1986/07/01City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
P~S~T:
~S~T:
P~S~T:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING: Norman J. Priest
CODE ENFORCEMENT & SUPERVISOR: John Poole
PROJECT ENGINRR~: A1 McDougall
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Clark Robb, United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT: Mr. James Reichert,
General Manager, Orange County Transit District (OCTD) presented a Resolution
of Commendation to the City of Anaheim and to the Northeast Industrial Area
Transportation Management Association. He acknowledged the newly-formed
Transportation Management Association established by a group of Anaheim
industrial businessmen and the City of Anaheim to improve traffic circulation
through Anaheim's northeast industrial area.
119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Roy Smith - Chairman
Econolite Control, Don Mitchell - Vice Chairman Rockwell, Bob LeBlanc - Vice
Chairman Hughes Aircraft, Vince Taormina - Vice Chairman Anaheim Disposal,
John Dorming - Vice Chairman California Dealers Auto Exchange and Allan Hughes
- Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Roth and Council Members personally
acknowledged the recipients. The immediate goals of the Association are to
implement transportation system management strategies such as ride share,
carpool and van pool programs, thereby improving traffic circulation through
the City's northeast industrial area.
119: INTRODUCTION - POLICE OLYMPIC MEDALIST WINNERS: Police Chief Jimmie
Kennedy introduced the following 1986 Police Olympics Medal Winners in the
20th Annual California Police Olympics held in Newport Beach June 4 through
June 29, 1986. Mayor Roth and Council Members personally congratulated each
Medal winner:
Bowlin~: 5th Pl. Bronze - Team Event: Jim Watkins, Ron Godsey, Ron Rasper,
Frank Stoobant; 3rd Pl. Bronze - Doubles Event: Jerry King, Al Burbrink.
Cycling: 4th Pl. Bronze - SI-Mile Road Pace: Patti Wasielewski.
505
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Equestrian: 3rd Pl. Bronze - Flag Race: Carl Fonceca.
Golf: 5th Pl. Bronze - Singles Senior: Joe Engelhardt; 5th Pl. Bronze -
Singles Grand Master: Jerry LeMar.
Swimming: 5th Pl. Bronze - 100-Yard Backstroke: Paul Shepard.
Tennis: 3rd Pl. Bronze - Singles: Georgia Walton.
Track: 2nd Pl. Silver - i10-Meter High Hurdles: Jim Watkins.
Triathlon: 5th Pl. Bronze - Triathlon Masters: Paul Grugel.
Wrestling: 3rd Pl. Bronze - 162-1b. Class: Sal Ippolito.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously
adopted by the City Council for the family of Bill Strasburg, an Anaheim
resident for 26 years and an employee in Golf Operations of the City for the
past 3 years.
119: RATIFICATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: The City Council ratified a
Resolution of Appreciation to Bob Hutchinson, upon his retirement from Kwikset
Company, after 37 years of dedicated service as well as his service to the
City of Anaheim and various Civic organizations. The resolution was
previously presented.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held June 17, 1986. Councilman Overholt seconded the Motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 33,052,089.45, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 86R-295 through 86R-296, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims filed against the City recommended to be Accepted:
506
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
a. Claim submitted by Linda J. Caprara for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 25, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by Herbert L. Caster for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 10, 1986.
2. 153: Rescinding the Request for Amendment to the City's Long Term
Disability Plan regarding eligibility for employees in classifications
represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association.
3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Norman J. Priest to provide a $9,500
supplemental retirement benefit for assuming the duties of Planning Director
in addition to services as Executive Director Community Development.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Blurock Partnership in the amount of
$28,000, plus reimbursable expenses not to exceed $4,500, for architectural
services in connection with preparation of a Master Plan for improvement and
modernization of the Anaheim Central Library, to be completed within one year.
5. 180: Rejecting the offer of Rollins Burdick Hunter, Broker of Record, to
plmce an order on behalf of the City for comprehensive general liability
ingurance.
6. 123: Accepting the offer of Rollins Burdick Hunter, Broker of Record, to
place the City's order for blanket property insurance coverage, underwritten
through the Insurance Company of North America and the Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company, for the period July 1, 1986 to July 1, 1987, at an annual
pre~ium cost of $790,000. (Amended at meeting to a premium cost of $802,500)
City Manager William Talley stated the recommendation was to accept an offer
of $790,000 but in binding that coverage, the City was advised of an increase
which will require $25,000 per one million for a portion of coverage, which
would raise the recommendation of $790,000 to $802,500. A new staff report
was submitted today July 1, 1986, and Item 2 in that report is recommended.
7. 128: Approving the FY 1985/86 write-off o~ uncollectable miscellaneous
accounts receivable totalling $134,106.
8. 101/124: Approving the FY 1985/86 write-off of uncollectable Tenant
Accounts receivable totalling $21,141.84 for the Stadium/Convention Center.
9. 123: Authorizing the termination of a contract with Greet and Company for
the design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for Carbon
Creek Bikeway and authorizing staff to submit an application to the Orange
County Transportation Commission to reallocate SB 821 funds in the amount of
$400,000 from Carbon Creek Account No. 17-798-E8010 to Sidewalk Programs Nos.
792 and 793.
10. 160: Accepting the bid of Petroleum Facilities Construction Company in
the amount of $20,930 plus lab fee and contaminated soil removal for
installation of underground fuel tank, Fire Station 37, in accordance with Bid
No. 4347.
507
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
11. 161/1231 Authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Agency and
Chevy Chase Anaheim Partners (Carl Karcher and Terrance Barry), to provide for
acquisition of certain real property generally located in the Chevy Chase area
and to prepare a Relocation Plan.
12. 174: Authorizing the submission of an application for participation in
the 3rd Round of the Rental Rehabilitation Grant Program to obtain an
allocation in the amount of $83,000.
13. 177: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter of endorsement for 25
Housing Vouchers under the Section 8 "Voucher" Housing Assistance Payments
Program.
14. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the Salvation Army, in the amount of
565,408 for the first year, 532,704 for the second year and no fee for the
third year, to provide two full-time outreach workers for youth outreach and
recreation services in the Central City and Patrick Henry neighborhood areas.
123: Authorizing an agreement with the Boys' Club of Buena Park in the amount
of 519,300 for the first year, 59,650 for the second year, and no fee for the
third year, to provide Joint year-round recreation services at Manzanita Park.
123: Authorizing agreements with the Anaheim Family YMCA, in the amount of
55,000 for the first year, 52,500 for the second year, and no fee for the
third year, to provide an annual one-week summer camping experience and weekly
use of facility for predominantly low-income youth.
City Manager Talley referred to staff report dated June 27, 1986 from Chris
Jarvi, Director of parks, Recreation and Community Services, which pointed out
that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers the use
of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for carrying out the Youth
Outreach Worker activities on Salvation Army premises a violation of
separation of Church and State. Staff was, therefore, working with the
Salvation Army to change the location. Staff was recommending that the
Council approve the agreements involved but withhold execution of the
Salvation Army agreement until a location could be found that would not
violate the law.
Councilman Overholt then posed questions to staff relative to the ruling since
he was aware of a number of SalvationArmy facilities totally devoted to youth
activities supported by some public funds. He also suggested if that were the
case, one of the other agencies could fall under the same criticism (YMCA).
Norm Priest, Director of Community Development and Planning, reported that HUD
informed them of the situation last Thursday. It was not a Court ruling but a
HUD Directive and if violated they would withhold the funds. Relative to the
YMCA or YWCA, they do not conduct regular religious activities in their
facilities.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not inclined to accept HUD's directive
without protesting. He suggested proceeding with the program and finding
508
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 1~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
another location but still protest relative to why the activity cannot take
place at the Salvation Army facilities. He would like to have background
information on the matter as well.
The agreements were authorized by the City Council with the execution of the
Salvation Army agreement to be withheld until another facility is located.
15. 161: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-295: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DESIGNATING A SURVEY AREA FOR REDEVELOPMENT STUDY PURPOSES.
(Designating an amendment to Survey Area No. 85-2A for redevelopment study
purposes of the Anaheim Stadium area to include the commercial-recreation area
and requesting the Planning Commission to undertake said study)
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-296: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
Roll Call Vote:
AYE~:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-295 and 86R-296 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CAR/LIED.
175: WRITE-OFF OF UNCOLLECTABLE UTILITY ACCOUNTS: Councilman Pickler moved
to approve the FY 1985/86 write-off of Uncollectable Utility Accounts
totalling ~729,218.15, as recommended in memorandum dated June 24, 1986 from
the Secretary of the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
166/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4731 - SIGNS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY: Amending
Section 4.04.130 of the Code, pertaining to signs in public rights-of-way.
Report dated June 19, 1986 was submitted by the City Attorney attached to
which was a Version A and Version B of the proposed ordinance.
City Attorney Jack White briefed the provisions of the ordinance, Version A
(see June 19, 1986 report - Items 1 through 9). He also pointed out that
Version B was identical to A except that it contained an additional provision
allowing any private citizen to remove signs in the public right-of-way and
deliver custody to the City. He also explained for the Mayor how the proposed
ordinance differed from the City's current ordinance relating to such signs.
After the City Attorney's presentation, Mayor Roth stated if either Version A
or B of the proposed ordinance was adopted it should be clear that hanging
signs on cross bars of utility poles was also prohibited. Several candidates
to whom he had written asking them to remove their signs indicated to him that
hanging signs on cross bars was not in the public right-of-way; City Attorney
White stated he believed the current ordinance included the cross bars.
509
City Hall, A--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that letters be sent to the sign companies to
let them know that hanging signs on cross bars was illegal.
Council Members then posed a line of questions to the City Attorney relative
to the specifics of the provisions contained in the proposed ordinance. The
City Attorney explained the reason for including the provision that illegal
signs once taken down had to be kept by the City, stored and offered back to
the owner was to meet minimum due process requirements. It was dealing with
property not owned by either the City, or in Version B possibly the private
party removin~ the sign. He was particularly concerned relative to the
private citizen who might remove property and destroy it and the City could
potentially be in a position of legal liability by having adopted an ordinance
condoning that type of conduct. Further, it was difficult in some instances
for private citizens to know where the public right of way begins and ends.
Relative to the ~50 reward to the person giving information leading to
conviction of someone violating the ordinance, there would be one criminal
action involved. The conviction would be one of placing signs in the public
right-of-way and not a reward for each violation should, for example, 1,000
signs be involved.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4731 - Version A for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4731: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
4.04.130 OF CHAPTER 4.04 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
SIGNS IN PUBLIC KIGHTS-OF-WAY.
As a result of further Council discussion and input the following amendments
were made to the proposed ordinance to ensure that placing of signs on cross
bars on utility poles and parking control signs be specifically covered, that
relative to the reward for conviction it would be clear that each individual
criminal action that was brought would be the separate conviction and not the
number.of signs involved.
Councilman Pickler clarified that he was offering the ordinance as an amended
first reading; City Attorney White stated it would be available for Council
review by Thursday, Ju%y 3, 1986.
Mayor Roth was~interested in seeing that the current ordinance was enforced
thereby enablin~ City crews to remove existing political signs in the
right-of-way; City Manager Talley stated if the Council wished to have City
crews remove the signs, he would have that done and keep the signs down as a
City policy.
After further discussion, City Attorney White stated his preferrence from a
legal standpoint would be to operate under the new ordinance, if adopted,
instead of the current ordinance since he would continue to have concerns
about taking signs down and throwing them away.
Mayor Roth expressed concern that a new ordinance would not take effect for 30
days after adoption; Councilman Bay suggested that next week an Urgency
Ordinance be presented which would take effect immediately if adopted. City
Attorney White stated he felt appropriate findings could be made to Justify an
510
City Hall~ A-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Urgency Ordinance. He would prepare such an ordinance and submit it to the
Council for the next meeting along with a second reading of the ordinance
offered for an amended first reading today (Version A).
105: APPOINTMENTS TO FILL TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 1986 ON THE FOLLOWING BOARD
AND COMMISSIONS: This matter was continued from the meeting of June 24, 1986,
to this date.
105: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (4 YEARS) TERM ENDING JUNE 30~ 1990:
Councilman Roth nominated Herb Leo.
Nominations were closed.
Councilman Overholt moved to cast a unanimous ballot reappointing Herb Leo to
the Community Redevelopment Commission. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler nominated Joanne Stanton (new appointment). (Unexpired
term of Jane Oseid, ending June 30, 1990)
Nominations were closed.
Councilman Bay moved to cast a unanimous ballot appointing Joanne Stanton to
the Community Redevelopment Commission. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (4 YEARS) TERM ENDING JUNE 30~ 1990:
Councilman Roth nominated Jacquelyn Terrell, Rev. Bryan L. Crow, June Lowry
and Sheri Pignone.
Nominations were closed.
Councilman Pickler moved to cast a unanimous ballot reappointing Jacquelyu
Terrell, Rev. Bryan L. Crow, June Lowry and Sheri Pignone to the Community
Services Board. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler nominated Rick Gastil to fill a vacancy on the Community
Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1988; Councilwoman Kaywood
nominated Mary Hibbard to fill a vacancy on the Community Services Board for
the term ending June 30, 1987.
Nominations were closed.
Councilman Pickler moved to cast a unanimous ballot to appoint Rick Gastil and
Mary Hibbard to the Community Services Board for the terms ending June 30,
1988 and June 30, 1987 respectively. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: HOUSING COMMISSION (4 YEARS) REGULAR HOUSING COMMISSION - TERM ENDING
JUNE 30~ 1990 AND 2 YEARS - TENANT C0MMISSIONER~ TERM ENDING JUNE 30~ 1988:
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Elmer Thill, Joseph Ersek and Patricia Bayley.
511
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Nominations were closed.
Councilman Pickler moved to cast a unanimous ballot reappointing Elmer Thill
and Joseph Ersek as Housing Commissioners for the term ending June 30, 1990
and Patricia Bayley as Tenant Commissioner for the term ending June 30, 1988.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD (4 YEARS) TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1990:
Councilman Pickler moved to continue the appointment to the Industrial
Development Board for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
105: LIBRARY BOARD (4 YEARS) TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1990: Councilwoman Kaywood
nominated Jean McClain and LaFrance Terrell.
Nominations were closed.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to cast a unanimous ballot reappointing Jean
McClain and LaFrance Terrell to the Library Board. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: PARK ANDKECKEATION COMMISSION (4 YEARS) TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1990:
Councilman Roth nominated Gladys Wallace.
Nominations were closed.
Councilman Roth moved to cast a unanimous ballot to reappoint Gladys Wallace
to the Park and Recreation Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt moved to ratify the appointment of Gary Krteger, appointee
of the Savanna School District Board of Trustees as representative to the
Parks and Recreation Commission for the term ending June 30, 1990.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: PLANNING COMMISSION (4 YEARS) TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1990: Councilwoman
Kaywood nominated Lewis Nerbst and E. Chuck McBurney.
Nominations were closed.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to cast a unanimous ballot reappointing Lew Herbst
and Chuck McBurney to the Planning Commission. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (4 YEARS) TERMS ENDING JUNE 30, 1990: Councilman
Bay nominated Dick McMillan and Jim Townsend.
Nominations were closed.
Councilman Bay moved to cast a unanimous ballot reappointing Dick McMillan and
Jim Townsend to the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
512
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
105: SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION (3 YEARS) TERMS ENDING JUNE 30~ 1989:
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated John Shanahan and Herman Siegmund.
Nominations were closed.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to cast a unanimous ballot reappointing John
Shanahan and Herman Siegmund to the Senior Citizens Commission. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: To consider renewal of the Charter for the
Project Area Committee, confirming reappointment and re-election of current
members; and appointment to fill vacancies, of appointed members.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to renew the Charter of the Project Area Committee
for a term of one year. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to confirm reappointment and election of current
members of the Project Area Committee, to expire June 30, 1987. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
127: GIVING NOTICE OF HOLDING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, REQUESTING
CONSOLIDATION AND ADOPTING REGULATIONS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution
Nos. 86R-297 through 86R-299, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-297: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1986, FOR THE RI.RCTION OF CERTAIN
OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-298: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4,
1986, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-299: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE
PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO
BE HRI.D ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1986.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-297 through 86R-299, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
513
City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held June 9, 1986, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3544: Submitted by City of Anaheim, (Canyon Honda), to
construct 3 freestanding signs and 3 wall signs at an automobile sales
facility on CL(SC) zoned property located at the northeast corner of La Palma
Avenue and Weir Canyon Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum
number and type of signs, (b) maximum sign area and display surfaces, (c)
limitations on sign lighting.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-147, granted in
part (deletion of Sign B), Variance No. 3544, and ratified the Planning
Director's categorical exemption determination (Class 11).
2. RECTASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-36 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2808:
Submitted by Ramon and Lila Calderon, for a change in zone from RM-1200 to CL,
to permit a chiropractic clinic in an existing residential structure on
property located at 890 South Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-149 and 150,
granted Reclassification No. 85-86-36 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2808, and
granted a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2806: Submitted by Properties Limited, (Loral
Enterprises), to permit an automobile repair facility in an existing
industrial complex located on Mi zoned property at 1242 La Loma Circle, with
Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-151, granted
(limited to current petitioner) Conditional Use Permit No. 2806, and granted a
negative declaration status.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3567: Submitted by Doug Watkins, to construct a family-room
addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 231 South Nutwood Street, with
Code waiver of required rear yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-154, granted
Variance No. 3557, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination (Class 5).
5. VARIANCE NO. 3569: Submitted by Euclid Shopping Center, to construct an
enclosed restaurant on CL zoned property located at the southeast corner of
Katella Avenue and Euclid Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-155, granted
Variance No. 3569, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3570: Submitted by Debra Rose Hunter, to construct a
family-room addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1212 Opal Avenue,
with Code waiver of minimum structural setback.
514
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-156, granted
Variance No. 3570, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination (Class 5).
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2541 (READY.) - REVISED PLANS= Submitted by
Kaiser Development Company, request for approval of revised plans for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2541, to permit a planned-commercial office and
light industrial complex that includes a hotel, restaurants and drive-through
financial institutions on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at the
southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-157, approved
Conditional Use Permit No. 2541 (Ready.) - Revised Plans.
8. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-23 AND VARIANCE NO. 3384--EXTENSIONS OF TIME:
Submitted by Duane Petersen, requesting extensions of time for
Reclassification No. 83-84-23 and Variance No. 3384, a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, construct a 14-unit apartment complex on property
located at 3538 West Savanna Street.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Reclassification
No. 83-84-23 and Variance No. 3384, to expire August 6, 1987.
9. VARIANCE NO. 1539--TERMINATION: Submitted by Callye Dee Douglas,
requesting termination of Variance No. 1539, to permit division of property
located at 1599 West Cerritos Avenue into two RS-A-43,000 lots, as a condition
of approval of Variance No. 3500.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-158, terminated
Variance No. 1536.
10. VARIANCE NO. 3358--TERMINATION: Submitted by Fred O. Koenig, requesting
termination of Variance No. 3358, to construct a commercial office complex
with certain Code waivers on property located at the northeast corner of Santa
Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, as a condition of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2722.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-159, terminated
Variance No. 3358.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 6--TERMINATION: Submitted by John Slack 0il
Company, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 6, to permit
storage and or baling corrugated cartons, storage of empty bottles and large
cans, miscellaneous metals and rags salvaged from the operation of trash
collection on property located at 501 South Olive Street, as a condition of
approval of Variance No. 3467.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-160, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 6.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1008--TERMINATION: Submitted by Gfeller
Development Company, Inc., requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit
No. 1008, to expand a go-kart rental facility with sales and service on
515
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard,
as a condition of approval of Reclassification No. 82-83-4.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-161, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1008.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERM_IT NO. l175--TE~MINATION: Submitted by Jay Cowan,
requestin~ termination of Conditional Usze Permit No. 1175, to establish a
48-space, overnight travel trailer park in conjunction with an existing motel
on property located at 2760 West Lincoln Avenue, as a condition of approval of
Condition Use Permit No. 2648.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-162, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1175.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1252--TERMINATION: Submitted by Dale Booms,
requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1252, to permit the
expansion of an existing private educational facility on property located at
225 and 229 South Loara Street, as a condition of approval of Reclassification
No. 84-85-1.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-163, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1252.
15. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1356--TERMINATION: Submitted by Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, Inc. And Anaheim Medical Arts Association, requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1356, to establish a private
recreational facility in conJunctionwith a proposed medical arts office
building on property located at 1188 North Euclid Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-164, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1356.
16. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1482--TERMINATION: Submitted by Business
Properties, requesting termination of Conditional USe Permit No. 1482,
permitting a public skill driving course on property located at 2400 East
Katella Avenue, as a condition of approval of Reclassification No. 83-84-24.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-165, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1482.
17. VARIANCE NO. 2587--TERMINATION: Submitted by Pierco Development Inc.,
requesting termination of Variance No. 2587, to establish a recreation vehicle
storage yard with certain Code waivers on property located at 3614 West Ball
Road, as a condition of approval of Variance No. 3507.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-166, terminated
Variance No. 2587.
18. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2282--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by James P.
Edmonson, (Howard Johnson Motor Lodge), requesting an extension of time to
516
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2282, to permit an 8-story, 69-foot high, 90-room
hotel expansion on property located at 1380 South Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2282, to expire December 28, 1986.
19. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2784: Submitted by Ada I. Higdon, (Angelo's),
to permit a drive-in and drive-through restaurant with on-sale beer and wine
and an outdoor eating area on CL zoned property located at 221 North Beach
Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum distance of a drive-through lane.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-148, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2784, and granted a negative declaration status.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
20. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2807: Submitted by Cosby Way Partners, to
permit personal auto repairs and storage in an existing multi-tenant
industrial building on }iL zoned property located at 1161 North Cosby Way, with
Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (denied).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-152, granted in
part, Conditional' Use Permit No. 2807, and granted a negative declaration
status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
21. CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 2810: Submitted by Adel Ara Ali, to construct
a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale of beer and wine, on CR
zoned property located at 1198 West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-153, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2810.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10982 (REV. NO. 1): Submitted by Kaufman & Broad of
So. Cal., to establish a 15-lot (plus 2 open space lots), residential,
single-family subdivision on property located northwest of the intersection of
Bauer Road and Monte Vista Road.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10982 (Rev. No. 1).
No action taken by Council.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(11:37 a.m.)
517
City Hall, Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:45 a.m.)
108: NEARING - qUALITY INNS INTERNATIONAL~ INC.- APPEAL OF ASSESSMENT:
Lawrence D. Curtis CPA, Manager, Tax Audits, Quality Inns International Inc.,
requesting abatement of the penalty and interest assessment on the late
filing of the Transient Occupancy Tax due on the Anaheim Quality Inns, Inc.
This matter was continued from the meeting of June 24, 1986, to this date.
Submitted was report dated June 19, 1986 from the Community Development and
Planning Department recommending denial of the request for the assessment of
penalty and/or interest assessment in the amount of 32,689.86. Report dated
June 17, 1986 from the City Attorney's Office was also submitted.
Terra Smith, Quality Inns, 516 Convention Way, Anaheim, stated according to
their records the check was mailed out on April 30, 1986. She has a copy of
the check dated April 29, 1986. According to Larry Curtis who is their tax
man in the Silver Springs Maryland Office there is a new employee in their
postal department. If the envelope was actually dated May 1, 1986, possibly
the employee did it in error having changed the date on the postal machine
after she finished her mailing and subsequently the check was taken down to be
mailed.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the check was due on April 30, 1986 and
supposedly it was mailed on that date instead; Ms. Smith stated it was her
understanding as long as it was postmarked on the 30th it was acceptable.
Jack White, City Attorney, clarified that the ordinance provides the City must
receive payment on or before the last day of the month with one exception,
payment is not deemed late if it bears a postmark from the United States
Postal Service on or before the last day of the month.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, reported that the stamp on the
envelope was placed there by the Quality Inn metering machine. It was dated
May 1, 1986. The Post Office does not stamp metered mail. The payment was
received by the City on May 5, 1986. Ms. Smith clarified that the employee at
Quality Inn stated it was possible that she had already turned the postal
machine on April 30, 1986 to May 1, 1986 getting ready for the next day's
mail. (Since Ms, $mlth had not seen the envelope, Mr. Poole showed it to
her). After viewing the envelope, she confirmed that it did say May 1, 1986.
It was obvious that the employee had turned the machine to the next day
because their records showed that the check was sent out on April 30, 1986.
They keep records showing every check taken to the mailroom to be sent out in
that day's mail. There was no way of knowing if it actually was mailed on
that date. Mr. Curtis had assured her that in the future checks would be
mailed at least 3 days before the last day due.
City Manager Talley expressed his concern that the Post Office does not cancel
metered mail and, therefore, the City would accept whatever cancellation date
put on it by the business involved.
518
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
After further discussion, Councilman Pickler moved to deny the appeal of the
penalty and interest assessment on the late filing of the Transient Occupancy
Tax due on the Anaheim Quality Inns in the amount of 32,689.86. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4725 - VENDING FKOM VEHICLES: Amending Section
14.32.310 of the Code relating to vending from vehicles. Establishing Permit
Application and appeal fees pursuant to Section 14.32.310 of the Code. This
matter was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1986.
Mr. William Sweeney, Orange County Food Service, 307 East Miraloma Avenue,
Anaheim, Ca. 92806, referred to letter dated June 30, 1986 from Tony Sigalos,
Vice President, Orange County Food Service. Their corporate headquarters had
been in the City since 1967. They have been operating in the City since
1941. They are concerned about the proposed ordinance. On each of their 48
routes they have in the City, approximately three stops require service from
public property. On those same 48 routes they serve approximately 960
businesses. A large part of those are located in the light industrial and
commercial areas. It was very difficult for them to tell in an industrial park
whether or not it was a public or private right-of-way. On their smaller
stops, they normally have 30 to 50 people patronizing their trucks. Assuming
they are placed in a position where they could not service the 144 stops that
they were sure are on public streets, that would affect between 4,300 and
7,200 people they serve each day. If in the industrial part the streets or
ways are a public property, the ordinance could affect as many as 40,000 plus
people. They are asking to be granted an exemption from the proposed
ordinance. They are not soliciting the general public or using the sidewalks
and streets for the purpose of selling to the general public but servicing
pre-arranged customers. They would also like to see the same exemption
applied to their industrial catering trucks. They provide a service to
employees who are unable to leave the premises to eat thus also mitigating
traffic that would otherwise be generated. They are also competitively
priced. They have been providing this service to the community for many
years. He asked first that the City Council grant them their requested
exemption or if they felt it could not be done, that they give Orange County
Food Service an opportunity to alert the people they are serving to let the
Council know how broad a segment of the community is interested in their
continued service.
City Attorney Jack White, in answer to Council questions, stated that he had
read the letter from Orange County Food Service for the first time this
morning. He would be in a position to make a recommendation today, pointing
out that in the language proposed in their exemption in current form is not
sufficiently broad enough to cover the service being provided to construction
sites. The wording as proposed relates to employees of businesses located at
a permanent location and he did not believe that a construction site was a
business located at a permanent location. The test would be whether or not in
carving out the exemption it would make the remainder arbitrary and
capricious. He believes this is primarily a policy issue and he could frame
an argument that could support the ordinance with an exemption. The purpose
of the ordinance, if it is to stand at all, is for the preservation of the
Public Peace, Health and Safety since it is concerned with regulating vehicles
519
City Hall, A-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
that stop to do their business on the public streets. The ordinance does not
regulate trucks that stop on private property. It is only meant to apply to
trucks stopping in the street. He also believes that the exemption, if
incorporated into the ordinance, would be similar in legal effect to the one
already being proposed which allows for delivery trucks to make deliveries
where a delivery is requested in advance. He reiterated he feels he could
legally sustain the ordinance even with the exemption. Any change to the
ordinance today would require that it be offered for an amended first reading.
Councilman Overholt stated that today, if the Council is sympathetic to the
concerns of Orange County Food Service as he was and as the Mayor also
expressed from the very beginning, is to amend the ordinance as proposed to
incorporate an appropriate exemption of the industrial catering service from
the public right-of-way in language to be prepared by the City Attorney.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the matter be continued for one week.
Councilman Bay stated that although the City Attorney may be able to defend
the position legally, he was not sure that he was ready to take part in
defending it from the standpoint of the intent of the ordinance. If the
exemption was permitted, it was his position it would break the backbone and
intent of the ordinance which is to protect people and businesses operating on
the street.
Councilman Pickler also agreed that there should be a continuance. He had
concerns just as Councilman Bay and wanted to be certain that in amending the
proposed ordinance, it was not going to affect the intent of that ordinance.
Councllwoman Kaywood stated the reason she suggested a continuance was to have
the City Attorney research and see whether the use is permitted under the
proposed ordinance and to ascertain whether delivery trucks could perform the
service they have been performing all along or if additional wording would
have to be incorporated.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney to provide both pro and con on the
recommended amendment. He wanted to see some arguments from the standpoint of
possibly weakening or strengthening the ordinance.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue a decision relative to
proposed Ordinance No. 4725 as well as permit application and appeal fees as
well as the establishment of permit application and appeal fees for one week.
Councilman Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be
held to confer with the City Attorney regarding:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No 40-92-46; Landers vs. city of
Anaheim, O.C.S.C.C. No. 32-24-82.
520
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - Jul~ 1~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
b. To confer with the City's designated representative regarding
labor relations matters. (Gov't. Code Section 54957.6)
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:27 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:51 p.m.)
134/179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 208,
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-21, VARIANCE NO. 3534 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Kathleen F. and Sammy John Nobles, Terry F. Wylie and Edward L.
and Yolanda E. Roldan,
111 So. Illinois Street
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: 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; 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-44 recommended adoption of
GPA No. 208 Exhibit "B". Resolution No. PC86-45 and 46 denied the
Reclassification and the Variance.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Hugo Vazquez, agent. This matter was continued from the meeting
of March 18, April 22 and May 20, 1986, to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQU~S MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 6, 1986.
Posting of property March 7, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 7, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 3, 1986.
Mayor Roth first asked for a show of hands of those present on the issue other
than the applicant; there were approximately 6 people present. He then stated
that the Council was inclined to continue the item due to conditions beyond
their control. However, they could hear testimony now from those who wished
to speak or wait until the continued public hearing took place; those in the
audience were agreeable to waiting relative to any testimony they might wish
to give.
Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing for one week.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Roth asked to hear from the applicant.
521
City Ba!!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
STAFF INPUT:
Hugo Vazquez.
He was agreeable to the continuance. Planning staff feels that
the plans need to be resubmitted through the Planning Commission
to make them fully aware of the changes.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
The Planning Department will need at least three or four weeks.
She has not seen the revised plans but she understands the
revisions are such that the project would come in under the
current density approved along Coffman, low medium density which
would modify the project seriously. For that reason, it would
be appropriate to go back to the Planning Commission. Their
issue was the density of the project.
Hugo Vazquez.
He has met with the church since the previous hearing. They are
ready to commit in writing to providing the access required.
The units have been reduced from approximately 40 to 27. The
plans submitted as of last week are for a 27 unit condominium
project complex. Condominiums are a happy medium with the
surrounding neighborhood. He had Just spent some time talking
to the Evelyn Drive residents to make them aware that there will
be variances to be addressed even for the 27 units which will be
under the RM-2400 zone. To propose owner-occupied units, the
Council will have to determine it to be in the best interest of
the City to provide owner-occupied units or whether they would
see fit to have it as a 27 unit apartment complex. To provide
condominiums on this site there would be 17 units under the
RM-3000 zone, with a density bonus for affordable housing. If
granted, it would take that number to 21 units maximum. He is
proposing 27 units or a 40 percent increase. He is talking with
the Housing Authority to see what value is going to be placed on
40 percent of the project as far as affordable housing to the
City.
Annika Santalahti.
With a density bonus, they can go to 25 percent over whatever
rezoning is granted as 10ng as it is consistent with the General
Plan, with condominiums that would be lower than low medium.
Jack White, City Attorney.
He assumes the project is going back to the Planning Commission
for a recommendation based upon the revised plans and the
Council will still retain the Jurisdiction to consider the
matter at the continued hearing. He recommends that the Council
continue the hearing in its entirety to a date certain and take
testimony on that date including the recommendation being
received at that time from the Planning Commission on the
revisions to the project. Further discussion followed between
522
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Council Members and staff relative to the flow time necessary
for the revised plans to be reviewed by staff and submitted to
the Planning Commission for reports and recommendations only.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on General Plan Amendment
No. 208, Reclassification No. 85-86-21, Variance No. 3534 and negative
declaration therefore to Tuesday, July 29, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
104: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-2 (TRACT
NO. 1859): To consider objections to the improvements of proposed Street
Lighting Assessment District No. 1980-2, comprised of each parcel of property
along and on Arbor Street, Crown Street, Glen Drive and La Palma Avenue in
Tract No. 1859.
PUBLIC NOTICEREQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 19 and 26, 1986.
Posting of property June 3, 1986.
Submitted was report dated May 20, 1986 from the Public Works/Engineering
Department - Gary Johnson, City Engineer, relative to the necessity for and
costs to be assessed for the reaffirmation of Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1980-2 (Tract 1859).
The City Clerk announced one written protest had been received from Hugo
Arellano, 1419 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92801.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed Street
Lighting Assessment District, there was no response.
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay noted that the letter of protest stated that the resident had
agreed to pay fees for five years. The five years are up but the fees are
going to continue. He wanted to kmow if there was validity to the objection.
A1 McDougall - Contract Administrator, Engineering Department, explained
letters were sent to all property owners in 1980 when the District was
originally formed informing the residents that the District was being formed
for only five years as required under State law and subsequently the District
would be extended for another five years in order to collect the total cost of
the project. Staff tried to reach Mr. Arellano by phone and spoke to his wife
who stated she would inform her husband of the call. Another letter was sent
in August of 1980 clarifying why it would take more than five years to pay for
the capital cost of installing street lights. He also noted that the
Redevelopment Agency was paying for half of the cost of the original
installation.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-300 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
523
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-300: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDERTHE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931.
(STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-2 - TRACT NO. 1859)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Overholt,
Bay, Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-300 duly passed and adopted.
104: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTKICT NO. 1980-3 (TRACT
NO. 1097): To consider objections to the improvements of proposed Street
Lighting Assessment District No. 1980-3, comprised of each parcel of property
along and on Sycamore Street, north side, from Harbor Boulevard to
approximately 160 feet west of Clementine Street in Tract No. 1097
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIKEMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 19 and 26, 1986.
Posting of property June 3, 1986.
Submitted was report dated May 20, 1986 from the Public Works/Engineering
Department - Gary Johnson, City Engineer, relative to the necessity for and
costs to be assessed for the reaffirmation of Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1980-3 (Tract 1097).
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed Street
Lighting Assessment District; no one was present.
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-301 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-301: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE KEPOKT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931.
(STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-3 - TRACT NO. 1097)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-301 duly passed and adopted.
104: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-4 (TRACT
NO. 1392): To consider objections to the improvements of proposed Street
Lighting Assessment District No. 1980-4, comprised of each parcel of property
524
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 1~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
along and on Helena Street between South Street and approximately 120 feet
north of Hampshire Street in Tract No. 1392.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 19 and 26,
Posting of property June 3, 1986.
1986.
Submitted was report dated May 20, 1986 from the Public Works/Engineering
Department - Gary Johnson, City Engineer, relative to the necessity for and
costs to be assessed for the reaffirmation of Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1980-4 (Tract 1392).
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed Street
Lighting Assessment District; no one was present.
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-302 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-302: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931.
(STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-4 - TRACT NO. 1392)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-302 duly passed and adopted.
104: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-7 (TRACT
NO. 2875: To consider objections to the improvements of proposed Street
Lighting Assessment District No. 1980-7, comprised of each parcel of property
along and on Dale Avenue, Stonybrook Drive, Newcastle Drive, Birckleaf Drive,
0akwilde Drive~ Bronwyn Drive and Keys Lane in Tract No. 2875.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 19 and 26, 1986.
Posting of property June 3, 1986.
Submitted was report dated May 20, 1986 from the Public Works/Engineering
Department - Gary Johnson, City Engineer, relative to the necessity for and
costs to be assessed for the reaffirmation of Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1980-7 (Tract 2875).
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed Street
Lighting Assessment District; no one was present.
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
525
City Ma!!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-303 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-303: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931.
(STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-7 - TRACT NO. 2875)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86K-303 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2792:
APPLICANT:
Samuel A. Hardage
110 South Main Street,
Witchita, Kansas 67202
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a 3-story, 200-unit hotel complex with
on-sale of alcoholic beverages on ML(SC) zoned property located at 5100 East
La Palma Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission Resolution No. PC86-120,
granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2792, approved ELR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of June 3, 1986.
Subsequently appealed by Kenneth A. Clark, Ciba-Geigy on behalf of businesses
in the area.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 19, 1986.
Posting of property June 20, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 20, 1986.
PLANNING gTAFF INPUT~
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 12, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. Hal Tolar, 1681 West Broadway, Suite 108, Anaheim, Agent for
the applicant.
The location of the subject property is at the southeast corner
of Kellogg Drive and La Palma Avenue in the northeast industrial
area. There are no variances requested for the proposed
project. He elaborated on the surrounding industrial uses, the
landscaped buffers involved in setbacks. Relative to traffic
concerns, the proposed hotel will not add to the existing
traffic burden. The design and purpose of the project is not to
attract tourism. It is a separate entity to support the
526
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
commercial-industrial area. There will not be 200 employees as
indicated by the letter of appeal to the Planning Commission's
decision. The customary one employee per room for hotel upkeep
was not valid in this case. The facility will have
approximately 25 to 30 employees as other such facilities do
around the country. The employees, 50 percent of which are
maids, will be going to the facility during business hours and
not peak traffic hours. Relative to the design of the building,
it is completely enclosed and has no center corridor. He
thereupon submitted a rendering of the proposed structure with
the exception of the center of the building as shown in the
rendering. He reiterated the design and purposes specifically
for commercial industrial travelers and not to compete with
hotels in the tourist area. At the Planning Commission meeting
they stipulated to no signing on the back of the building. The
users of the facility will be those who come to do business with
people located in the area. Relative to noise and air
pollution, the location has many buffers around it. The
facility will house very few people in relationship to the
existing population in the industrial commercial zone that are
located in the area already. If a concern exists with noise and
air pollution and if there are violations, any nuisance
complaints would not be concerned with this small facility but
with some of the major people in the area. Without the support
of satellite commercial uses complementary to the industrial
area, those businesses would probably not survive. The facility
and concept is not new to many parts of the country. People who
travel and call on such sites are comfortable with staying
within the facility. He then referred to a brochure prepared
relative to the design and purpose of the hotels specifically
for commercial and industrial use. Some of the letters they
have received in support of the existing facility in commercial
industrial parks are from Raytheon Company, General Dynamics,
and Hughes. He thereupon submitted the letters. In concluding,
he read letter from Richard Kredel from the Phil Four Twelve,
the representative for Canyon Corporate Center and Canyon West.
Those two facilities housed Hughes Aircraft and Rockwell
International representing 63.3,500 square feet of space in the
northeagt indugtrial area. The letter was supportive of the
proposal. The proposed hotel is a needed asset that they would
probably use.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Jerry Walsh, Attorney, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, 444 South
Flower Street, Los Angeles. He is the Counsel for the
co-appellants, Ed Kenny, President, Thoroughbred Racing Plate
Company, Jack Findley, Galiso, Herb Smith President, Quintec,
Ken Clark, Ciba-Geigy, Bill Freck, Floor Systems. Bill Wisener,
527
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 1~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Warner-Lambert is also present although he does not represent
the latter Company. Mr. Walsh then summarized the legal basis
for the appeal as indicated in his June 2, 1986 written appeal
(see appeal of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2792 and
Negative Declaration Pages 1 through 14). Mr. Walsh spoke to
many of the points outlined in the appeal document and
emphasized some of the issues he felt most relevant. The
applicant has submitted no evidence that the traffic patterns
from the hotel use will be at non-peak hours. There was also no
left turn into the proposed hotel site. The Traffic Engineer
has recommended an amendment to the circulation element of the
canyon area General Plan. He requested that all the records,
documents, studies, testimony and evidence that the City Traffic
Engineer, City Planning Commission or City Council may have
relating to any potential amendment to the circulation element
of the General Plan become part of the public record of the
appeal as evidence that the development of the proposed hotel
site will increase the existing traffic problems on La Palma
Avenue. It is also his understanding that the Traffic Engineer
met with the City Council in closed session resulting in the
recommendation of the preparation of an EIR relating to the
proposed amendment of the circulation element. He also
requested that all of the evidence and minutes present at the
closed session become part of the public record and that the
ordered EIR also become part of the record as evidence of the
traffic problem that will be exacerbated by the proposed
development.
Jack White, City Attorney.
He interjected to make a statement and recommendation to the
City Council. If the opponent has documentationhe wishes to
place in the public record as part of the evidence, he would
invite him to submit those to the Council for review. It was
inappropriate to refer to other proceedi~s, both public and
non-public and attempt to incorporate, by reference, documents
that may or may not exist and that the City may or may not know
how to identify and attempt to make those part of the record to
Mupport his case. If the appellant has documents to support his
Position, those should be submitted to the Council at this time.
Jerry Walsh.
He submitted minutes of the City Council meeting of April 28,
1986 as evidence that the Traffic Engineer did propose an
amendment to the circulation element of the Canyon General Plan
and also some Engineering studies and graphs received from the
file of the City Clerk's Office yesterday. He continued that
the Redevelopment plan permits uses compatible with uses in the
industrial zone which requires certain findings as a requirement
for permitting the compatible use. Relative to the negative
declaration, the dispute between the existing industrial uses
and the applicant and the inconsistencies between the
applicant's initial study, the testimony of the applicant and
528
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - C0UNCILHINUTES - July 1~ 1986, 10=00 A.M.
the co-appellants and the City Traffic Engineer is sufficient
evidence to warrant and mandate the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report prior to the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit.
Bill Wisener, 5335 East La Palms, Distribution Center Manager
for Warner-Lambert.
He is speaking on his own behalf. He cares about the subject
area. He has seen a deterioration in the industrial complex
between Lakeview and Imperial. Buildings that were industrial
have become vacant and as soon as they are vacant they are
gutted and turned into office buildings. Buildings are empty
because they are encroached upon by other businesses that made
it uncomfortable to exist in the same environment.
Herb Smith, President quintec, 4950 East La Palma Avenue.
They are a good neighbor and bmve spent a great deal of money to
comply with all regulations. They have grown to three
buildings. If a hotel had been there when they selected the
area, the company would not have located in that area. They are
very much opposed. They would not use the hotel for their
visitors. It is very desolate area in the middle of the night
and visitors prefer to be closer to Disneyland.
Kenneth Clark, Ciba-Geigy, 5115 East La Palma Avenue.
He gave testimony at the Joint meeting of the City Council and
Planning Commission previously..They manufacture aerospace
composites and employ 350 people. They are relocating all of
their operations including research and development,
administrative and executive staff to the Anaheim location.
They looked for an area specifically zoned industrial where the
zoning was clear. If they had suspected someone was going to
propose a hotel across the street, they would have kept
looking. They are very concerned about a quasi-residential use
across the street. There will be a conflict with industrial
uses. They did not want to discourage such a proposal in areas
around the industrial area which are commercially zoned
approximately 1/2 mile to the east.
Jack Finley, Galiso, 4920 East La Palms Avenue.
They do not have an objection to a hotel~in the area since a
hotel is a very useful and necessary adjunct. Their problem and
concern is the proposed location right in the middle of the
industrial development. They store material on the back of
their property. With a hotel located in the vicinity which
would also be accommodating families, their property would be an
attractive area for teenagers to explore. He is very concerned
about the possibility of injury and liability.
Ed Kenny, President, Thoroughbred Racing Plate Company, 1520
East La Palms Avenue.
529
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 1~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
They manufacture shoes for race horses and operate 23 out of 24
hours a day. He then explained the different process used in
the manufacture including a 250 lb. h-mmer located outside of
their main building in a concrete room of its own but with one
side exposed, the side that will be facing the hotel. They run
the hammer two or three times a month. There was no wall
separating the hotel from the hammer. The third-story of the
hotel would also be entirely exposed to their roof ventilation
system. He is concerned about complaints of noise and vibration
coming from his facility as well as security in the area. If
the hotel is allowed to be built in the middle of the industrial
area, it will change the entire complexion of the area. He
later confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the vibration from
the power b~mmers used at his facility could be felt perhaps 100
yards away and the west wing of the proposed hotel would be in
that range.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Hal Tolar.
He spoke to many of the issues raised by the opponents as well
as the traffic circulation study proposed by the Council. He
could not see a reason to continue the item or have it affected
by something started back in April. The proposal was a small
facility in relationship to what a six-acre industrial or
commercial site would hold in comparison, or the traffic
generated. Any noise or air pollution that would be a problem
for this hotel would be a problem for the whole general area.
Relative to aesthetics, the park'like settings and landscape
requirements for a hotel are more dense than for an industrial
site. Relative to the changes that have occurred since 1979,
industrial and commercial uses have changed drastically since
that period. Vacancies and buildings do not relate to bad
neighbors but are due to drastic changes in needs with high-tech
coming in. Relative to traffic, in peak hours people moving
into the facility would already be there. He urged the
Council's positive consideration today.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor R0th closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DISAPPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council
disapproved 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 substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked for a clarification of the
motion.
530
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL HINUTES - July 1~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney, Jack White.
If the motion carries, the City Council is not in a position to
approve the project. The Council would be required to either
continue the application until an EIR is prepared or deny it and
allow a new application to be filed until such time as an EIR is
submitted. Since the Planning Commission has not had the
benefit of the report if required to be prepared, the Council
may want to deny the project and allow it to go back to the
Planning Commission as a matter of course until such time as
there was a new application with the Environmental Impact Report
to allow the benefit of their input. The legal effect of
denying the CUP at this time would be that the applicant would
have the right to start over with an EIR which would then go to
the Planning Commission first as any new application. The
alternative was to continue the Public hearing to a date certain
which would be at least 90 days to give the applicant an
opportunity to prepare an EIRwhich could then come back to the
Council who would determine whether to get input from the
Planning Commission or act on it directly. He confirmed if a
negative declaration status was not appropriate, then an EIR
would be required.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, disapproving the granting of an
Environmental Impact Report Negative Declaration status. MOTION CAR/tIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-304 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2792, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-304: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2792.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she is
offering a Resolution of denial of the CUP on the basis that the
proposal is an incompatible use in the industrial area. While
the hotel might say at this time they would not be instituting
~nynuisance lawsuits against their neighbors, there could be no
guarantee. The area is zoned industrial on the General Plan and
the businesses who have located there have every right to
believe that it will remain industrial.
Councilman Bay.
In fairness to future applications, this should be a message to
future developers in the industrial areas that hotels in that
type of service should be looking at the perimeter of the
industrial zone for such uses and not the heart of the
industrial areas.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution:
531
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-304 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEAltING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2788:
APPLICANT:
Stafac Inc., (Shell Service Station)
100 West 10th Street
Willmington, Delaware 19801
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a self-service gasoline sales and a
foodmart with off-sale beer and wine on ML zoned property located at 3085 East
La Palma Avenue with the following Code waivers: (a) Maximum number of
freestanding signs (deleted), (b) permitted location of freestanding signs
(deleted), (c) minimum distance between freestanding signs (deleted).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission Resolution No. PC86-122,
denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2788.
HEARING SET ON:
Planning Commission decision appealed by Shell Oil Company.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 19, 1986.
Posting of property June 20, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 20, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 12, 1986.
City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that letter dated June 26, 1986 from Allan
Zall, attorney for the applicant, had been received requesting a continuance
of the public hearing to July 22, 1986 as well as letter dated June 27, 1986
from Dale Lewis, Shell Oil Company, requesting the same continuance·
Mayor Eoth asked if anyone was present to speak to Conditional Use Permit
No. 2788; no one was present.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2788 to Tuesday, July 22, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(3:56 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:03 p.m.)
532
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - July 1~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2738--AMEND CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL:
APPLICANT:
Euclid Street Baptist Church
1408 South Euclid Street
Anaheim, Ca.
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: to amend conditions of approval of Resolution No.
86R-79 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2738, 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.
PUBLIC NOTICEREQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 18, 1986.
Posting of property June 20, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 20, 1986.
HEARING SET ON:
Determined that a public hearing is required for an amendment to Conditions of
Approval at the meeting of June 3, 1986 (see minutes that date for
explanation).
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 18, 1986 from the
Community Development and Planning Department to the City Manager/City Council.
Mayor Roth first asked for clarification relative to Council action today.
City Attorney Jack White.
At the meeting of June 3, 1986 there were stipulations arrived
at by the principals which he indicated could not be approved at
that time because it would take a noticed public hearing to
amend certain conditions in the existing permit that had not
occurred up to that time because they were only talking about a
rehearing on the entire application. The rehearing request was
withdrawn with the City Council setting a hearing to amend
conditions of approval. Today the Council is looking at
amending certain of those conditions. The Council is in effect
condoning the stipulations the parties arrived at previously.
Today's hearing is for the purpose of amending conditions and
the Council can look at any of those conditions and amend them
in any way they feel appropriate and also either add or subtract
existing conditions.
Julia Sylva, Attorney, 0choa & Sillas, 617 South Olive Street,
Los Angeles, Ca. 90014.
She represents the residents of the Anawood tract. She referred
to and briefed her letter dated June 18, 1986 addressed to Mayor
Roth listing 6 items her clients wished to be added to the CUP
(letter previously made a part of the record). Each one has
533
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
been discussed with Mr. Sanders, Attorney for the applicant who
was not necessarily in accord 100 percent. She then clarified
for Councilman Overholt that relative to their definition of
transient guests, the residents do not want the 8-unit housing
facility to be used by people coming and going on a daily basis
which will generate commotion and traffic. They want it to be
used as a permanent residence for students and staff members and
if parents want to live there and stay there that would be
fine. Relative to parents utilizing the facility that could be
negotiated. If for one week, or one occasion, it would not be a
problem with the residents. They do not want the facility to be
used like a hotel. Relative to the windows on the north side of
the buildings currently used for classrooms and administration,
the residents have found that the windows are not permanently
closed as was to be the case and this has caused problems. The
residents would like the school closed on September 15, 1986 as
stipulated by Mr. Sanders but that the construction of the
8-unit facility not commence until July 1, 1989 because they
want a phase-in of Hope University. That facility is based upon
having 100 Hope University students.
Gregory Sanders, Attorney for the applicant, Leff & Jensen, 3200
Park Center Drive, Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626.
He referred to and submitted letter dated July 1, 1986 along
with a partial transcript (prepared by his office) of the
discussion held at the meeting of June 3, 1986. The letter
contains suggestions for consideration by the Council for
amendments to the Conditional Use Permit consistent with the
agreement reached with Mr. Richie during the June 3, 1986
hearing. The discussion indicated that the attorney for Mr.
Richie withdrew her application for a request for rehearing.
What she is proposing to do today is to have a de novo hearing
on the Use Permit. Since she has withdrawn her application, her
comments are entirely out of order. Ms. Sylva also agreed to
accept his (Sanders) amendment to the permit that the existing
preschool and elementary school be relocated from the church
property by September 15, 1986 rather than July 1, 1989 for the
elementary school and February 17, 1989 for the pre-school while
accepting every other condition of the Conditional Use Permit.
He then addressed each of the six issues raised by Ms. Sylva on
behalf of her clients in the June 18, 1986 letter.
1) Amplified equipment confined to gymnasium. The City has a
noise ordinance. If a problem, the residents can call the City
and have the noise ordinance applied if necessary.
2) It is consistent with conducting Sunday School to have some
playground equipment remain on the premises for Sunday School
students.
534
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July iF 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
3) The Conditional Use Permit provides a condition which allows
immediate members of the family of Hope University students to
visit students confined to the dormitory. It would be unfair
not to allow parents to stay in the housing facility.
4) The windows (on the north side) are permanently closed and
cannot be opened.
5) Relative to the construction and maintenance of a 6-foot
fence, the property owner will comply with all conditions of the
Use Permit.
6) Relative to construction of the Hope University dormitory
(the 8-unit housing facility) the condition imposed by the
Council (Condition No. 21 of Resolution No. 86R-79) provides
that prior to the issuance of a building permit for that
facility, the existing pre-school and elementary school uses
shall be wholly terminated from the property. Since it was
agreed that the school would be moved by September 15, 1986,
Hope University should be able to construct the dormitory when
the school relocates from the property which is entirely
consistent with the condition imposed.
In concluding, Mr. Sanders recommended that amendments be made
to Condition Nos. 14, 26 and 27 of the Conditional Use Permit as
outlined on Page 2 of his letter of July 1, 1986 consistent with
the agreement reached at the June 3, 1986 meeting: That both
portable classroom trailers shall be removed to restore the
required on-site parking and circulation by September 30, 1986;
that by September 15, 1986, the existing elementary school shall
be wholly terminated from subject property; that by September
15, 1986, the existing pre-school shall be wholly terminated
from subject property.
Extensive discussion and questioning of Mr. Sanders by Council
Members followed relative to the issues raised by Ms. Sylva.
During the discussion, Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for
Zonlng~ also reported that on the issue of the housing facility,
one of the other conditions of the permit refers to a covenant
on the property that was established in 1962 in connection with
the CL zoning. It specifies until February 17, 1987, no
construction other than business or professional offices shall
take place. If they wish to construct the building prior to
1987, they would have to seek removal of those covenants and the
City is a party to that.
Gregory Sanders.
He feels it will take considerably longer than February 17, 1987
to have the plans drawn and other planning occur and he feels
that construction before that time would be practically
impossible.
535
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
In the course of discussion, it was determined that there was
nothing in the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit
requiring windows on the north side to be permanently closed;
Mr. Sanders clarified for Councilman Overholt that his client
would be willing to stipulate that the windows on the north side
will remain permanently closed since they are permanently closed
at this time. Relative to the playground equipment, the
majority would be removed coincidental with the removal of the
schools. However, there will be a need for some equipment to
remain when Sunday School is in session. They do not intend to
remove all of the equipment.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor.
Relative to sound tests conducted on the property, they were not
done by the City but by the Orange County Health Department.
Gregory Sanders.
Submitted as part of the administrative record was a noise test
conducted by a Noise Engineer. The noise level was turned up to
double the normal amplified volume. The music was conducted
within the gymnasium facility. With the doors closed, the noise
level was undetectable outside of the gym at any point it was
measured. With the doors open, it was barely detectable.
Julia Sylva.
She and Mr. Sanders had extensive negotiation on the issues
outlined in her June 18, 1986 letter repeatedly which are
additional conditions being requested and not changing the
current ones in the CUP. Relative to the playground equipment,
they are amenable if it is going to be a limited amount only,
but they also want a certain amount of setback from the
homeowners and a 35-foot setback would be acceptable. Relative
to the 8-unit housing facility, students, staff and family
members are acceptable as long as they are not transient.
Regarding the permanently closed windows, she reiterated they
are not closed and they were not as late as June 25, 1986. At
this point, Item No. 3, 5 and 6 can be eliminated as being
resolved. On Item No. 1, however, she did not understand if
they were going to limit the amplified equtpmen~ to the
gymnasium or not but she feel that it has to be resolved.
Councilman Bay.
He explained if they do not conform to the noise ordinance,
there would be legal recourse to do something about it.
Julia Sylva.
She feels the issue should be resolved at this point if possible
by limiting it to the gymnasium and auditorium. They have all
been misled by Mr. Sanders' negotiations. She was led to
believe they were going to be resolved without Council
intervention but that is not true at this time. The residents
536
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim, Califorrda - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
are very concerned about the abuse handed to them for the past
25 years. It was not an easy resolution or negotiation and she
has been assured by the residents this will be the last attempt
to negotiate and there will be no further requests. They are
very m~nor issues and not something that cannot be addressed by
the Council.
Relative to the fence, she referred to staff report dated June
18, 1986 stating that pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit
submitted by the church in 1970 requiring that they shall
construct a wall along the northeast and south property lines
where it did not exist. The residents want to be able to live
in tranquility, they want a phase-in and they do not want things
thrown at them as in the last 25 years. It is her understanding
complaints were raised previously but nothing was done.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Ethel Halpren, 1666 West Chanticleer.
She asked if a block fence was going to be built on the north
side of the property where there is presently a wood fence.
They want a block wall fence.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor.
The staff report dated June 18, 1986 explained that when staff
prepared the recommended conditions for the approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2738, they inadvertently left off a
block wall fence to be constructed on the north property line.
It was required on the east and south. The condition was
imposed when the church expanded in 1970. Staff did not follow
up and the condition was never met. He confirmed it is staff's
recommendation that the condition be imposed at this time,
including a block wall fence 6 feet high on the north property
line.
Louise Dreher.
She is familiar with the fence situation from the beginning.
They were told fences were going to be installed but they never
were. In talki~ about the north wall they are only talking
~bout the back of four houses. The first three are in a row and
the other is at the end of the block. Regarding the east wall,
that is the one that children climb on to go into her yard which
does not go clear to the end because there is a driveway. The
neighbors are concerned about getting into that driveway. If
there was a continuous fence on Edda Lane, it would eliminate
the driveway.
Gregory Sanders.
Condition No. 5 of the use permit requires that the applicant
close Edda Lane on July 1, 1986, subject to the approval of the
City Traffic Engineer. Relative to the fence, he was under the
impression they had reached an agreement with the appellants on
June 3, 1986. He questioned why they were discussing other
537
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
conditions of the Use Permit since an agreement had been reached
and the Counsel for the residents had withdrawn her request for
a rehearing.
Councilman Overholt.
This is a public hearing and it gave Mr. Poole an opportunity to
express that staff made a mistake. They are now correcting the
mistake and the wall on the north side is going to be installed
Just as it was required in 1970.
Gregory Sanders.
He did not think the issue of the fence along the north property
line is consistent with removal of the school by September 15,
1986. He also emphasized there has not been a flagrant
violation of the CUP issued in 1972.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
According to the staff report the block wall was required along
the north property lime but it was inadvertently omitted.
However, it is staff's opinion that the construction and
maintenance of a 6-foot masonry wall along the northerly
property line is necessary to preserve the integrity of the
adjoining residential area. She asked if his client is willing
to replace the four wooden walls.
Gregory Sanders.
They will comply with the conditions of the CUP and if that
condition is imposed, they would be required to comply. He
asked that the condition be worded in such a way that they will
be required to build a fence at such a time that Hope University
constructs the dormitory on the property. If the block wall on
the east and south does not measure up to 6 feet, they would
request that be added as well.
Councilman Bay left the Council Chamber. (4:50 p.m.)
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Relative to Condition No. 5 that the Edda Lane access shall be
closed by July 1, 1986, she asked if they planned to close it.
Gre&ory Sanders.
They will close it.
today.
July 1, 1986 is today so they will close it
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
She believes, except for one house, there is a solid 6-foot
block wall right now along the interior easterly boundary and
southerly line. The Edda Lane frontage has a lower block wall.
The reason for the 6-foot wall on the east and south is a
requirement adjacent to single-family. Staff's concern is
specifically with the boundaries that separate the single-family
houses and lots from the church activity and the schools. She
538
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 1~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
believes the wall exists everywhere except on the four lots
along the northerly line. She preferred that construction be
now. The way the conditions are worded it would give the
applicant basically one 1 year from the date of approving this
resolution or prior to the issuance of any permits in connection
with Hope University, whichever is closer.
Councilman 0verholt.
Mr. Sanders wants to have the construction of the fence delayed
until they start building the dormitory which may be two years,
linking the construction of the fence to the construction of the
housing facility.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
She stated they are in violation right now.
Gregory Sanders.
He took exception to the statement asserting they are not in
violation since there is no condition of the existing Use Permit
requiring a 6-foot block wall along the northerly property line;
Councilwoman Kaywood, she reiterated that staff pointed out that
the condition was omitted.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Condition No. 3 of Conditional Use Permit No. 1170 approved in
1970 requires that a 6-foot masonry block wall be constructed
along the northeast and south property lines where adjacent to
single-family residential lots; Mr. Sanders, as represented in
the staff report, this Use Permit replaces and surplants all
previous Use Permits.
Julia Sylva.
The problem all along with the residents has been that the
conditions have been worded in such a way, and they do not want
them worded in such a way any longer. They want them
specifically stated and to be able to understand exactly what is
being imposed. The church activity is going on and it will
continue to go on. The residents want their privacy. The
conditions of the fence were imposed in 1970. The church is in
violation because the conditions were never met.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
As a result of the hearing, she briefed the changes she believed
had been made to the conditions previously set forth in
Resolution No. 86R-79:
13. - Shall state Northerly along with easterly and southerly
for the block wall and include construction of a new 6-foot
block wall to replace existing wood fencing along four of the
single-family lots alone the north.
539
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July iF 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
14. - Reworded to state that by September 30, 1986, both of the
portable classrooms would be removed.
19. - Amended adding a phrase on the end, except as otherwise
required herein, because some conditions do pertain to
development of the property.
22. - This condition can be deleted since it pertained to plans
phasing out the church and pre-school by 1989 and it is no
longer necessary.
23. - Insert in this condition - Condition No. 13, the fence
requirement.
24. - Delete Condition No. 13 from this condition.
26. -Amended - that by September 15, 1986, the existing
elementary school will be wholly terminated and removed from the
property.
27. - Amended - that by September 15, 1986 the existing
preschool will be wholly terminated from the property.
29. - no portion of Hope University shall commence on the
property until after September 15, 1986 when the elementary
school has been removed.
Add new Condition No. 31 - all north facing windows located on
the second floor of the buildings currently used for classrooms
and administration and located along the north property line
shall be permanently closed.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-305 for adoption, approving
amendments to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No.
articulated by staff (see above). Refer to Resolution Book.
2738 as
RESOLUTION: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMF~NDING
CONDITIONS SET, FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 86R-79 WHICH GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2738.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
Bay
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-305 duly passed and adopted.
108: POOL ROOM APPLICATION - THAI BILLIARDS: This matter was continued from
the meeting of June 24, 1986, to this date. Councilman Roth moved to approve
a Pool Room application submitted by Tawesak Tantalelar, for Thai Billiards,
540
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
1721 West La Palma, to permit 4 pool tables, as recommended by the Chief of
Police. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
129/000/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4728: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No.
4728 for adoption. Refer to Resolution.
ORDINANCE NO. 4728: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 16.24.010 OF CHAPTER 16.24 OF TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARAMEDIC FEES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNClL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCLLMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
Bay
The Mayor
149/142:
adoption.
declared Ordinance No. 4728 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4729: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4729 for
Refer to Resolution.
ORDINANCE NO. 4729: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PROVISIONS OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING
RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS ON PORTIONS OF FLOWER STREET AND CRESCENT AVENUE
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 4641.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
Overholt, Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4729 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4730: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4730 for
adoption. Refer to Resolution.
ORDINANCE NO. 4730: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Reclass. 68-69-37(18) ML, 1150 North Red Gum)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
Bay
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4730 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4732 AND 4733:
4732 and 4733 for first reading.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos.
541
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4732: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 84-85-18, RM-2400, 3639 West Savanna St)
ORDINANCE NO. 4733: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANANEIMAMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERKED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RRIATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Tile 18, Reclass 84-85-40~ RM-3000, 1262 La Palma Avenue)
FIKEWORKS ISSUE: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she attended the June
meeting of the Central City Neighborhood Council. The big concern expressed
was relative to fireworks and wanting to have them banned from the City of
Anaheim. She is putting the Council on notice that she intends to bring the
matter up again to get the issue on the November ballot and allow the people
to vote on that issue.
KECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent.
(5:21 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Bay. (5:44 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:45 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
542