Loading...
1986/02/11J89 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 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 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER: Don Metzger ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER - OPERATIONS: Edward Alario Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Pastor William Vail, 1st Christian Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: Rural Crime Prevention Month, February 1986, U. S. Constitution Day, September 17, 1987. 119: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT: A Resolution in Support was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the coordinators of the "Hooked on Life" Health Fair to be held on February 15, 1986 at Anaheim Stadium. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to George Ferrone, the City's Finance Director, on his recent accomplishment as President of the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers. The Mayor and each Council Member personally congratulated Mr. Ferrone on his fine work in that very important office. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. 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. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,745,902.42, in accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved. 89 190 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 86R-54 through 86R-57, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4696 for first reading. 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 Sharon Ruth Furlong for bodily injury and property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 9, 1985. b. Claim submitted by Lorena Rose Perrot for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 22, 1985. c. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (Case No. 8F546-0507) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 2, 1985. d. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (Case No. 8F546-0514) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 7, 1985. e. Claim submitted by Oswald Garcia for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 25, 1985. f. Claim submitted by Esther and Frank Bendokes, David Rolf, Ruth Paul for wrongful death of Frank J. Bendokes, sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 23, 1985. g. Claim submitted by Gilbert Bethel for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 24, 1985. h. Claim submitted by James P. Griffis for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 12, 1985. 2. 170/123: Approving the assignment of a special facilities reimbursement agreement with Boulevard Development to John R. Sloat, relating to Tract No. 9601 in the Anaheim Hills area. 3. 123: Authorizing Cooperative Agreement No. D85-185 with the Orange County Flood Control District to provide for the reconstruction of East Richfield Channel from the Santa Aha River to Orangethorpe Avenue at an estimated cost of ~1,650,000, with 50% City share at $825,000. 4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 05000045-58 (2B-39.2) at a cost of $28,906 to provide for 9O City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. signal preemption equipment in connection with installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive. 5. 179: Granting a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2651, to permit an il-story, 128-foot high hotel with on-sale of alcoholic beverages and accessory uses; and a 12- and 15-story commercial office complex with certain Code waivers on property located at 2400 East Katella Avenue, to expire on February 26, 1987. 6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the cities of Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, Garden Grove, La Habra, Orange and Stanton, for Anaheim to staff and equip the Hazardous Materials Response Unit and to respond by request as "first due" Hazardous Materials Response Team; providing for reimbursement by participating cities to the City for hard dollar costs; and to be effective July 1, 1985. 7. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to Purchase Order 33135G with Computer Services Company for an additional amount of ~1,113 bringing the revised total order for traffic controllers to ~70,728.50. 8. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to Purchase Order 33550G with Computer Services Company for an additional amount of ~371 bringing the revised total for two traffic controllers to $24,751. 9. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Computer Services Company Division in the amount of ~36,564.70 for three each Type 1000-8 Controllers with cabinet, central computer interface, flow system and test switches. 10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Edwin Garrett, Inc., dba Interior Supply Co., in the amount of ~253,568 for resurfacing Stadium View Level Concourse, Restrooms on View, Club and Terrace Levels, and Terrace Level wheelchair platforms, in accordance with Bid No. 4307. 11. 108: Appointing a twelve-member technical advisory committee, plus three City Staff members to serve in an ex officio capacity, to review development of a revised business license tax ordinance. (Councilman Bay abstained) 12. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (85-7A) (Declaring intent to abandon an electrical easement which is no longer in use on the west side of State College Boulevard, north of Center Street, Abandonment 85-7A, and setting a date for the public hearing therefor, suggested date: March 4, 1986, 1:30 p.m. 13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #3500-24) (authorizing the Accounting Officer to issue a warrant in the amount of $7,400 to Joan Hagen; and rescinding and repealing Resolution No. 85R-373) City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 14. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-56: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. 15. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-57: A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Authorizing a Resolution of Intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City to exclude from covered service the classification of Management Intern) 123: Authorizing the Mayor to sign a Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 7507. 123: ORDINANCE NO. 4696 (FIRST READING): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-54 through 86R-57, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED. 123: REVISION TO AGREEMENT WITH SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC - TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE: Authorizing the Second Amendment to an Agreement with Signal Maintenance Incorporated to provide month by month traffic signal maintenance at a cost of $85.25 per intersection per month until approval of a new contract. Councilman Pickler asked if the Traffic Signal Maintenance was going out to bid. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, answered yes. Two proposals had been received from signal maintenance companies doing business in the area. He was also putting together a package in-house to ensure quality maintenance. The reason the cost had escalated was primarily due to the cost of liability insurance. The two bids received were approximately ~108 per intersection per month and the other $650 per intersection per month reflecting a considerable difference. The alternative which was going to be proposed was to do it in-house and the cost would probably fall somewhere between the above two figures. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize the Second Amendment to an Agreement with Signal Maintenance Incorporated to provide month by month traffic signal maintenance at a cost of $85.25 per intersection per month 92 Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL ~LINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. until approval of a new contract, as recommended in memorandum dated February 4, 1986 from the City Engineer. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 112/113: DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-58for adoption, authorizing the destruction of certain City records in the City Attorneys Office more than two years old, as recommended in memorandum dated February 4, 1986 from the City Attorney Jack White. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-58: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABS~4T: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-58 duly passed and adopted. 179: PROPOSED BILLBOARD SIGN ORDINANCE: Amending sections of Title 18 pertaining to billboards. This matter was discussed and continued from the meetings of May 28, July 16 and September 24, 1985 and January 28 and February 4, 1986, to this date. City Attorney White referred to the revised ordinance submitted to the Council together with an underline copy to show changes from the version the Council considered at the February 4, 1986 meeting. Also for Council consideration was a proposed amendment to the Code (Ordinance No. 4694) which would coincide with permitting freeway billboards if the Council should decide to approve the ordinance allowing freeway billboards. Another item which was brought to his attention, if the Council approved the billboard ordinance, the Environmental Impact required for the discretionary action had not yet been formally advertised. Any action of approval would require a continuance of 2 weeks in order to finalize the EIR, if a negative declaration. If Council disapproved the ordinance, the EIR would not be required at this time. Mayor Roth announced that before proceeding~ Councilman Pickler requested to address the Council to make a statement. Councilman Pickler stated during the past week he thought long and hard about the future of the City and about Anaheim's image - the importance of the look and feel of Anaheim and the impact of those qualities on the City's most important business and revenue source, tourism. The City was blessed with an international landmark in Disneyland. In recent days, he had received countless calls and visited with his neighbors and friends all over Anaheim. Over the weekend, he and his wife Betty toured the Orange County freeway system and other local communities to see how they were handling the question of billboards. The conclusion reached was that the newly proposed billboard ordinance which he helped introduce was wrong at this time, wrong for Anaheim and wrong for Orange County. There was a clear trend towards reducing 93 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. billboards along highways and freeways. 0nly one city of the 26 in Orange County allowed freeway billboards. Previous Anaheim City Councils had never allowed billboards in the Anaheim Hills area and that policy had served the City well resulting in one of the nicest neighborhoods and property values remained high. For now, he supported the status quo, i.e., the existing billboard ordinance. In the future it might be that the Council would find circumstances may have changed and it would then be appropriate to look at a new ordinance. At this time, he was withdrawing his support of the billboard ordinance. Mayor Roth stated that the statement by Councilman Pickler put to bed the possibility of a change in the ordinance at this time. He then expressed disappointment in the way newspaper reporters had handled reporting on the issue. In speaking with them many times, he repeatedly explained that there was no three-two vote approving the ordinance. The procedure involved in adopting an ordinance was first that a Council Member offer the ordinance one week in a vote normally taken the next week. In this case, a final reading of the ordinance was never offered and no vote taken though it had been under discussion for some time. Councilman Overholt stated if, in fact, Councilman Pickler's statement did put the issue to bed, he would like to compliment him as it is a courageous act for any politician to publically change his position on an issue. Councilman Pickler stated he realized this was an election year and many polls would be taken and undoubtedly the billboard issue would have been included in any poll. The Council talked about eliminating quite a few boards within the inner-city and he knew the Council had the prerogative to do that. Nothing was permanent and it would be necessary to again analyze the situation further down stream. Mr. White announced that two people had advised the Clerk that they wished to speak; Mayor Roth asked if they still wished to speak in view of the fact that no action was going to be taken on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Jack Murphy, 1887 Eileen Drive. He was present to speak in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Instead he now wanted to thank Councilman Pickler as a ~ellow citizen and to thank those Council Members who were opposed to the ordinance. It would not have. been a good ordinance for the City. Floyd L. Farano, attorney, representing the Outdoor Sign Industry with the exception of Foster and Kleiser. He regretted the action taken mainly because of the notariety and information which had been disseminated relative to the ordinance. He did not feel it had ever been given a fair chance. It was his opinion the proposed ordinance would have been an improvement over the present status. He was more disturbed because of the absence of correct information disseminated to the people in the City by newspapers principally the Los Angeles Times. He had never denounced anything or 94 . City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:0.0 A.M. anyone in public before but he was going to denounce the Los Angeles Times today in front of everyone for hypocrisy. Councilman Overholt interrupted and questioned the propriety of Mr. Farano's action. He did not like to have an attorney come before the Council and attack a newspaper, using the Council meeting as a forum. He asked for a ruling on the matter. Jack White, City Attorney, stated the City Council controlled the orders of the agenda and the matter in which to proceed to conduct its business. If the Council wished to determine that the line of discussion was not in order, it could do so. He did not believe there was anything in the Charter or an ordinance that could be ruled on legally. Councilman Overholt stated if there was no ruling, he had no objection. Mr. Farano continued that the Los Angeles Times Editorials had come out strongly against the proposed ordinance totally without knowledge of exactly what the ordinance purported to achieve. He wanted to bring to the Council's attention the lack of credibility in reporting. Not 100 yards from the City of Anaheim's border on the Santa Aha Freeway, there was a Los Angeles Times billboard advertisement on a Foster and Kleiser board. He questioned for future consideration, was it sincere when any newspaper, media or anyone would seek to impose their Judgment and opinions to interfere with the unbiased opinion and Judgment of the City Council. Councilman Pickler stated the article did not influence him but getting out and investigating for himself and talking to the people did. He was not 100 percent against billboards but was listening to the people in the community. Councilwoman Kaywood. She did not believe there had ever been another issue about which she personally had received so much response. At the February 6, 1986 League of California Cities meeting with four counties in attendance, everyone was talking about the situation and appalled to think that Anaheim would even consider having billboards on freeways. There were also concerns expressed about not having a public hearing on the issue. The initial Los Angeles Times Editorial reported that the Council decision was made and citizens were angry asking how she could do that and how could she change her mind. She applauded Councilman Pickler for his decision. It was definitely a step forward instead of backward. Councilman Bay. The Council had been discussing the issue for 2 or 3 months. The proposed ordinance was offered by one Member of the Council for first reading and had subsequent amended first readings. He was concerned that the Council had to continually explain to the 184 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11, 1986~ 10:00 A.M. media that until an ordinance moved to a second reading, no vote was taken. There had not been a vote and a reported 3-2 vote was not true. There should be retractions printed in the Los Angeles Times that the 3-2 vote did not take place. Councilman Overholt. Mr. Farano was aware since the Outdoor Industry could not come together, he would not be supportive and he had stated that openly over and over again. The same had been true of every Council Member who stated openly their inclination to either support or oppose a change in the ordinance. It may be that reporters picked up those open expressions and interpreted them as a vote. There was no further action taken by the Council on the proposed billboard ordinance - Ordinance No. 4693. There was also no action taken on proposed Ordinance No. 4694 which would have been necessary if the billboard ordinance had been adopted. Also, no further action was taken relative to an Environmental Impact finding. In essence, no freeway billboards are allowed and the present existing ordinance remains in effect. 105: APPOINTMENT TO MOTHER COLONY HOUSE ADVISORY BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Joy Smith. Before action was taken, Councilman Bay asked if Ms. Smith was a member of the Mother Colony Household; City Clerk Sohl answered that as far as she knew, Ms. Smith was not a member. Councilman Bay questioned appointing anyone to the Board who was not a member of the Household. It had nothing to do with the applicant but it seemed rather presumptuous of the Council to start appointing people to advisory boards or organizations to which they did not belong. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she believed it took ~5.00 to be a member. the Advisory Board had gone a year or longer without filling the open slots. The Council now had an expression of interest from a citizen who would like to serve and she would like to see her appointed. If it turned out she was not working with the Board or was not in the best interest of the City or the Board, the appointee could be removed since there was no such thing as a life time appointment. Mayor Roth recommended that Ms. Smith first become a member of the Household; Councilman Overholt stated he was not in support of such action. The Advisory Board was appointed by the Council to advise on matters relating to their charge. The Mother Colony Household, Inc. was a non-profit corporation formed for the purpose of doing various things. Ms. Smith should be encouraged to Join but it should not be made a prerequisite. He asked if being a member was required by the enabling ordinance or charter provision. City Attorney White stated that was not mentioned as a requirement. 96 249 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the appointment of Joy Smith to the Mother Colony House Advisory Board. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt then suggested that Ms. Smith be invited to join the Mother Colony Household, Inc. if not already a member. 179: REQUEST - ADVANCE APPROVAL OF CONTINUANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2747: Request by Donald Dunkleman, (Mc Donald's), for advance approval of the continuance of a public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2747 to after March 21, 1986, in order to comply with requirements to schedule within 40 days of date of appeal, this is presently scheduled for February 25, 1986. City Clerk Sohl explained that the public hearing had to be scheduled within 40 days of the appeal but she also received a request from the applicant for a continuance to March 25, 1986 since Mr. Dunkleman would be out of the country prior to that time. If Council approved the continuance, it would be so noticed. At the conclusion of Council discussion on the request, Councilman Overholt asked for a clarification if the March 25, 1986 date was not convenient to the appellant, could the public hearing be continued to a date convenient. City Attorney White stated that would be at the discretion of the Council. The party requesting the waiver would be the one prejudiced because he was the applicant. They could not start the expansion of the restaurant until they received approval. If he wanted to continue the matter beyond 40 days, he did not believe anyone else would be prejudiced. He would have a problem if the appellant asked for a continuance without the consent of the applicant because the applicant was entitled to have his case heard in 40 days. Since the applicant was requesting the continuance, he did not see a problem. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the date for the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2747 presently scheduled for February 25, 1986 to Tuesday, March 25, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 20, 1986, pertaining to the followin$ applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3519: Submitted by Arthur J. and Barbara C. Powell, to construct a 3-story, 4-unit apartment complex on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 613 South Webster Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum site coverage, (c) minimum landscaped setback, (d) minimum recreational-leisure area. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-22, denied Variance No. 3519, and granted a negative declaration status. ~7 25O City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2749: Submitted by The Presbytery of Los Angeles, (St. Paul's Presbyterian Church), to permit a 3-story, 51-unit senior citizen's apartment complex on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2580 West Orange Avenue, with Code waivers of minimum building site area (deleted) and maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission,'pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-23, granted in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2749, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3528: Submitted by Benjamin C. and Wilma S. Q. Lee, to construct an addition to a single-family residence on RS-5000 zoned property located at 1764 Azure Street, with Code waivers of maximum lot coverage and maximum number of bedrooms. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-24, granted Variance No. 3528, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. (Class 5) 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2754: Submitted by Central Church of Christ of Anaheim, to permit a residential trailer on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1590 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-25, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2764, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. (Class 3) 5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-18 AND VARIANCE NO. 3531: Submitted by Herbert E. and Eunice G. Grimm, and Paul A. and Elayne P. Lohr, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 34-unit apartment complex on property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Magnolia Avenue, with Code waivers of minimum structural setback and minimum rear yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-26, granted Reclassification No. 85-86-18 and Variance No. 3531, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2755: Submitted by Helledger A. Mims, to permit a mobileh0me used for testing, demonstration and display of related mobilehome products on ML zoned property located at 1310 North Red Gum Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-28, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2755, and granted a negative declaration status. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2753: Submitted by JSF Properties, et al, to permit a post office on ML zoned property located at 950 East Pacifico Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-29, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2753, and granted a negative declaration status. 98 247 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 8. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-17 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2750: S.S.P. Properties, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to CL(SC), to permit a 42-foot high, 183-unit motel on property located southeast of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and Imperial Highway, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback, (b) minimum landscaped setback, (in part) (c) maximum structural height, (d) required site screening. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-30 and 31, granted in part, Reclassification No. 85-86-17 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2750, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10971--WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE: Submitted by Presley of Southern California, requesting waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance as it relates to location of manufactured slopes within residential lots and within the tract boundary of Tract No. 10971, in the .Anaheim Hills area adjacent to Camino Grande and south of Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Tract No. 10971 and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2541--SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by McKellar Development, requesting approval of specific plans for Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2541, to permit an 18-lot, planned commercial office and light industrial complex on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Roosevelt Road, Bauer Ranch--East Hills) 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2738: Submitted by 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 RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1408 South Euclid Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) required setback of playground area, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum fence height, (d) maximum structural height. The. City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-17, granted in part, waivers a, b, and c granted for a period of three years to expire July 1, 1989, and granted a negative declaration status. A public Hearing has been Scheduled for February 25, 1986, 7:00 p.m. 12. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 204 (READV.); RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-15 (READV.)~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2726 (READV.) AND 2727 (READV.) AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543: Submitted by California Lutheran Homes, (Walnut Manor), to consider alternate proposals of ultimate land use, including, but not limited to low density residential, low medium density residential and medium density residential designation, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to permit a 134-unit affordable senior citizens apartment complex and a 99-bed skilled nursing facility in conjunction with the existing seniors retirement facility on property located at 891 South Walnut Street, with Code waivers of minimum building site area 99 248 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. per dwelling unit and maximum structural height, and a request for waiver of Council Policy No. 543. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-18, 19, 20 and 21, recommended adoption of GPA 204, Exibit A, and granted Reclassification No. 85-86-15 and Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2726 (Readv) and 2727 (Ready), and granted a negative declaration status. A public Hearing has been Scheduled for February 18, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. 13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2756: Submitted by Orange County Steel Salvage, Inc., to permit temporary outdoor storage of shredder waste and dismantled automobiles on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 3200 East Frontera Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-32, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2755, and denied a negative declaration status. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at later date End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED. 179: SENIOR CITIZEN CONDOMINIUMS: State-Wide Developers, Inc., requesting consideration that the development standards for Senior Citizen's Apartments be expanded to include Senior Citizen's condominiums. Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was amazed that in his agenda was an action recommended by the Planning Commission that condominiums be under the same standards as apartments for seniors. There was a great lack of information and nothing that told him how the Planning Commission reached such a decision. If such an issue was going to be placed on the agenda, at least the minutes of the meeting should be included as background. Senior apartments had a resident manager, age control, parking and visitor control, no resale problem, etc. The difference was night and day. To suddenly change the standards of the senior apartments in the RM-1200 zone, and take in all senior condominiums with it, was a broad action. He did not want to vote on it, and asked that the matter be placed on the agenda next week with additional information to be provided. Councilman Roth withdrew his motion. Councilman Pickler withdrew his second. Councilwoman Kaywood stated several of the commissXoners had gone on a tour of senior housing. She never heard there was a need or desire for senior condominiums. One of the dangers the Planning Commission mentioned that the Council must keep in mind, if they were the same standards, there were going to be many requests for conversions to condominiums from apartments. She had a number of questions and she noted that a representative of State-Wide was in the audience. t00 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. Mr. Tom Tincher, 8442 Aspenwood, Westminster, consultant working with State-Wide. He was very much interested in senior citizen housing. The Planning Commission, in their deliberations, studied the matter in detail. Two of the members did go out into the field and spent a day visiting facilities, both rental and condominium projects. There was a recognition that there was a broad range of senior housing, not just affordable rental units. There was a need for senior condominiums and a need county-wide to start looking at standards that would allow that broad range of senior housing needs to be met. The Planning Commission, on a 7-0 vote, felt comfortable moving forward but he would be more than willing to come back next week and give more justifications and in the interim provide additional documentation. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked questions of Mr. Tincher so he would have the answers for the next week's meeting; Councilman Bay also wanted to know the developments that State-Wide had constructed in Anaheim and adjoining areas. Mayor Roth asked that an additional report and data be provided by staff along with any other information provided by State-Wide Developers. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12617: Submitted by D & D Development Company, to establish a 4-lot, 99-unit condominium subdivision on approximately 7.5 acres on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Rio Vista Street. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 12617 and previously certified EIR No. 259. No action was taken by the City Council. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12619: Submitted by Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, to establish an 8-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision on approximately 4.40 acres located southwesterly of the intersection of Silver Dollar Lane and Eucalyptus Drive. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 12619 and granted a negative declaration status. No action was taken by the City Council. 175: PROTEST OF INCREASED ELECTRIC RATES: Request by Patricia Clancy, to discuss increased electric rates for an apartment building located at 303 North Bush Street. Submitted was report dated February 5, 1986 from the Public Utilities General Manager, recommending that the Utility Department be authorized to continue billing Mrs. Clancy's house light account in accordance with the Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations, Schedule No. GS-lRate Al3 as adopted by Council Resolution No. 84R-356 dated September 11, 1984. Patricia Clancy, 27076 Tarry Town Road, Sun City, stated she is the owner of the apartment building at 303 North Bush Street. Last June her electric rates 101 246 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. were increased and she was objecting strongly to the change in the billing schedule from the domestic Service Rate 01 to the General Service Rate 13 resulting in the increase. Her apartments were rented to senior citizens at low rents. Starting in April, they will be paying ~355 a month. She wanted to keep her rents low because of the older people living in her building. If electric rates kept increasing, it could only mean an increase in rents. She asked that the Council authorize billing at the previous Domestic Service Rate. Mr. Don Metzger, Customer Service Manager, Public Utilities Department. The individual apartments in the 10-unit apartment building are billed on the Domestic 01 Rate which included an allowance for life line. The account being discussed was not one of the domestic units but the outdoor lighting for the laundry room, house lights, etc. and the one the Utilities Department discovered was being billed at the Domestic Rate in June of 1985. At that time, the rate was changed to the proper General Service Rate, without back billing for the length of time it was billed at the improper rate. The increase was approximately ~12 a month and billed bi-monthly or approximately $24 per billing period. It had no effect on charges to individual tenants who were metered independently. Councilman Bay surmised that the additional cost to the entire 10-unit apartment was $12 a month or approximately ~1.10 per unit if Mrs. Clancy passed the cost along to her tenants. Mrs. Clancy stated that although she did not bring her bills with her, it seemed that the increase was more than ~12 a month. Councilman Bay stated that since this was a common practice in all units in Anaheim if the Council granted Mrs. Clancy's request it would then be fair to change the rate structure throughout the whole City from the 13 Rate to the 01. To approve such request would be precedent setting. Also, Mrs. Clancy had received a break of approximately ~10 to ~12 a month for approximately 4 years, the time the rates were changed. However, Councilman Bay questioned the fairness of the situation when on a single-family residence such as his he received the lifeline rate but also lit the outside of his house for security purposes vs. not giving that same rate for security lighting in an apartment involving 10 citizens just because it was on a separate meter; Mrs. Clancy stated that was her point as well. Councilman Bay suggested that at the next rate case hearing the issue should be viewed from the standpoint of uniformity of fairness between single-family or even multi-family dwellings or condominiums and drawing some line crossing over to commercial or those with extensive use. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the Utility Department to continue billing Mrs. Clancy's house light account in accordance with the Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations, Schedule No. GS-1 Rate Al3 as adopted by Council Resolution No. 84R-356 dated September 11, 1984, as recommended in memorandum dated February 5, 1986 from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 102 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February lip 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 10968 (REV. 2): Developer, Camino Grande Townhomes, Tract is located on the east side and west side of Stage Coach Road north of Camino Grande, and contains a 39 proposed RM-1200(SC) zoned lots (1 open space) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 10968 (Rev. 2), as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 4, 1986. MOTION CARRIED. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4692: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4692 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4692: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION .2270 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING AND STOPPING. (State College Boulevard) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4692 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4695: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4695 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4695: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE REIATING TO ZONING. (Reclass. 83-84-33, CL, 2401 West Lincoln Avenue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4695 duly passed and adopted. 103: ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO): Councilwoman Kaywood reported on the February 6, 1986 League of California Cities meeting. The LAFCO Election took place prior to the meeting and Mr. Phil Schwartz, the City's choice, was elected to the Commission by a 15 to 7 vote on the first ballot. Election of the alternate was scheduled to be held in March. 114/150: REQUEST FOR SURVEY DATA: Councilman Bay requested that staff submit the raw data collected from the recent City-wide survey which took place in September of 1985. He was looking forward to seeing the first report but I03 244 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. wanted it clear that he wanted a copy of the raw data on the answers to the questions in that survey. City Manager Talley asked for clarification if Councilman Bay was referring to the survey that the Public Information Office (PIO) was coordinating with the City of Fullerton. If so, yesterday or today, the results of that survey were sent to the Council. Councilman Bay stated he assumed the Council was going to get a report on the results. In addition, he was requesting copies of the raw data on the questions asked and answers received for those 800 questions. City Manager Talley stated that was not the PIO survey he previously referred to but the recent Parks and Recreation survey. He expressed concern that until he saw the data whether or not to make public information received on an individual basis from citizens. Councilman Bay stated he was not interested at all in getting anything confidential or that had citizens names tied to it but a tabulation of answers to the questions on the survey. Mr. Talley explained that was working its way through the Council's Commission right now and staff was not manipulating anything. He believed that the Council was given a status report a week or so ago relative to that survey but he would provide another. Councilman Bay was questioning why on a survey taken three months ago or longer the Council did not have the results and why it had to pass through a half dozen commissions before the information on the answers and responses were submitted to the Council. Mr. Talley explained that most Departments worked through various Commissions and Boards. Traditionally Council's policy was to have staff work with those Boards and Commission before bringing something to the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Parks and Recreation Department was developing a strategic plan to identify the needs of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Program needs from the present to the year 2000. There was a meeting at the Brookhurst Community Center last Thursday night where public input was received and there was another scheduled for this evening at the George Washington Community Center and one for next Thursday night at the Canyon Hills Library (7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.). 114/128: REQUEST FOR DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE: Councilman Bay asked for an updated debt service schedule similar to the one he had dated March of 1985 - "City Wise Comprehensive Debt Service Schedule - Principal and Interest." He wanted it in the same basic format with the separation of Stadium, Convention Center and Utilities from the Certificates of Participation and other general debt of the City. In some cases it was difficult to tell on a Certificate of Participation list Just by the amounts of millions included in it. Basically that was what he was interested in so that he would have a clear view of how much that debt had gone up. 104 [ City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11, 1986~ 10:00 A.M. ILLEGAL DUMPING OF TOXIC WASTES: Mayor Roth stated as Chairman of the Orange County Sanitation District No. 3, the District had experienced problems in the last few months with the illegal dumping of toxic materials into the sewer systems by industry. Illegal dumping was being monitored secretly by the Sanitation District by taking samplings every 15 minutes 24 hours a day. As a result of the monitoring, several plating companies were now under investigation. If industry people were watching the telecast of the meeting, he cautioned those involved in illegal dumping that they would not go undetected. The Board was taking strong action and severe penalties would be imposed on those dumping toxic wastes into the Orange County or Anaheim Sewer Systems. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to confer with the City's Attorney for the following purposes: a. 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. b. Labor Relations matters pursuant to Gov't Code Section 54957.6. c. Personnel matters pursuant to Gov't Code Section 54957. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:05 p.m.) AFTER ILECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:00 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:02 p.m.) LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK 105