1986/02/25City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 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, Pickier 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
CODE ENFORCEMENT AND HOUSING SUPERVISOR: John Poole
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Captain Joseph Huttenlocker, Salvation Army, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn 0verholt, Jr. 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:
Pan American Golf Association Appreciation Weekend in Anaheim,
February 29-March 2, 1986,
Annie Anaheim Acolade Awards Day in Anaheim.
Mr. Ben De. Leon accepted the Pan American Golf Association proclamation.
119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Don Roth presented Mr. Ed Stotereau of the Anaheim
Convention Center with a bronze plaque received from the Los Angeles Olympic
Organizing Committee commemorating the City's participation in the 1984
Olympics. The Mayor also read the plaque which is to be permanently mounted
in an appropriate exterior or interior area of the Convention Center.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mary Jones, upon
her retirement as Director of Community Affairs at Disneyland.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOMe: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to visiting Mexican firefighters.
Fire Chief Darrel Hartshorn explained that although representatives of the 126
firefighters (two from Guatemala and the balance from Mexico) presently in
training in the City wanted very much to attend today's meeting, they were so
involved in the training program he decided it would be best to make the
presentation at the Friday luncheon.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the meeting
held February 4, 1986. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
119
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
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 Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,969,397.29, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
144: ORANGE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES: Jim Kenan,
Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC), to discuss the formation of an
Orange County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). Submitted was
report dated February 14, 1986 from the City Engineer, recommending support of
the establishment of the Service Authority and directing the OCTC to serve as
the Service Authority for freeway emergencies in Orange County.
Jim Kenan, Finance Director, OCTC, briefed the proposed program, that of
installing call boxes on Orange County Freeways. (See the Executive Summary
briefed by Mr. Kenan contained in the January 3, 1986 Arthur Young Study
representing a report to the Commission on an implementation study of SBl199
(Craven/Bergeson) enabling counties and their cities to establish service
authorities for freeway emergencies). On January 1, 1986 SBl199 became law
providing a funding mechanism which would allow for financing the installation
and operation of a call box system in Orange County. The legislation
authorizes that each SAFE organization can collect up to $1 per registered
vehicle annually in the County in order to pay for the call box system. The
County of Orange and the majority of cities in Orange County must approve the
resolution to establish a SAFE organization. One-third of the freeway miles
in Orange County are in Anaheim. Today, 20 cities in the County had approved
the SAFE resolution as well as the County. If Anaheim approved the resolution
today, it would be the Agency to put OCTC over the top, thus allowing SAFE to
be formed. The first meeting of the Agency would be held March 10, 1986 if
approved.
Council Members then posed questions to Mr. Kenan on different aspects of the
call box proposal wherein Mr. Kenan clarified that the plan was to install a
call box at 1/2 mile intervals to start, but based on technology selected,
could be improved. It was expected that the first call box would be installed
in 12 months if SAFE received approval from Anaheim today.
Discussion then followed relative to the life of the $1 fee. Councilman
Pickler felt there should be some stipulation that if the technology was such
in a few years eliminating the need for call boxes, then the $1 fee should be
removed.
Mr. Kenan felt, given that direction, that recommendation was a possibility
and those comments would be discussed at the first meeting of SAFE where
comments would be incorporated in the formation of the Agency. He also
reported for Councilman Overholt that the projected annual cost of the program
was anticipated to be $1.6 million. Costs would range from $1 million to $1.5
120
6!
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL HINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
million but they would also be setting aside funds to replace call boxes and
dependent upon the technology selected the boxes would have a 10 or 20 year
life. He confirmed if the Council voted favorably, collection of the $1 per
registered vehicle would start without any further action by the Council.
Councilman 0verholt asked what further input the Council would have on the
make up of the Authority; Mr. Kenan answered that the Council would be
agreeing that the make up of the SAFE Agency would be the members of OCTC and
the members who serve on that Commission in order to avoid forming a whole new
Agency with a new set of administrative fees. He also clarified that Los
Angeles funded their call box program from general fund dollars and that the
California Highway Patrol provided operators free of charge but that would not
be true in Orange County.
Councilman Overholt expressed his concern over the $1 fee and wanted to know
what the Council could do today to be assured it would not be a perpetual tax
on automobile owners residing in Orange County. The use of the freeways in
Orange County was not limited to people who owned cars and who lived in the
County. He was also concerned this would not be the last time the City heard
about a ~1 per car fee to finance this project or some other project deemed to
be worthy. He was inclined to recommend that the Council pass the resolution
but on a one-year basis until such time as appropriate sunsetting language was
proposed and the Council had an opportunity to approve that as well.
Mr. Kenan explained that Anaheim, as other cities, had a voice on the current
make up of the Commission and thus there was a mechanism to register
concerns. He would be concerned if there was a one year limitation up front
because of the long range commitment involved.
Mayor Roth stated the Commission should consider some provision that after a
ten year period of time or when the cost of the system was amortized, the $1
fee would terminate; Mr. Kenan stated the Commission could incorporate that
language into their deliberations at the initial meeting of SAFE.
Councilman Overholt asked if the funds raised could be used for any purpose
other than the freeway emergency system; Mr. Kenan answered no.
Councilman Bay noted in the Arthur Young Study that there was nothing which
showed that the cost of the program was goin& to total ~1.6 million a year.
The potential revenue was $1.6 million and the projected cost ~1.1 million
which would not necessarily be $1 per automobile. He assumed then that the
revenue was going to be set up on a ratio to meet the costs. If the fee was
set at $1 per car, there was going to be an overage. He was also concerned as
to when it would end and also wanted to know if the OCTC was allowed to use
the revenue for administrative costs.
Mr. Kenan stated that 0CTC could not use any of the revenue for administrative
costs but SAFE could. Only those charges assigned directly for the work
related to the program could be charged off.
Councilman Bay commented on the fact that Los Angeles County paid for the call
box system out of general funds but Orange County offered no such solution.
121
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
He was concerned that throughout the State when it came to transportation
Orange County always had to be first in coming up with a new revenue source to
do the things that had to be done, without additional revenue sources, which
was not true in other counties throughout the State. He did not believe that
Orange County was getting a fair shake in comparison to other counties.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-78 supporting the establishment of
the Orange County Service Authority for freeway emergencies and directing the
Orange County Transportation Commission to serve as the Service Authority for
freeway emergencies in Orange County. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-78: A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CItY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-78 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler suggested that a letter accompany the resolution when
transmitted expressing the concerns enumerated by the Council especially
relative to the sunsetting of the fee.
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-70 through 86R-77, 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 Anaheim City School District (File No.
2501-86-0002) for indemnity for claim from a third party for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 29, 1985.
b. Claim submitted by Nancy King for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 10, 1985.
c. Claim submitted by Mark Kelm for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about December 14, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Donald L. & Gale A. Averill for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 12, 1985.
122
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
e. Claim submitted by V. S. S. Inc., dba Vehicle Springs Service for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 5, 1985.
f. Claim submitted by Sandra Sundstrom for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 27, 1985.
g. Claim submitted by Diane Krawl for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 21, 1985.
h. Claim submitted by Karen Birtcher for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 27, 1985.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - denied:
i. Claim submitted by Stephen Anderson for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 16, 1985.
J. Claim submitted by Greg Lawson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 1, 1985.
Claims filed - recommended to be accepted:
k. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company (File No.
B-175710-05-RWB) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about November 18, 1985.
1. Claim submitted by Wayne & Karen Bilhartz for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 8, 1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Report for January 1986.
3. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the six
month period ended December 31, 1985.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the North Orange County Community
College District to provide dance bands for tea dances at Martin Recreation
Center in La Palma Park for the calendar year of 1985, with the profits shared
50 percent by both parties.
5. 123: Authorizing a First Amendment to Agreement with Tri-County Officials
Association in an amount not to exceed $53,000 to provide athletic officials
to officiate the adult sports leagues conducted by the Recreation Department
for a one year period commencing March 1, 1986.
6 a. 123: Accepting the termination of the agreement with Lee's Maintenance
Company effective February 19, 1986 to provide custodial services.
b. 160/123: Accepting the bid and authorizing an agreement with Menzies
International California, Inc., dba Certified Building Maintenance, in an
123
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
amount not to exceed $388,641.12 for the two year period, March 1, 1986
through February 29, 1988, with firm pricing for the first year and pricing
subject to change but limited to 80% of the Consumer Price Index on the second
year, to provide custodial service for the City, in accordance with Bid No.
4297.
7. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-70: 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. (Broadway Street
and Storm Drain Improvement, Broadview Street to Empire Street, Federal Aid
Urban Project No. M-Mil2(2), Account Nos. 12-791-6325-E1460 and
51-484-6993-00732; and opening of bids on March 27, 1986)
8. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-71: 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. (Kraemer Boulevard
Street Improvement, Crowther Avenue to 450' south of La Palma Avenue, Federal
Aid Urban Project No. M-M007(1), Account Nos. 46-793-6325-E3770 and
51-484-6993-00710; and opening of bids on March 27, 1986)
9. 175/137: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO.
83R-168 OF THE CITY COUNCIL (AS HERETOFORE SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED).
(Amending Resolution No. 83R-168, authorizing the issuance of Electric Revenue
Anticipation Notes, covenanting that the City will comply with each provision
of HR 3838 and a Letter of Instruction from Bond Counsel pertaining to HR 3838)
10. 175/123: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-73: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER OF THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES RRT.ATING TO THE INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT AND A RELEASE BY
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF LOS ANGmL~S IN THAT CERTAIN ACTION ENTITLED CITY OF
ANAHEIM V. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SA.ID RELEASE ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Approving the terms and conditions of certain agreements
between the City and the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los
Angeles relating to the Intermountain Power Project and a release from the
City to Los Angeles in that certain action entitled "City of Anaheim v. LADWP
SCV 225 301, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager, or his
designated representative, to deliver to LADWP these certain agreements and
said Release and to execute such other documents as are necessary to dismiss
the subject litigation)
11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
12. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-75: 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 #3426-1)
124
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-76: 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 #3500-37 & 38)
14. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-77: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES.
(C.P. NO. 305 AND R/W NO. 3638)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-70, 86R-71, and 86R-73 through 86R-77:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-70, 86R-71, and 86R-73 through 86R-77,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 86R-72:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-72 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
175/123: UPRATING OF ADDITIONAL UNITS AT THE HOOVER DAM POWER PLANT:
Councilman Pickler moved to authorize the execution of an Interim Power
Purchase Contract with the Bureau of Reclamation (U.S. Department of Interior)
and the Western Area Power Administration (U.S. Department of Energy), to
provide funds for uprating of additional units at the Hoover Dam Power Plant,
as recommended in memozandum dated February 21, 1986 from the Secretary of the
Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - EL TORITO RESTAURANT: Councilman Pickler moved to
approve the application for a public dance permit submitted by E1 Torito
Restaurant, 2020 East Ball Road for dance to be held March 1, 1986, from
12 noon to 5:00 p.m. in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Police. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held February 3, 1986, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-14 (READV.) AND VARIANCE NO. 3518 (KEADV.):
Submitted by Dorothy Lee MacDonald, proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000
to RM-1200, to construct a 25-unit apartment building on property located at
917 and 925
125
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
South Webster Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum fence
height, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum number of bachelor units.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC86-33 and 34,
granted Reclassification No. 85-86-14 (Ready.) and Variance No. 3518, and
granted a negative declaration status.
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 207: Submitted by American Home Mortgage, to
amend the Riding and Hiking Trails portion of the Environmental Resource and
Management Element Including the deletion of the Nohl Ranch Trail and portions
of the Lakeview and Four Corners Trails and addition of trail segments
adjacent to Royal Oak Road and Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-35, granted
Exhibit B of General Plan Amendment No. 207, and granted a negative
declaration status.
A public hearing will be held on the subject GPA No. 207 on March 18, 1986.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2757: Submitted by Sik Yam Chan, et al,
(Rustic Motel), to construct a 57-unit addition to a 24-unit motel on CL zoned
property located at 916 South Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-36, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2757, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2758: Submitted by A. G. and Doris Richter,
(Uncle Gee'z Restaurant), to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing
restaurant on CL zoned property located at 1098 North State College Boulevard,
with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-37, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2758, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2759: Submitted by General Electric Company,
(General Electric), to retain the accessory indoor storage of polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) in an existing industrial building on ML zoned property located
at 3601 East La PalmaAvenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-38, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2759 for a period of two years to expire
February 3, 1988, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3532: Submitted by Gary A. Nie, to construct a 2-story,
4-unit apartment building on RM-1200 zoned property located at 415 South
Kroeger Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural
setback from an alley, (b) minimum sideyard setbacks, (c) minimum
recreational-leisure areas.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-40, granted
Variance No. 3532, and granted a negative declaration status.
126
55¸.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 3533: Submitted by Estate
of Verla W. Brown, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200, to
establish a 2-lot, single-family residential subdivision on property located
at 660 South Sunkist Street, with Code waivers of minimum lot width and
frontage and permitted orientation of structures.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC86-41 and 42,
granted Reclassification No. 85-86-20 and Variance No. 3533, and granted a
negative declaration status.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3535: Submitted by Michael J. Garan, et al, to establish a
2-lot, single-family residential subdivision on RS-7200 zoned property located
on the east side of Evelyn Drive, south of Cypress Street, with Code waivers
of minimum lot width and frontage and required rear yard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-43, granted
Variance No. 3535, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2722 --SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by PBS, Inc.,
requesting approval of specific plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2722, to
construct a 3-story, 41-foot high commercial building with certain Code
waivers on property located on the north side of Santa Aha Canyon Road and on
the southwesterly side of Riverview Drive.
The City Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2722 -
Specific Plans.
10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-4 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2605--EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by Grubb and Ellis, requesting extensions
of time to Reclassification No. 84-85-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2605, a
proposed change in zone to CL, to permit a multi-screen indoor theatre and
semi-enclosed restaurant on property located on the north side of La Palma
Avenue, west of Imperial Highway, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 84-85-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2605, to expire January 21, 1987.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-25 AND VARIANCE NO. 3136--EXTENSIONS OF TIME:
Submitted by Gunston Hall, Inc., requesting extensions of time to
Reclassification No. 79-80-25 and Variance No. 3136, a proposed change in zone
to RM-2400, RM-3000, RS-HS-22,000 and OS zones, on property located
southwesterly of Nohl Ranch Road, between the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road
with Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 79-80-25 and Variance No. 3136, to expire January 21, 1987.
12. CO~;DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2762: Submitted by Don V. and Garnet A.
Edmunds, (Power Breaking, Inc.), to retain a concrete breaking and removal
operation with outdoor storage and required enclosure of outdoor uses on ML
zoned property located at 2691 East Taft Avenue.
127
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-39, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2762, and granted a negative declaration status.
The City Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
13. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 208, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-21AND VAILIANCE
NO. 3534: Submitted by Kathleen F. and Sammy John Nobles, Terry F. Wylie and
Edward L. and Yolanda E. Roldan, to consider an amendment to the land use
element of the General Plan from general commercial and low-density
residential designation to medium density or low-medium density residential
designation, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a
40-unit apartment complex on property located at 1918-1932 East Cypress
Street, with Code waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC86-44, 45 and 46,
recommended adoption of Exhibit B and denial of Reclassification No. 85-86-21
and Variance No. 3534, and granted a negative declaration status.
The City Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing will be held on March 18, 1986.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED.
123/153: ORDINANCE NO. 4696: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4696 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4696: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AN AMEND~T 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 Ordinance No. 4696 duly passed and adopted.
149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4697: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4697
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4697: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING A NEW
SUBSECTION .2280 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING AND STOPPING. (relating to parking
and stopping on Carpenter Avenue, on the north side and on the south side,
from Shepard Street to the easterly limit of Carpenter Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
128
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4697 duly passed and adopted.
142/107: ORDINANCE NO. 4698: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4698 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4698: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
7.24.030, 7.24.050, 7.24.060 AND 7.24.070 ANDADDING SECTION 7.24.080 TO
CHAPTER 7.24 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DISTRIBUTION
OF HANDBILLS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4698 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4699: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4699 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4699: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass 84-85-12, ML, 2790 East Ball Road)
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. 4699 duly passed and adopted.
114/111/162: NO SMOKING ORDINANCE: Councilman Overholt referred to letter
dated February 20, 1986 received from Allan Hughes, Executive Director of the
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and expressed his concern that the Chamber had
taken the position that, "no amounts of modification or alteration would be
acceptable to the business community" relative to the proposed ordinance. The
Chamber is opposed to the proposed ordinance, "based on the conviction that
any attempt by government to regulate smoking in the private work place is an
unacceptable invasion into the private sector..." Regardless of the Chamber's
philosophy he (Overholt) would still welcome specific critiques of the
proposal and as requested at the meeting of February 4, 1986 that the Chamber
come up with some recommendations dealing with the problems that they see
might be involved in implementing the work place portion of the ordinance.
The Council was scheduled to consider the ordinance again on March 4, 1986 and
any information from them as an organization, from their members or any part
129
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
of the business community to assist the Council in trying to work its way
through the issue would be helpful.
114/106: BUDGET DATA: Councilman Bay asked if the budget information he
requested at a previous Council meeting was now scheduled to be discussed at
the Council meeting of March 18, 1986.
City Manager William Talley answered that it was not scheduled for that date.
The third-quarter sales tax information was expected to be received around the
16th to the 18th of March.
After consulting with staff, Mr. Talley reported that the figures would be
available on March 17, 1985 but he felt it best that the matter be scheduled
for the March 25, 1986 meeting so that staff could prepare a report and submit
it for that date.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be
held to confer with the City's Attorney regarding:
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. Potential Litigation - pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9B1.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:32 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:46 p.m.)
170: PUBLIC HEARING - PARCEL MAP 85-420:
APPLICANT:
Evedean and Craig S. Miller
7688 Calle Durango
Anaheim, Ca. 92808
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: Requesting amendment of conditions of approval to
create a 3-parcel division o~ land on approximately 1.9 acres located on the
southeasterly side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west side of Martin Road and the
north side of Martella Lane.
HEARING SET ON:
Appeal of the City Engineer's decision by letter dated January 2, 1986.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 13, 1986.
Posting of property February 14, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 13, 1986.
STAFF INPUT:
Report of the City Engineer dated February 13, 1986 recommended
approval and upholding of the conditions imposed regarding
drainage relative to Parcel Map 85-420.
130
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Craig Miller, 7688 Calle Durango.
The property he owns is almost 3 acres in size. The purpose of
the subdivision is to build a house on one lot, to get bank
financing for one lot and to have the land legally subdivided
for each of his three children.
It is strictly for estate planning. A storm drain needs to be
installed on the west corner requiring 15 feet of easement. The
present storm drain of 8 or 10 feet adequately handles the drain
off. The storm drain was approved to be installed om his
neighbor's property but he refused to negotiate or talk to
anybody. He (Miller) did not mind giving up the 15 feet but he
definitely needed the lot split. (He submitted a photograph of
the house he intends to build).
COUNCIL QUESTIONS:
Mayor Roth.
It was his understanding that when the master plan for the hill
and canyon area was developed, the subject area was going to be
treated differently where the people developing in that area
would have to pay for the storm drains as the property
developed. He assumed this situation was nothing out of the
ordinary but standard procedure.
STAFF INPUT
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
The condition relative to the storm drain was a very normal
one. The City has a master planned storm drain, in a drainage
reimbursement district. The parcel being proposed to be
subdivided is in a position where the alignment of the storm
drain needs to go through it, and the typical way is to get a
dedication of an easement through the parcel map or some other
zoning action. If the City did not obtain the easement in that
manner, it would have to be purchased at a later date and funds
expended from the reimbursement district. There were funds
available to reimburse the Millers for a portion of the cost.
The City is only requesting as a condition that the storm drain
be placed along the frontage of the property. The storm drain
would have to be extended at a later date and as the further
property develops, those people would have to pay the acreage
fee, and extend the storm drain. He confirmed that it is only
an access easement so that the City can maintain and clean the
storm drain. The property could be used except there can be no
construction over the easement portion.
Mr. Miller.
They are not questioning paying a proportionate share of the
storm drain development but the additional $50,000 to $60,000 to
install the drain and the period of time it will take to get
reimbursed. The storm drain costs including engineering will be
approximately $40,000.
131
City Hall.~ Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler.
It was his understanding it would cost Mr. Miller $9,575.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
The storm drain including engineering costs would be
approximately $40,000. The reimbursement district is being paid
at the rate of $2,090 per acre by the Millers. With that
contribution and with the $24,700 the reimbursement fund now has
to reimburse the Millers, it was estimated that the balance
would be approximately 59,500 and that would be repaid as
development occurs. It was only an estimate but he was
comfortable that it was realistic.
Evedean Miller.
In discussing the matter with Anacal Engineering who has been
looking at that area and the storm drain requirements for
approximately two years, they estimated that according to the
City to improve the storm drain along their property, the
estimated cost was between $70,000 and 580,000.
Gary Johnson.
Jay Titus of his staff indicated that the $80,000 was for the
entire storm drain because it would need to be extended. That
would be the only way he could see that it could cost 580,000.
Craig Miller.
If he had known that, there would have been other directions he
would have taken coming through plan check. The matter was
never discussed. They already had their plan to do the grading
and the only thing they wanted was a lot line change for the
three lots.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The $40,000 figure given by the City Engineer is based on actual
bids recently received.
Mr. Miller.
He confirmed he did not have a written bid from Anacal
Engineering.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked Mr. Miller if the figures given by the City with the
amount in the reimbursement fund and the upfront fee of $9,500
was going to be a problem.
Mr. Miller.
He answered that was acceptable.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
132
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve Parcel Map No. 85-420, subject to the same
conditions imposed by the City Engineer without any change. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2747 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLI CANT:
McDonald's Corp., (McDonald's Restaurant),
8840 Complex Drive
San Diego, Ca. 92123
(Skip Sterling, owner)
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-8 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2747. Approved EIR - negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appeal by Mr. Jay Kent Bewley and Mr. James W. Schmidt, Bewley Maintenance
(owners of the adjacent car wash).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 13, 1986.
Posting of property February 14, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 13, 1986.
NOTE: Advertising included the fact that the public hearing would be
continued to March 25, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. as requested by the applicant and as
acted upon by the City Council at their meeting of February 11, 1986 by motion.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1986.
STAFF INPUT:
Leonora N. Sohl, City Clerk
The City Council at its meeting of February 11, 1986 indicated
their willingness to continue the public hearing to the meeting
of March 25, 1986 since the agent for the applicant in his
letter of February 4, 1986 reported that he would be out of the
country on February 25, 1986, the day the public hearing was
originally scheduled.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilman Roth moved to confirm the Council's previous action that public
hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2747 be continued to Tuesday, March 25,
1986 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:10 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
being present.
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
(7:00 p.m.)
133
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2738 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Euclid Street Baptist Church of Anaheim
1408 South Euclid Street,
Anaheim, Ca. 92802
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-17 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2738, in part. Requested waivers (a), (b), and (c) were granted
for a period of three years to expire July 1, 1989.
HEARING SET ON:
Appeal by Howard Richey.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 13, 1986.
Posting of property February 14, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 13, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 20, 1986.
APPEI3ANT'S
STATEMENT:
Howard Richey, 1655 Palais Road.
A petition containing 401 signatures of residents in opposition
who are directly affected by the proposal, and 50 to 60 letters
had been submitted. He then referred to the map posted on the
Chamber wall indicating by orange markings those residents of
the immediate area surrounding the church property who were
opposed. The neighborhood is expressing their opposition to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2738 in its entirety. He stated the
issues on which each spokesman would speak - land usage,
depreciation of property values, future use of home at 1677
Chanticleer, Hope University and all church schools, zoning and
uncontrolled growth, traffic, noise, and the testimony of
residents whose property abuts the church property and school.
He then submitted a letter from Mr. Don Reed, Principal of Hope
School in the Anaheim Union High School District which clarified
that Hope School is one of the schools of the Anaheim Union High
School District, a public day school program serving the needs
of developmentally disabled students between the ages of 13 and
22, and that Hope University is a private program serving adult
age students who have an interest in music. There is no
relationship between the two programs. The Hope University
program is experimental by their own admission. It is not a
matter of, "not in our backyard" but a matter that should
134
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
concern the Council - whether the 1408 South Euclid Street is
the place for such a trial when the land is surrounded on three
sides by single-family homes and on the fourth by one of the
busiest streets in Anaheim.
PUBLIC INPUT-
IN OPPOSITION:
Gloria Biehl, 1639 Chanticleer.
The issue is solely one of land use. The property involved is
2.9 acres and the uses in relation to the surroundings are the
important factors, factors that place limitations on the
property. It is not a good location for the proposed facility.
The illegally established school has outgrown the property. The
property is not suitable for any school. There is no buffer
zone and there is no way of creating one. It is perfectly
suited for a church and a small pre-school. The use should be
returned to that use and remain only that. Trying to legalize
something because it is there does not make sense. If it is
approved, the Council should simply condemn the 21 legally
existing and lovely homes surrounding the subject property
because the Council would be doing exactly that without so
admitting at this time.
Rose Struck, 1517 West Harriet.
By allowing the use, the home values of the community and
neighborhood surrounding the proposed site would drop or remain
stagnant. The residents purchased their homes in good faith and
the City should not betray that faith and trust. The residents
are objecting to the requested change of the present zoning to
accommodate a University which does not belong in a residential
neighborhood. There is no benefit to the City or community
short or long term. The effects of the Council decision will
have long-range implications. The residents are opposed to a
school of any kind, or for any apartments to be built on the
premises.
Dorothy Rubin, 1674 Chanticleer.
Reverend Crow purchased a private residence at 1677 Chanticleer
7 years ago across the street from her home which was to be used
for the church Secretary. In the past 5 years, numerous
residents have come and gone. In the last few years, the house
has been used for church classrooms. The pool and grounds have
been used for church activities. The house will be included in
the purchase for use by the staff of Hope University.
Additional adjacent homes will be especially attractive to Hope
University. The residents are adamantly opposed to new school
zoning and new apartment zoning abutting single-family
residents. She urged the Council to vote no on the CUP - no
schools, no Hope University, no apartments.
Corrine Newell, 1679 Buena Vista.
She first submitted three letters sent to Pastor Crow of the
135
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Euclid Street Baptist Church by the former Planning Director,
Ron Thompson dated July 21, 1976, October 10, 1980 and June 7,
1984. The residents are asking the Council to consider the real
issue - land usage and zoning suitability. Their experience
with the Euclid Street Baptist Church has been far from
pleasant. She recounted some of the history starting in the
Spring of 1982. She also referred to the November 25, 1985 and
January 6, 1986 Planning Commission minutes containing extensive
testimony (see minutes those dates). None of the residents
purchased homes next to a school but open ground or a church.
No school zoning of any sort has ever been shown on zoning
searches done by realtors for recent purchases.
There is only 4 feet 9 inches between her home and the fence
that abuts the present CL zoned property, i.e., for professional
offices or a quiet use. None of the 10 residents abutting the
1408 South Euclid Street property play areas support Conditional
Use Permit No. 2738. She asked that the Code Enforcement
Manager be asked about the 1982 CUP request and that the City
Attorney clarify the letters submitted. The residents have
tried to be tolerant, but an increase of 47 school children to
190 over three and-one-quarter years is abuse of property that
slices right through a housing tract. The land was never
developed to accommodate a school. The final proposal is a
boarding school housing musicians. There could be 6 uses on the
property - a church, daycare, pre-school, elementary school,
Hope University and the Discovery Twirlers, a square dancing
group. She urged the Council to deny the CUP on the real issue
- land use. Quiet use is needed, not impacted use.
Louise Dreher, 1656 West Palais.
They selected their home because it did not abut the grade
school. When Pastor Crow came by their house with a petition
for a church to be built that would abut their property, they
were assured it was only for a church and he would personally
make provisions to control noise, traffic and "be a good
neighbor." Although apprehensive, they signed the petition and
since then they have been let down by both Pastor Crow and the
City by (1) allowing expansion of the church originally there,
(2) the construction of 2-story buildings too close, to property
lines and overhead power lines, (3) use of the plant
(facilities) for a school. By not properly fencing and
controlling his property, Pastor Crow has invited many
unsupervised activities to take place. The transfer of the
property to Hope University represents a further perversion of
the original agreement as well as a risk to the City and Hope
University in establishing a substandard permanent facility for
their activities. She asked that the Council take the necessary
action to return the parcel of land to the use the homeowners
agreed to and deny the use of a school or any permanent facility
for Hope University.
136
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Adrian Douglas, 1567 West Palais.
The residents have been and will continue to be confronted with
the operation of the pre-school and the elementary school along
with being subjected to the possibility of the establishment of
Hope University to be operated in conjunction with those schools
already functioning on the site. It means a traffic increase,
an increase in the number of people and the extension of
operating hours. Occupancy will increase from approximately 275
to 322 adding to the current traffic problems. The intersection
of Ball Road and Euclid now handles 120,000 vehicles a day. He
conducted a traffic survey on the Euclid Street entrance of the
subject site on February 24, 1985 at 6:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m.
Fifty-five vehicles entered the church property and 3 remained.
On February 25, 1986 on the Edda Lane entrance, there were a
total of 135 vehicles and 20 remained. It is obvious that the
existing pollution and traffic problems can only be made worse
if the CUP is approved. The area residents are requesting
denial of the CUP.
Rosemarie Schulmeister, 1684 West Palais.
The proposed use on the 2.9 acres would be use by a pre-school
from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., an elementary school from 8:30 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m., Hope University from 4:00 p.m.to 9:00 p.m. plus
the Baptist Church and their activities. There is already over
use on the property. Added to that will be additional noise of
traffic and construction crews to construct the 2-story
building. Her home is 10 feet away from the church buildings
and she is very concerned. Relative to the existing buildings,
there were 66 Code violations. She wanted to know if those had
been corrected, if the Fire Chief had inspected the site and if
there were adequate fire exits. There is very little
maintenance of the existing buildings. She is concerned about
the quality of the structures amd soundness of the buildings.
She questioned her rights and asked that the buildings be
inspected to see that they meet the current Code standards.
Debbie Katz, 1678 West Palais.
Her home backs up to one of the 2-story buildings used as
classrooms. What was believed to be for Sunday School only had
grown into a pre-school and elementary school with over 250
students. The noise was intolerable. Windows on the second
story have been open on days when it is warm and children have
walked up to those windows. There is no fire exit on the back
side facing her yard. Lights were still left on all night
lighting up her bedroom as reported at the Planning Commission
hearing of January 5, 1986. Noise was emanating from the
building at 3:30 a.m. on February 21, 1986. She wanted to know
what was going on and also the use of the 2-story apartment
building. She urged the Council to say no to Hope University
and to eliminate the pre-school and elementary school leaving
the church with no schools at all.
137
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Bruce Newell, 1679 Buena Vista. He has been an Engineer for
28 years. He then gave a presentation relative to the concerns
about noise disturbances existing at present and the noise level
study that Hope University had undertaken by Alfred Long on
December 7, 1985. He submitted a comprehensive and detailed
diagramatic chart showing the current and proposed buildings on
the subject site, the surrounding residences, and sound level
measurements he had taken delineated by several colors with
sound levels documented under different circumstances. Ail
readings were higher than the City of Anaheim Code noise level
of 60 decibels (db). Readings taken ranged from 65.0 db to 92.4
db (see charts entitled - Graphic Representation of Hope
University Sound Levels, Page 1 and Measured Levels Combined
with Background Noise - Noise Levels Projected, Page 2 - made a
part of the record). He concluded his extensive presentation by
stating that the proposal was not suited to be implemented in a
tract with residential homes and urged that the Council give the
residents their well-earned peace by voting no to all of CUP No.
2738. The residents needed a decrease in noise levels and not
an increase of any kind.
MarilynRichey, 1655 Palais.
The residents were not given prior notice when the 2-story
building was built behind the Dreher's residence or the
establishment of the schools by either the church or the City.
She questioned why the residents must be subjected to church and
school petitioners countering the residents efforts in opposing
further expansion of uses and neighborhood impact when only a
handful lived within a block or two of the church grounds and
the rest lived in other parts of Anaheim and even other cities.
The question is whether or not the residents want a school on
the property. The answer is no. She urged the Council to deny
CUP No. 2738 in its entirety.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (8:27 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:32 p.m)
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Gregory Sanders, Attorney, representing the applicant, 3200 Park
Center Drive, Suite 660 Costa Mesa, Ca. 92625.
He first asked for a show of hands of those present in support.
There were roughly 130. Essentially, two issues are involved.
The first related to the planned phaseout and transition of the
Euclid Street Baptist Church and the Euclid Street Christian
School and the second relating to the permitted use on the
property for Hope University. He first clarified the residency
population of the proposed building on the corner of Buena Vista
and Euclid Street which would contain 8 units and house
approximately 35 students.
138
43
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Sanders then referred to letter dated February 19, 1986 sent
to the Mayor and Council Members outlining several issues
beginning with the Purpose of Petition for a CUP. The only
purpose for applying for the CUP is to make sure that when the
Euclid Street Baptist Church vacates the property entirely, that
Hope University will be a permitted use on the property.
Mr. Sanders' extensive presentation then focused on a refutation
of the allegations made by the residents whose homes abutted the
property - traffic, noise, privacy, off-site parking and
buildings constructed without building permits (see Mr. Sanders'
letter of February 19, 1986 - Pages 2, 4, 5 and 6 which
addressed each issue including supporting documents in the form
of exhibits attached to the letter A through I). He also
addressed the following issues broached in the presentation of
the opposition: the lowering of property values (he submitted a
pamphlet, "They Will Not Lower Property Values"), emphasized the
fact that the inference had never been made that Hope University
and Hope School were affiliated, and that a number of minor
violations had been corrected.
Mr. Sanders concluded, if Hope University is to thrive in
Anaheim and if it is to be a permitted use on the property
currently occupied by the Euclid Street Baptist Church, it is
necessary that a sufficient amount of time be given to the
church and school to transition out of the property. In order to
do so, he is recommending an amendment to Condition Nos. 26 and
28 of Resolution No. PC86-17 (see Page 7 of the February 19,
1986 letter), the first having to do with the phaseout of the
school, and the second with the phaseout of church activities
until the congregation is completely dissipated.
Vincent Lupo, 22708 Stag Street, Canoga Park, Ca. 91504,
Spokesperson for Hope University, Member of the Board of
Directors of Hope, and past National President of UNIC0 National
amd current National Chairuu~n of UNICO's Mental Health Program.
He is the original petitioner on the property in question. He
then briefed the history and purpose of UNIC0 (Unity,
Neighborliness, Integrity, Charity and Opportunity). UNICO felt
the property at 1480 South Euclid is ideally suited and
located. If Hope University could turn out young individuals as
gifted, talented and as fine as HI-HOPES, Discovery Twirlers and
Joy Singers, everyone should feel proud of the accomplishment.
He confirmed for Councilman Overholt that UNICO's involvement is
in support financially of the building of a UNIC0 College for
the gifted mentally retarded. UNICO is the financial backing
but had nothing to do with the curriculum, were not involved
with Euclid Street Baptist Church, and were not involved with
the purchase of the property.
Doris Walker, 1755 West Greeuleaf, Executive Director, Hope
University/UNICO National College.
139
44
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
She explained the Hope University program, described the typical
student and explained why the subject property and facilities
were ideally suited for their purposes. She presented petitions
in support containing 1,076 signatures including those of 432
Anaheim residents.
Louis Rohrs, 818 South Lemon, Pastor of Trinity United Methodist
Church.
HI-HOPES have been using their facilities weekly for the past
year and have not posed any problem relative to sound. He lives
next door to the church and at no time did he hear HI-HOPES
practice with their amplified instruments. At no time did they
pose any trash problem in the parking lot, there had been no
complaints from adjoining areas, and approximately 60 to 70
students were there at the same time. He urged approval of the
CUP.
Kenneth K. Kendall, Jr., 2105 West Forest Lane, Anaheim. He
represents Glass Mountain Inn, a local charity whose handicapped
members wished to voice their support for Hope University.
There were 19,000 handicapped citizens in Anaheim. They were
looking for compassion, understanding and fair treatment.
Paula Margeson, 3311 West Lincoln.
She was speaking as an Anaheim resident, President of Access
Anaheim, and staff person for the Dayle McIntosh Center for the
Disabled. She spoke in support of the subject application.
Dr. Paul Ktenel, Executive Director of the Association of
Christian Schools International.
He asked the Council's support of the application. It would
give the school of 250 students time to relocate and enable an
orderly transition.
Susie Teffler, 1550 West Palais, representing Euclid Street
Baptist School as a parent and neighbor in the community. Their
children have been enrolled in the school for the 5 1/2 years
since moving into their home. They are proud of having the
church and school in their neighborhood. It i~ good for the
neighborhood and a wonderful opportunity for the students of
Hope University to be able to use the property for their
functions. She submitted a petition containing 526 signatures
in favor as well as letters from the students of the Euclid
Street Baptist Elementary School. Many of the signatures are
from Anaheim neighbors. It is important for the school to have
a 3-year transition period in order for the students and the
school staff not to be upset.
Julie Mayer, 1531 West Harriet Lane.
She expressed her personal support for Hope University to
establish a Fine Arts school at the subject site. She was
140
City Hall~ Anaheim} California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
speaking as a parent of a handicapped child and on behalf of the
Anaheim Arts Council expressing that Council's support of the
project.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Bay.
He asked the City Attorney for a legal opinion on statements
made by Mr. Sanders, (1) that the current church operations are
all related and legal under the current CUP, and (2) that Hope
University is also a related use and legal under the current
CUP. In reading the Planning Commission's decision, the
Commission implied that the current church operations were not
all related and legal.
Jack White, City Attorney.
His opinion after carefully reviewing the provisions of the
Zoning Code as well as the existing CUP for the church is that
Hope University, the elementary school, and the pre-school
together with the proposed 8-unit housing facility which would
be in the nature of a dormitory for students at the University,
is that each of those uses would independently require a CUP
just as the church requires and has a CUP. It is his opinion
that none of those uses are accessory uses which are otherwise
permitted as incidental to a permitted church use on the
property. Even though he did not have an occasion to speak with
Mr. Thompson, the City's previous Planning Director, he believed
that his letter was the basis for some of the positions that
have been taken by the applicant. He also did not believe that
any member of his staff had occasion to discuss the matter with
Mr. Thompson before he (Thomspon) sent out his letter to the
church. He reiterated his opinion that each of the uses
independently would require a CUP regardless of whether or not
the church continued in existence at the location. To that
extent, he disagreed with both of the statements made by Mr.
Sanders.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager.
Answering Councilman Bay's question on the Code violations,
there were 31 Code violations found in October of 1985 and all
had been corrected with the exception of the modular classrooms
which were still on the premises.
Councilman Bay.
The issue is one concerning churches all over the City, current
and future, and whether or not the interpretation not only by
the City's legal advisors but also by the Council determines
whether day schools, elementary schools, high schools or any
other operations are church related uses and covered under the
umbrella of a CUP. The advice of the City's legal Counsel is
they are not.
141
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She referred to the letters submitted by Mrs. Newell dated
July 21, 1976, October 10, 1980 and June 7, 1984 from Ron
Thompson, Planning Director to Pastor Crow. If she had received
those letters, she would have assumed she was totally covered.
SUMMATION/REBUTTAL BY THE APPELLANT:
Mr. Jack Olson, 1646 West Chanticleer.
He referred to the show of hands requested by Mr. Sanders of
those present in support. He asked for a show of hands on those
people who previously raised their hands who lived in the
affected neighborhood, i.e., the Anawood Tract east of the
Euclid Street Baptist Church. There were approximately 3
people. The issue has been presented as an emotional one. The
residents living in the affected area and as outlined on the
posted chart did not speak on emotion. In order to put the
issue in proper perspective, it was necessary to consider the
use of the property as if the future owners and users of the
property were not handicapped. The speakers opposed contested
the use of the land, but the speakers in support tended to
promote the emotional issues. The residents are objecting to
the use of the property as a school. If the subject property
were used as originally intended instead of being used as
proposed, none of the current problems would exist.
Mr. Olson then spoke to the issues of traffic, noise, privacy,
the 8-unit apartment with 3 bedrooms for each unit, and other
issues in his summation. He emphasized that all the comments
made are with respect to having the school on the property not
with having retarded children or adults in the neighborhood.
The objection is to having a school on a piece of property, that
is too small and too confined for that property. Ail of the
speakers for the opposition lived in the area surrounding the
property. The people who know what is best for the community
are the people who live in that community. None of the people
had an objection to the church but to the school and the
apartments.
COUNCIL ACTION:
~ayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Questions were then posed by Council Members to a number of speakers to
clarify certain statements made in their presentations as well as questions
posed to the City Attorney and Planning staff.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Councilman Roth.
He noted that Mr. Olson stated when the students were up to 260,
it was time to do something. The proposal presented will be
winding down those figures and it was a good proposal. It was
an opportunity for the church to phase out the schools thereby
reducing the activity. Further, Pastor Rohrs testified to the
142
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
fact that the practices held at his facilities were not
disruptive.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Reiterated the fact that the thrust of the 3 letters written by
the Planning Director to Pastor Crow indicated that he (Crow)
had permission to expand and continue every use. She was
concerned over the accusations and inuendos that everything on
the property was illegal.
Jack White, City Attorney.
He gave his input and opinion relative to the 3 letters
specifically the letter of July 21, 1976. As he indicated
previously, he knew of nothing that would indicate that Mr.
Thompson was basing his information on any legal advice from the
City Attorney's Office. He personally did not agree with the
comments that indicated somehow the approval of a church by a
CUP would automatically allow a day-care center to be operated
in conjunction with that church. He would have to believe at
the time the permit was approved in 1970 and even the original
one in the early 1960's, it was not the contemplation of either
the applicant, Planning Commission, or City Council that
approval of a church would automatically also be deemed approval
of a pre-school or elementary school on the property regardless
of the size. He did agree if he received the letter of July 21,
1976 he was entitled to continue the activity Just as the letter
of June 7, 1984 also so indicated with regard to Hope
University. The October 10 letter related to portable units on
the property rather than a specific use. The letters did,
however, indicate there was no intent of the parties to conduct
an illegal activity.
The legal point that needs to be made is whether or not as a
matter of law Mr. Thompson had the right to bind the City
Council by his representations as to what may or may not be
legal under the Zoning Code. An individual member of the City
staff does not have a right to make a representation to an
individual upon which they rely if it turns out that that
representation is later incorrect and that it would be binding
upon the City.
Councilman Bay.
He asked staff what had been the pattern on uses by churches in
the City. There were a number with schools and day-care
centers. He questioned if they had specific CUP's, was the
present issue an exception, or just like the rest.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Having reviewed 8 churches in the City approved during the past
20 years, the practice has been that CUPs have addressed schools
and in many cases the number of children. Through the years, it
has become more strict.
143
210
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay.
The pattern fits the legal opinion of the City Attorney.
Regardless of the decision tonight, it is important that the
Council stay clear on the requirements of CUPs under the City's
ordinances and laws and what the pattern has been so that the
Council did not establish a precedent that once there is a CUP
for a church, it can do anything that the church considers is
related to its activities under that CUP. He felt strongly that
land use precedents set on an emotional argument are the most
dangerous thing to zoning and the protection of residents of the
City now and in the future. If there is no other greater
purpose than zoning and for people to put up with zoning in a
free enterprise government, they have a right to depend on the
fact that it will protect the peace and tranquility of where
they live. He reiterated, the issue tonight is purely one of
land use.
Councilman Pickler.
He felt the issue was emotional on both sides. The church was
operating a pre-school and an elementary school since 1978. If
Hope University had not come in, the issue would not be what it
was today. Complaints in the past have been about the noise,
and the neighbors wanted that eliminated. The subject proposal
would do that. The church was not a problem. The levels of
traffic, noise and congestion were not in violation of the
City's Codes. He would hope that both sides could resolve any
issues. Although there was no legal CUP, the implication was
that it was there. The noise element was going to be removed
since Hope University would be for only 100 students with a
building that was going to accommodate 8 students and perhaps
their parents. The Council could also make it a condition of
the CUP that a site plan review of the plans for Hope University
be submitted to the Planning Commission and also the City
Council.
Councilman Overholt.
The church people felt they were within their rights as far as
the City was concerned to do what they were doing. He was
concerned, as he already stated, that the residents did not
start complaining about the activities on the property until the
fall of 1985 and the City of Anaheim through the Planning
Director, rightly or wrongly, took certain actions that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that they had a right to do
what they were doing. It was also his understanding that the
church owned a house on Chanticleer. He wanted to know if it
was being used by the church at the present time.
Gregory Sanders.
The church owns one house on Chanticleer.
is being sold to a private resident.
It is in escrow and
144
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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, and incorporating the Planning Commission findings
and the public comments received both at the Planning Commission and City
Council regarding environmental matters. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-79 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2738, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions but amending Condition Nos. 26 and 28 as follows:
Condition 26 - That the existing elementary school shall be permitted
in conjunction with the church for a maximum of 250 students for the
1985-86 school year; a maximum of 160 students for the 1986-87 school
year; a maximum of 120 students for the 1987-88 school year; and a
maximum of 100 students for the 1988-89 school year. The elementary
school shall be completely relocated from the site no later than
July 1, 1989.
Condition 28 - That the existing church use shall terminate within
three (3) years from the date of the resolution, provided however
that after the expiration of three years church and Sunday school
activities may be conducted on the property on Sundays, Christmas Eve
and Christmas Day with a maximum church service attendance of 250
persons.
That the site plans for Hope University when they decide to build be
submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2738.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay spoke against the Resolution.
The Planning Commission set up to remove the elementary school
by July of 1986. The church services will exist as long as
there is anyone who wants to attend. By offering the resolution
as stated, the Council was making legal all the functions taking
place on the property now, adding Hope University, and
continuing the church services. In effect, the resolution
ignores all the requests from the surrounding neighborhood and
the people who had to live with it making it worse than the
ruling from the Planning Commission.
Councilman Overholt.
No one had an objection to the church use, but to school use.
He agreed with a 3-year trailing off period for the school until
145
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
July of 1989. He suggested relating the reduction of the
elementary school to when Hope University is established on the
property.
Additional discussion followed between Councilman Overholt, Gregory Sanders
and Doris Walker revolving around the phaseout of the school wherein
amendments were made that were acceptable to the applicant and in which
Councilman Pickler concurred.
Jack White, City Attorney.
He suggested minor changes and additions to the conditions for
Council consideration, one being that the only use of the 8-unit
housing facility be for the students of Hope University with a
covenant to be recorded on the property stating same.
Gregory Sanders.
He suggested that the Council limit the use to students of Hope
University, staff and members of the students' immediate
families. There will be occasions when parents would be
visiting from out of town and Hope University would like the
flexibility to enable them to house people overnight;
Councilman Pickler.
He later confirmed that his intent was to allow students,
faculty and parents to be housed in the 8-unit apartment
building.
At the conclusion of discussion on modifications and additions to the
conditions, Councilman Bay asked for clarification if the Council was voting
that the school will be there until July of 1989, the church will be there
forever, and Hope University could come in any time they were ready.
Jack White, City Attorney answered yes, and further providing that Hope
University would not be allowed to commence until the elementary school was
cut in size not to exceed 160 students.
A Roll Call Vote as then taken on the foregoing resolution with amendments and
additions to certain conditions as follows:
AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 21:
That prior to issuance of a building permit for the 8-unit housing
facility, the existing pre-school and elementary school uses shall be
wholly terminated from subject property.
AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 26:
That by July 1, 1989, the existing elementary school shall be wholly
terminated from subject property. The student enrollment shall be
reduced, in phases, as follows:
(a) Maximum enrollment of 250 students through July 1, 1985.
(b) Maximum enrollment of 160 students through July 1, 1987.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
(c) Maximum enrollment of 120 students through July 1, 1988.
(d) Maximum enrollment of 100 students through July 1, 1989, on
or before which date the elementary school will be terminated on
subject property.
A covenant stipulating to the phased termination shall be recorded in the
office of the Orange County Recorder. Prior to recordation, said covenant
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Proof of recordation
shall be furnished to the Planning Department within 90 days from the date of
this resolution.
AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 28:
That the existing church use (Euclid Street Baptist Church) shall
terminate within three (3) years from the date of this resolution, or
by July 1, 1989, whichever is later; provided, however, that after
said termination, church and Sunday school activities may be
conducted on the property on Sundays, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day
with a maximum church attendance of 250 persons. A covenant so
restricting such use shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney prior to recordation. Proof of recordation shall be
furnished to the Planning Department within 90 days from the date of
this resolution.
NEW CONDITION NO. 29:
That no portion of Hope University shall commence on subject property
until the elementary school enrollment is reduced to no more than 160
students (July 1, 1986).
NEW CONDITION NO. 30:
That occupancy of the 8-unit residential facility shall be limited to
students, staff, and/or immediate family members of Hope University
students; and that a covenant so restricting such use shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation.
Proof of recordation shall be furnished to the Planning Department
prior to issuance of a building permit for such facility.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-79 duly passed and adopted.
101/123: LOS ANGELES RAMS AGREEMENTS.' City Manager William Talley briefed
memorandum dated February 25, 1986 from Program Development and Audit,
recommending that the Council approve four agreements with the Los Angeles
Rams Football Company, consent to assignment and assumption documents and to
approve as to form proposed form of contracts to be entered into between the
Rams and licensees of the Rams (see memorandum dated February 25, 1986 -
subject: Los Angeles Rams Agreements Pages 1 through 3 - made a part of the
147
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 25, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
record). He had reviewed the documents as well as members of his staff and
concluded they were not detrimental to the position of the City. He
recommended Council approval.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the following agreements with the Los Angeles
Rams Football Company: 1) Second Amendment to Operations Agreement; 2) Master
License - Executive Box Suites; 3) First Implementation Agreement; and 4)
Operations Agreement - Executive Box Suites. That the Council consent to the
following documents: 5) Assignment and Assumption of Lease and Consent of
City of Anaheim; and 6) Assignment and Assumption of Leasehold Interest and
Consent of City of Anaheim. That the Council approve as to form the proposed
forms of contracts to be entered into between the Rams and licensees of the
Rams which forms are entitled: 7) Los Angeles Rams - Executive Box Suites
Anaheim Stadium Sublicense Agreement; and 8) Sublicense Agreement for Seats -
Anaheim Stadium, as recommended in memorandum dated February 25, 1986 from
Program Development and Audit. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was opposed to voting on the
matter tonight since he did not have a chance to read the documents.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted no.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:22 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
148