in cleaning up the area would be
difficult. Approximately one-half of the people owned their
property and others were illegal aliens or people living with
their relatives.
Sophie Ertl, Cherokee Mobilehome Gardens, President of the Board
of the recently formed corporation in the park.
Speaking on behalf of the residents of the park, they were proud
to be the first park in Anaheim to be made available for
purchase by residents. She thanked the Council and the Housing
Authority for the actions they had taken to help the residents
of the park in accomplishing their long sought-after goal.
Dick Baney, 1412 Damien.
He commended the City and the Police Department for the way
problems were handled in the City.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the Twelfth Year Community
Development Block Grant Program and Budget (1986/87) as recommended by the
Communitywide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee in an estimated amount of
$2.5 million as well as back up activities subject to CDBG funding allocation
and that the application be submitted to the state for A-95 review.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOUNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:10 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
68