1986/11/04City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER: Cynthia King
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING: Norman J. Priest
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Greg Hastings
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Louis Rohrs, Trinity United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
React Month in Anaheim, November 1986,
Bible Week in Anaheim, November 23-30, 1986,
Children's Expo Weekend, November 14, 15 & 16, 1986,
"No Bozos Day" in Anaheim, November 7, 1986,
A Time for Remembrance in Anaheim, December 6-8, 1986,
Hospice Month in Anaheim, November 1986,
Mr. Ken Cooley accepted the React Month proclamation and Pastor Stief and
Paula Rosencrantz accepted the Hospice Month proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Dr. David Steinle,
Principal of Savanna High School, congratulating Savanna High School on the
celebration of the School's 25th year of service to the Anaheim community.
Dr. Steinle was accompanied by Stacey Grennie, Anaheim School Board President
and other representatives from the Parent Teacher's Association.
906
6O
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held October 14, 1986. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,824,804.56, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 86R-492 through 86R-498, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance
No. 4776 for first reading.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Tamarak Sanchez for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 21, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by Frank Kovaletz for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 24, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by Van Der Steen Enterprises for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 18, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Brenda Strong for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 28, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Priscilla Lynn Dixon-Bailey for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 26, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by James Grant Lambiotte for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 10, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by Myron G. Hankins for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 9, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by Rojeliu Estrada for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 2, 1986.
907
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
i. Claim submitted by Joe A. Daniels and Deborah Maria Vigil for bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 6,
1986.
J. Claim submitted by K & G Transport, Inc. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 29, 1986.
k. Claim submitted by Goldenwest Broadcasters (Main Action: Rudy Salazar
vs. Goldenwest Broadcasters) for indemnity for damages sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about April 18, 1986.
1. Claim submitted by Lorna Gaye Papez for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 18, 1986.
m. Claim submitted by Southern Pacific Transportation (Main Action:
Erminia J. Ferrari and Louis Ferrari vs. Southern Pacific Transportation, City
of Anaheim et al., O.C.S.C. #49-59-25) for indemnity for damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 11, 1985.
Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted:
n. Claim submitted by James & Furr Meehan for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 24, 1986.
o. Claim submitted by Hal Brand for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about July 31, 1986.
p. Claim submitted by Susan Schaefer for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 11, 1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of September 18, 1986.
b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Proposal No. 1349-E,
Southern California Edison Co. changes in electric tariff schedules.
3. 106/112/113/125/179/159: Appropriating funds from property tax receipts
in the amounts o£ ~1,194,000 to the Legal Department and ~4,000 to the City
Clerk's Department; and appropriating proceeds from the sale of certificates
of participation in the amounts of $1,841,820 to the Community Development and
Planning Department, $335,000 to the Data Processing Department and $494,000
to the Maintenance Services Department. (Councilman Bay voted no)
4. 123: Authorizing a letter agreement with Willdan Associates to provide
for the annual rental rate adjustment to a new monthly rate of $2180.10 for
the Field Engineering Office at 290 South Anaheim Boulevard, to be effective
October 1, 1986.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with L. C. Smull, dba Business Properties
Development Company, to provide for reimbursement of $32,351.29 for the design
and construction of a storm drain in connection with construction at the
908
City H~ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue and authorizing said
funds to be allocated from the Council Contingency Fund.
6. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, in the amount of $13,352.50 for 125
lengths of fire hose, in accordance with Bid No. A-4387.
7. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, in the amount of $21,369.§0 for 12
each breathing apparatus and 24 each 30-minute cylinders, in accordance with
Bid No. A-4394.
8. 101: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-492: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (ANAHEIM STADIUM
DRINKING FOUNTAIN AND WATER LINE IMPROVEMENT DOUGLASS ROAD ENTRANCE ACCOUNT
NO. 61-512-7115-PEQ16) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best
responsible bidder, Orange County Atlas Plumbing Company, Inc., in the amount
of $17,662.55, for Anaheim Stadium Drinking Fountain and Water Line
Improvement)
9. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-493: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (BALL ROAD
PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL AT WEBSTER ACCOUNT NO. 49-794-6325-E4350) (Awarding a
contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Sierra Pacific Electrical
Contracting, in the amount of ~22,150, for Ball Road Pedestrian Signal at
Webster)
10. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-494: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (BARRIER FREE
ANAHEIM NO. 10A ACCOUNT NO. 24-793-6325-E3940) (Awarding a contract to the
lowest and best responsible bidder, Damon Construction Company, in the amount
of ~45,680, for Barrier Free Anaheim No. 10A)
11. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-495: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED
TO THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION. (Creating the classification of Senior Housing Rehabilitation
Counselor, 1720, effective October 31, 1986)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-496: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-291 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY.
(Deleting the classification of Housing Rehabilitation Supervisor and creating
the classification of Housing Development Coordinator, XSR05, effective
October 31, 1986)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-497: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-292 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT.
(Amending Resolution No. 86R-292 which established rates of compensation for
classes designated as Professional and Technical Management, deleting the
classification of Housing Finance Coordinator, effective October 31, 1986)
909
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
12. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-498: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES
HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (R/W 3462)
13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-500: A RES0LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
14. 123: Authorizing an agreement with JHK & Associates to design and
implement the Anaheim traffic control and overhead changeable message sign
system ATC/OCMS; and authorizing the hiring of two additional personnel for
the staffing of the project.
15. 170/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4776: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
CHAPTER 17.09 PERTAINING TO VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE.
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-492 through 86R-500, both inclusive,
with the exception of 86R-499, duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
139: SANTA ANA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCY - SANTA ANA RIVER MAIN STEM
PROJECT: Santa Aha River Flood Protection Agency letter dated October 23,
1986 re inclusion of The Santa Aha River Main Stem Project in H.R.6.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether a letter had been sent to the President
urging his signature of approval of H.R.6.
Mayor Roth answered he sent the letter which was directed to him to the
Intergovernmental Relations Office to prepare the necessary documentation.
City Manager Talley explained the letter had not yet been prepared but was in
process.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the Santa Aha River
Flood Protection Agency letter dated October 23, 1986. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT WITH STANTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT PURSUANT TO ORANGE COUNTY
REORGANIZATION NO. 82: Approving an agreement with Stanton County Water
District, pursuant to Orange County Reorganization No. 82, relating to
distribution of assets, as recommended in memorandum dated October 28, 1986
from the Director of Maintenance, John Roche.
910
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated although he was in accord with the recommendation, the
reason he removed the item from the Consent Calendar was due to the letter
dated October 28, 1986 received from Mayor Pro Tem Sal Sapien of Stanton. He
suggested perhaps the item be delayed until the City had responded to the
correspondence.
Mr. Sal Sapien, Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Stanton, referred to his letter
of October 28, 1986. He would like if possible for the Council to delay
action on the agreement until Stanton can have some discussion with the City
of Anaheim. The item is critical to the assumption of operation of the
Stanton County Water District (SCWD) by the City of Stanton.. The proposal
includes one paragraph that is most objectionable to the City of Stanton which
states that 60 percent of the assets of the SCWD will be returned to the fee
payers. That will be devastating to the City of Stanton when and if they
assume the operations of the District. It was not following the directions of
either LAFC0 or the Board of Supervisors. In his letter, Page 2, he states
that in Paragraph F of the Resolution of LAFCO and the Board of Supervisors -
the funds accumulated in reserve by the SCWD will be returned to the City of
Anaheim and when Stanton detaches funds will be returned to the City of
Stanton. According to the proposed agreement, Item 5, Page 4, it states 60
percent of the funds transferred to Anaheim would be returned to the fee
payers. If they were to transfer 60 percent, Stanton will assume operation of
their portion of the SCWD without any reserves whatsoever. They were going to
have to maintain the lines. If they assumed the operation, ihe District will
be bankrupt with no facilities, no equipment and no reserwes. They agreed
with the remainder of the agreement but not Item 5. They would like to have
discussions between Anaheim City staff and their staff and they would be most
grateful for a continuance.
City Manager Talley stated they were not talking about water but sewer
maintenance and solid waste collection and the matter had been handled by the
Director of Maintenance. He asked if Mr. Sapien was speaking on behalf of the
City of Stanton on the matter; Mr. Sapien answered yes. Mr. Talley explained
the City had been working on the issue for almost a year. The agreement only
covers what the City of Anaheim does with the money it receives. It has
nothing to do with the money Stanton receives. Of the money transferred to
Anaheim, Anaheim will return 60 percent to the fee payers and the City will
retain 40 percent to use for services within the area, and would not affect
the City of Stant0n.
Mr. Sapien did not believe the fee payers in Stanton were going to sit still
knowing that the citizens of Anaheim received a rebate on the transfer of the
District and also only a small portion of the City will be involved in the
rebate and the rest of the City will question if they are going to receive any
money.
Mr. Talley stated they would not. The people in the district pay
substantially more for services than people in Anaheim do at present. The
City was merely proposing to return 60 percent of the funds and to charge
Anaheim rates for the area that is within the City limits.
911
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Janet Morningstar, Counsel for the Stanton County Water District. The purpose
of the agreement was to ensure that the Anaheim constituents of the SCWD
received a fair share of the assets of the Stanton County Water District.
Subsequent to Anaheim's detachment, the City of Stanton also filed a petition
with LAFCO for detachment. Right now they are trying to negotiate with the
City of Stanton for a reorganization that would involve the formation of a
subsidiary area District. In any event SCWD will no longer be providing those
services. It is only reasonable that the citizens of Anaheim formerly in SCWD
be treated on an equal level with those constituents in the cities of Stanton,
Garden Grove and unincorporated areas. She was not saying that Anaheim did
not have a right to return fees to the ratepayers. Anaheim does have that
right. Since Anaheim already has its own facilities and crews it would not
need all of their share of the assets of the SCWD in order to continue to
serve those areas.
City Manager ~.~lley stated it was his understanding that the City and the
Water District have agreed on how much they are going to get and how they are
going to distribute it in Anaheim.
Ms. Morningstar answered it does affect how much the City of Anaheim is going
to get. The District has decided to close down its own operations and declare
those assets surplus to be reserves and divide that also with Anaheim. The
detachments have made it uneconomical for SCWD to continue to.operate its own
service. It is more economical for the District to contract out those
services thereby freeing more reserves for distribution to Anaheim as well as
distribution to Stanton.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the approval of the agreement
with Stanton County Water District for one week. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGRE~4ENT FOR DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST CORNER OF KATELLA AVENUE AT HARBOR
BOULEVARD: Approving an agreement to develop with Harry Jung Enterprises,
Inc. and Independent Development Company, Inc., for property located at the
northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue and making findings in
reference thereto, as recommended in memorandum dated October 17, 1986 from
the Assistant Director for Zoning.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wants to be sure that relative to the subject
development, that beer and wine and gasoline pumps will not be added to the
proposal.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained if they wanted the
proposal to include gasoline sales it would requirefiling a CUP and public
hearing. The principals have never indicated that is what they wanted to do
and it was not their intent.
Vera Harper, Real Estate Manager for Independent Development. Their intent is
not to have gasoline sales since it would be impossible at that location.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-499 for adoption,
approving an agreement to develop with Harry Jung Enterprises, Inc.
912
54
City M~]I, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Independent Development Company, Inc., for property located at the northwest
corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue and making findings in reference
thereto. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-499: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN REFERENCE
THERETO.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-499 duly passed and adopted.
123: CONSULTING SERVICES - CABLE TV FRANCHISE: Waiving Council Policy No.
401 and entering into an agreement with Mitchell, Silberberg and Knupp to
retain Charles Firestone, at a maximum cost of $20,000, for professional
consulting services associated with the proposed acquisition of the City's
cable television franchise; and appropriating said funds from the Council
Contingency fund, as recommended in memorandum dated October 28, 1986 from the
Assistant City Manager.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she hoped service will be better when there
is a different owner of the Cable franchise. She wanted to know if it will
still be called Storer.
Cindy King, Assistant to City Manager, answered no. The company who submitted
the proposal is M.L. Communications. The name would change and that is the
reason for wanting to evaluate the transfer at this point in time. They want
to ensure the quality of service to the citizens is improved.
Mayor Roth asked if any communication has been made between Gary Massaglia and
the City relative to paying for the cost of the consultant.
Ms. King answered yes. She spoke with Mr. Massaglia last week and indicated
the City was going to be retaining the services of an outside consultant to
help Storer in terms of time lines. They were hoping that transfer will be
approved by the end of the year in order to taka advantage of the tax benefits.
Mayor Roth stated that Mr. Massaglia called him indicating his deep concern
relative to the expenditure of $18,000. He stated if City Management would
sit down and talk with him they could save money instead of retaining a
consultant. He asked if that had been pursued and if a cost savings can be
made.
City Manager Talley stated if a call is made to Storer for service some people
have been told some of the services will not be installed until after December
23, 1986 when they are changing ownership and a deterioration of service has
been noted. It would be remiss to talk to the people proposing to sell. It
913
51
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4 1986, 10:00 A.M.
would be a good investment to bring in the top person in the field to assist
the City in this very short period of time for settlement.
After further Council discussion and questioning of staff relative to the
proposed agreement, Councilman Pickler moved to waive Council Policy No. 401
and enter into an agreement with Mitchell, Silberberg and Knupp to retain
Charles Firestone, at a maximum cost of ~20,000, for professional consulting
services associated with the proposed acquisition of the City's cable
television franchise; and appropriating said funds from the Council
Contingency fund. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/106: CONSULTING SERVICES - LONG-TERM JAIL FACILITY FEASIBILTY STUDY:
City Manager Talley briefed report dated October 30, 1986 from the Assistant
City Manager, recommending a letter agreement for consulting services
associated with the County's long-term Jail facility feasibility study. The
County has requested that comments be submitted no later than November 14,
1986. It was very apparent they were speeding the process along to prevent
the City from making reasonable and orderly comment on their plans.
Councilman Bay noted that the funding was proposed to be appropriated from the
Council Contingency Fund. He asked that by next week the Council be provided
with the balance remaining in that account.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive Council Policy 401 and
authorizing the City Manager to execute a letter agreement with Steinmann,
Grayson and Smylie in an amount not to exceed $5,500 for professional
consulting services associated with the County's long-term Jail facility
feasibility study and appropriating an amount not to exceed $10,000 from
Council's contingency fund for said services and other anticipated related
consulting services. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175/123: AGREEMENT WITH INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA - PAYMENT FOR
REHABILITATION AND DEMOLITION OF WATEK WELLS: Councilman Bay moved to approve
an agreement with Indemnity Company of California regarding payment for
rehabilitation of Water Wells #106 and #128, and demolition of Well #108 and
Well at Marshall Park, as recommended in memorandum dated October 28, 1986
from the City Engineer. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Appointment to fill vacancy on
Community Services Board to expire June 30, 1989. This matter was continued
from the meeting of October 28, 1986, to this date.
Mayor Roth nominated Betty Peterson; Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Basil
Poulous.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, nominations were
closed. MOTION CARRIED.
The nominees were then voted on in the order in which they were nominated.
Mayor Roth called for a Roll Call Vote on Betty Peterson:
914
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Councilman Roth moved to cast a unanimous ballot for Betty Peterson.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Betty Peterson was thereupon appointed to the Community Services Board for the
term expiring June 30, 1989.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held October 13, 1986, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-7 AND VARIANCE NO. 3594: Submitted by Janet K.
Ganong, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400, to construct
a 2-story, 36-unit apartment complex on property located on the southwest
corner of Short Street and Kellogg Drive, with the following Code waivers:
(a) Maximum percent of small car parking spaces, (b) minimum building site
area per dwelling unit, (c) maximum structural height, (d) minimum structural
setback, (e) minimum area and dimensions of private patios.
The applicant withdrew his application.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2774: Submitted by Holly Wade Davidson,
(Orange County Steel Salvage), to permit a private heliport in conjunction
with a resource recover operation on property located at 3200 East Frontera
Street.
The applicant withdrew his application.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-11 AND VARIANCE NO. 3601: Submitted by Funbus
Systems, Inc., for a change in zone from CG, CH and RS-A-43,000 to CR, to
construct a 5-story, 152-room hotel on property located at 300 East Katella
Way, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum number of parking spaces,
(denied), (b) maximum ~tructural h~ight, (c) minimum structural ~etbaek.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-257 and 258,
granted in part, Reclassification No. 86-87-11 and Variance No. 3601, and
granted a negative declaration status.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3604: Submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Randy Ferguson, to construct
a triplex on RM-2400 zoned property located at 836 South Philadelphia Street,
with Code waiver of minimum building site area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-259, granted
Variance No. 3604, and granted a negative declaration status.
915
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4 1986, 10:00 A.M.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2850: Submitted by Knott & Ball Associates,
~Minit-Lube), to permit an automotive lubricating service center on CL zoned
property located at 1241 South Knott Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-260, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2850, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2851: Submitted by Dunn Properties
Corporation, to permit a church on [he ML(SC) zoned property located at 1300
North Kellogg Drive, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The applicant withdrew his application.
7. CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 2773--AMEND RESOLUTION PC86-119, NUNC PRO
TUNC: Submitted by Planning Commission Secretary, to amend Resolution
N-~.PC86-119, nunc pro tunc, amending the legal description.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-261, amended
Conditional Use Permit No. 2773 - Resolution No. PC86-119, nunc pro tunc.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2595--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by
Salvatore F. Gottuso, requesting an extension of time for Conditional use
Permit No. 2595, to permit a semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale alcohol on
property located at 505 South Villa Real Drive.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2595, tO expire July 9, 1987.
9. VARIANCE NO. 35877-AMEND R__ESOLUTIONNO: PC86-197zNUNC PRO TUNC:
Submitted by~i~nn-~ng Commission Secretary, to amend Resolution No. PC86-197,
nunc pro tunc, to amend Condition No. 4.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-262, amended
Variance No. 3587 - Resolution No. PC86-197, nunc pro tunc.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10974 (REV. 2): Submitted by Trtder Corporation,
request to amend the conditions of approval (in particular Condition No. 25),
and for approval of specific plans to construct a 23-1ot attached condominium
subdivision on approximately 16.5 acres located on both sides of Camino Grande
and Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10974 (Rev. 2).
There was no action taken by Council. MOTION CARRIED.
108: BUSINESS LICENSE TAX STUDY: Fred W. Bercher, Chairman, Business License
Advisory Committee, to consider Lhe Business License Tax Study as prepared by
Ralph Andersen and Associates.
Norm Priest, Director of Community Development & Planning, briefed his report
dated October 28, 1986 recommending that the Council receive and file the
report from Ralph Andersen and Associates entitled, "Frame Work For A Revised
916
5O
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Business Tax Ordinance" and directing staff to prepare a draft revised
Business License Ordinance for future consideration by the Council reflecting
the findings of such study.
Mr. Fred Bercher, Plant Manager, Delco Remy and Chairman of the Citizens
Advisory Committee stated their function as a committee was to provide
business input to Ralph Andersen and Associates. They established goals to
ensure the equity and fairness of the business tax, reduce the administrative
expense of the tax not only to the City but also to the business person, and
provide the opportunity for increased revenue as the economic climate of the
City improved. They looked at the present ordinance, what other cities did
and explored several different avenues of administering the tax. Everything
the Committee came up with was pursued by Mr. Andersen. The Committee feels
they have accomplished their goal and the final version of Mr. Andersen's
recommendations represents the best thoughts and input of the business members
of the community. Speaking for the community, he recommends that the Ralph
Andersen and Associates report receive favorable consideration. (See report
entitled "Frame Work For A Revised Business Tax Ordinance - City of Anaheim -
final report dated October 30, 1986).
Council Members then posed questions to Mr. Bercher following his presentation.
Mr. Ralph Andersen, Ralph Andersen and Associates. He was pr&sent to answer
any questions or brief the entire report. The next step would be to take the
framework, present it and incorporate that in an ordinance which will then be
submitted to the Council at that time. The Council might find it more
convenient to go through the report in more detail.
Councilman Overholt stated he has not had an opportunity to review the report
in detail, having only received it on Friday. He would prefer that any action
be continued for at least one week, giving him the chance to study it in
depth. He was also not prepared today to ask the City Attorney to draft an
ordinance.
Floyd Farano, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber was honored
that the City consulted them. Originally the City requested that the Chamber
furnish the names of a number of individuals who could be considered as an
Advisory Committee. The Committee met in the Chamber's Conference Room. Mr.
Allan Hughe~ wa~ in attendanc~ at ~om~ of th~ m~tin~ if not all. They were
not, however, in communication with the Committee for the purpose of obtaining
the report and were not updated and did not see the final report until
yesterday. They are in the same position as expressed by Councilman Overholt
and would like the opportunity to review the report and present it to their
Board for consideration and approval. The Chamber Board has not formally
acted upon the document and would like to have Council consider allowing the
time for further review. They had something more than a week in mind and
perhaps would like until the first of the year.
Jack White, City Attorney, explained that it would take some time to do a
thorough Job of drafting a proposed ordinance. He will be recommending
separation of Business License provisions from permit requirements that over
917
City Hall~ Aa~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
they years have been intertwined into the Business License Chapter. In order
to properly review and separate those will take the better part of four weeks.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
ordinance in order to preclude further delays. If there were changes or
separations, that would be something to address at the time the ordinance is
submitted rather than delaying it. It could be another year and it already
has been a couple of years.
Councilman Pickler wanted to give Councilman 0verholt the opportunity to
review the report. He thereupon moved to continue the matter one week.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay spoke against a one week continuance.
If the Council was going to instruct staff to start the very detailed, complex
and expensive work of drafting an ordinance to implement the plan, there would
be no harm in taking more time and also giving the Chamber time to review the
concept.
At the conclusion of further discussion relative to a continuance, a vote was
taken on the motion to continue the matter for one week. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council confirmed that Mr. Andersen need not be present at that time.
108/149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4725 - VENDING FROM VEHICLES: Amending Section
14.32.310 of the Code relating to vending from vehicles. 'This matter was
discussed and continued from the meetings of June 17, July 1, 8, 22,
August 26, September 9, October 7 and 14, 1986, to this date.
City Attorney Jack White, briefed his report dated October 30, 1986 attached
to which was a proposed revised draft of the subject ordinance. The report
listed four changes which were a result of his meeting with Mr. Salvador
Sarmiento, attorney for Union De Commerciantes Latinos Del Sur De California.
He, along with John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, are recommending the
four revisions to the ordinance as listed on Page 1 of his report (report on
file in the City Clerk's Office). After the meeting with Mr. Sarmiento, he
(Sarmiento) again discussed the proposed revision with his clients and
subsequently advised him (White) that there were still four points his clients
wanted to see revised or added to the ordinance. Those points were listed on
Page 2 of his report which he briefed.
Mr. Salvador Sarmiento, Attorney, clarified that the four additional points
(see Page 2 of the City Attorney's report) were listed in order of priority,
the first being to allow vendors to play music while driving to attract the
attention of potential customers. The vendors agree to non-amplified music.
It is very important that they alert people and they are requesting that they
be allowed to make some sort of noise when they are driving such as a bell
that could be rung every so often. Relative to insurance coverage, they would
like the insurance coverage reduced to one-half the recommended amount,
vehicle only. They would also like the length of the vending stop increased
from the 20 minutes proposed to 30 minutes. Past experience has shown that
the 15 minutes recommended by the City is not long enough but that 45 minutes
918
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
is. The compromise is 30 minutes. They would also like to decrease the
minimum distance between vending stops from the 200 feet proposed to 100 feet
or designate a stop area on each block.
Discussion then followed between Council Members, staff and Mr. Sarmiento
relative to the amplified sound provision, the noise being one of the major
concerns of residents. Councilman Bay pointed out that although he understood
the vendor's points 2, 3 and 4 he did not understand the first, asking that
they be allowed to play music while driving to attract customers. He did not
know how it was possible to have music without amplification. It was
necessary to agree on the technical definition.
City Attorney White stated the way he intended to address sound in the
proposed ordinance was to talk only about sound rather than music to provide
that the sound made cannot be audible at a distance greater than 200 feet from
the source. Rather than measuring decibels, it would be easy to locate at a
distance 200 feet removed from the source and determine whether the sound
could be heard.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, then explained the reason he asked to
have the ordinance drafted where noise would be made only when the vendors
were stopped, was because it would be easier to enforce. It would be more
difficult to do so with a moving vehicle.
Councilman Pickler stated the noise was of primary concern to him and the
noise was the subject of most of the complaints he received. He did not want
to change the 200-foot distance between stops. But increasing the length of
time for stopping to 30 minutes was acceptable. The insurance coverage
proposed as recommended by staff was necessary.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had no problem if there are people waiting to
be served not to have them move whether 15 or 20 minutes but to stay longer in
different places is a problem. She has received photographs and calls and
heard complaints that the trucks do block traffic. With cars parked all along
the street, the vending trucks then park next to the cars. If they are
allowed to stay 20 or 30 minutes it creates a real hazard and it is also an
inconvenience to the residents. There have been major problems and noise is
one of the major ones - trash is another.
Floyd Farano, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. He has reviewed the
proposed changes and finds that the Chamber's Committee and the Chamber is in
concurrence with what has been recommended by City staff (see Page 1 of the
City Attorney's memorandum dated October 30, 1986). After considerable public
testimony by residents as well as vendors they have reached the conclusion
once a particular item or aspect of the operation is subject to or should be
subject to regulation, the specifics of it are a matter of a judgment call for
ease of enforcement. Relative to insurance, the Chamber felt the minimum
standards as adopted by the ordinance should remain intact. Anything less
than that is not enough. The difference in premium between ~125,000 and $225
- $500,000 is not all that significant. The Chamber feels what has emerged
from the additional negotiations between the vendors and the City is
acceptable and the City probably should not go any further.
919
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Novem~10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth was concerned with over-regulation. If the people did not want the
vendors in their neighborhoods, they would not buy from them. He was also
concerned they are venturing into an enforcement nightmare after listening to
the discussions. He felt that progress has been made between the City and the
attorney for the vendors and he encouraged a continuation of that type of
discussion in order to come to a meeting of the minds.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Farano stated the Chamber group was
agreeable to staff's recommendations, the four items listed on Page 1 of the
City Attorney's report. She felt it was necessary to go forward with those
recommendations since they represented a very reasonable compromise - allowing
the vendors to conduct business and allowing those who want to buy to do so
without disturbing the neighborhood. It means that the people doing the
selling will have to get permits to do so. She was prepared to offer the
proposed ordinance-
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4725 for an amended first reading,
incorporating points 1 through 4 outlined in report dated October 30, 1986
from the City Attorney.
ORDINANCE NO. 4725: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
14.32. 310 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO VENDING FROM VEHICLES.
City Attorney White confirmed that the amended first reading included the four
points on Page 1 of his report but did not include the four points listed on
Page 2.
Councilman Overholt again expressed his concern over point 1 requested by the
vendors (see Page 2 of the October 30, 1986 report) allowing vendors to play
music while driving in order to attract customers. There had to be a solution
relative to that point. Otherwise, he agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood
although he is agreeable to increasing the length of time for stopping from 20
to 30 minutes; Councilman Pickler agreed that 30 minutes was not unreasonable
and is, in fact, beneficial. However, the noise is a factor and as time goes
on it would give an opportunity to know whether the restrictions were
sufficient or not.
Councilman 0verholt presumed that the ordinance would prevent the big vending
trucks from blasting their Smith Horns; Mr. White stated it would if in a
residential zone.
William Sweeney, representing Orange County Food Service, stated they would be
willing to make that concession. He then indicated how appreciative the
industry was that Council and staff had been so responsive to the various
interests involved in the proposed legislation.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from the Code Enforcement Supervisor
relative to the increase to 30 minutes.
John Poole stated the noise is the number one complaint. He felt he could
work with the 30 minute limit. The primary concern is the quality of life in
920
City Hall~ A~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the neighborhoods. The reason for the time element is to keep the vendors
moving and 30 minutes will help tremendously. He saw no problem going from
the proposed 20 minutes to 30 minutes.
Councilwoman Kaywood then stated she has no problem changing from 20 to 30
minutes; City Attorney White stated it is deemed that the offering for first
reading includes the change to the subsection from 20 minutes to 30 minutes.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4774 AND 4775: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance Nos.
4774 and 4775 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4774: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass.
85-86-23, RM-1200, 261 East Center Street)
ORDINANCE NO. 4775: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass.
65-66-24(34), ML(SC), s/w corner of Lakeview and Miraloma)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4774 and 4775 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4777: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4777 for
first reading.
ORDIM.~NCE NO. 4777: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIFAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass.
81-82-15, CO, n/w corner Center Street and Coffman Street)
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4778: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4778 for
first reading. Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-26, RM-1200, 408 So. East
Street)
111: P~LLOWEEN PARADE: Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney and President of the
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, stated that the people involved with the parade
will have some debriefing sessions and will be getting back to the Council in
about 60 days with recommendations. He stated that there was outstanding
participation and cooperation from the City. They were able to talk to City
Manager Talley about Police protection and the problem was solved. Everything
went along very well. He reiterated they will be submitting reports to the
Council.
Later in the meeting, on behalf of the Council, thanked all those who worked
so diligently to bring the parade to fruition especially Bill Taormina.
921
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
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.
(b) Personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
(c) Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9c.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:24 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:46 p.m.)
123: AGREEMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM OF O'DONNELL AND GORDON: Councilman Roth
moved to approve an agreement between the City of Anaheim and the law firm of
O'Donnell and Gordon and authorizing the City Attorney to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT WITH MOBIL OIL CORPORATION: Councilman Roth moved to approve
an agreement between the City of Anaheim amd Mobil Oil Corporation and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement on behalf of
the City. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL pr.AN AMENDMENT NO. 220~ RECLASSIFICATION NO.
86-87-8~ VARIANCE NO. 3595 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Rueben De Leon
11095 Meats
Orange, Ca.
Mrs. Margaret Ennis
24165 Fortune
E1 Toro, Ca.
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION; To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan redesignating subject study area from low-medium density
residential designation to medium density residential designation for an area
of approximately 6.3 acres north of Center Street extending on both sides of
Coffman and Cypress Streets, proposed change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-1200,
to construct a 36-unit apartment complex, with Code waiver of maximum
structural height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution Nos. PC86-235, 236 and 237 denied the
General Plan Amendment, Reclassification and Variance.
922
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Richard L. Pierce, President, Pierco Development, Inc. This
matter was continued from the meeting of October 28, 1986, to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 17, 1986.
Posting of property October 17, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 17, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 15, 1986.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated October.20, 1986 from Richard
Pierce, President, Pierco Development, had been received requesting a
continuance of the public hearing for 30 days.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Hugo Vazquez, 619 So. Liveoak Drive.
He first submitted a list of signatures of property owners
requesting approval of General Plan Amendment 220, attached to
which were signed authorizations for him (Vazquez) to proceed
with the processing for all agency approvals necessary for the
development of the .subject property (made a part of the
record). The major issue of concern relative to the development
is traffic. He met with Traffic Engineer P~ul Singer and Joe
Foust of Austin-Foust Associates who performed the traffic
study. There was concurrence that the best General Plan is for
RM-1200 on the east side of Coffman Street and RM-2400 on the
westside as designated in the General Plan to remain consistent
under 18 units to the acre. On Cypress Street they would still
continue with the General Plan as so designated for the
RM-2400. Traffic Engineer Singer has concluded that the
conditions of approval will be bound by the traffic study in the
traffic study guidelines that Mr. Singer would set forth which
would be to close off Cypress into Evelyn Drive and also cul de
sac out Center Street so that the one-way drive does not
interfere with the Evelyn Drive neighborhood.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She referred to Page 3f of the September 15, 1986 staff report,
Item C indicating that any higher intensity land use will
necessitate construction of a new sewer on Coffman Street. Also
under Item B, the Parks and Recreation Department is concerned
that additional multiple-family will increase park demand beyond
that which can be supplied. She wanted to know if those two
items had been considered by the developer.
Hugo Vazquez.
They will be more than happy to fulfill any conditions imposed.
923
41
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Since the Traffic Engineer was not presently available, the public hearing was
trailed until later in the meeting. (1:56 p.m.)
Later in the meeting (3:05 p.m.) the public hearing continued.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
No report had been submitted since he met with Mr. Vazquez and
the Traffic Consultant (Foust) only yesterday. If the entire
parcel, as shown, were zoned RM-1200, the impact would be great
enough to require controls at State College and Center Street.
In lieu of signalization, he recommends median.islands be
installed to preclude left-turns. If increased density were
allowed only on Coffman Street on the east side, the traffic
impact would be substantially less or'one-half and would not
require extensive controls on State College. In either case,
median-island modifications will be required on Center Street at
Lincoln Avenue and Emily Street. The median would have to be
closed that provides direct eastbound access from Center Street
to Lincoln and should be routed in a "hook" into Center Street
with controlled left or right turns. In' answer to Council
questions, he confirmed that Exhibit B would be acceptable with
RM-2400 on the west and north and RM-1200 on the east including
the change on the lot next to the church. He also looked at the
alternative of Cypress Street cut through to State College
Boulevard but the church building was in the way.
Hugo Vazquez.
He talked to the Engineering Department regarding the sewer in
Coffman Street. Engineering would establish an acreage fee if
it was determined that the existing 6-inch sewer needed to be
increased to 8-inches. Each parcel would be assessed according
to the amount of land that they own. When they obtained their
building permit or rezoned to the new General Plan, they would
then pay the fees accordingly.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
In terms of splitting the area to a higher density on the east
and lower density on the west, the west and the north both abut
single-family areas and, therefore, the height limitation under
zoning would be in effect. It would be difficult for them to
develop apartments at the higher density in any case and it
would not be inconsistent that that side should expect a lower
development potential than the east side of the street could
have which basically abuts commercial zoning. It is a practical
consideration. Relative to the widening of Coffman, the
recommendation in the staff report was for a 32-foot half width,
full 64-foot width ultimate. Staff neglected to insert the
condition included in all other proposals that prior to the
project commencing or whoever is first, that the Cypress Street
closure shall be accomplished to establish the cul de sac which
the Council approved in connection with the public hearing a few
years ago.
924
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November~10:00 A.M.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
Widening is to take place for a standard residential street.
This is somewhat less than standard. It would be the normal
40-foot curb to curb on a 60-foot right-of-way.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Hugo Vazquez.
He would like conditions of reimbursement established for the
District since he will be the first developer to take the
initiative. As subsequent developers come in, they will
reimburse him for the street closure and/or additional sewer
line costs. He asked that those be included in the conditions
of approval. Relative to density, the east side of Coffman
Street will be RM-1200 or 36-units to the acre. On the west
side it will be RM-2400 allowing for the setback requirements.
He will subsequently be submitting a specific plan. He will
also meet with the Evelyn Drive neighborhood and design the plan
with them to obtain their approval. It was necessary to meet
with the residents to inform them of new Code provisions such as
the garage level now being called a story. Relative to density,
he does not believe there will be a waiver unless they entertain
a 25 percent density bonus for affordable housing and that will
be with the consent of the neighbors on Evelyn Drive.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-502 for adoption, approving General
Plan Amendment No. 220, Exhibit B. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-502: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 220, EXHIBIT B.
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-502 duly passed and adopted.
Annika Santalahtt, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated relative to the
discussions on the closure of Cypress Street at the west and the potential
installation of a sewer in the street, she recommended that they tie the
925
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
street closure into the Reclassification and the sewer provision into the
Variance.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-503 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 86-87-8, subject to Interdepartmental recommendations,
including the condition relative to the Cypress Street closure. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-503: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-8.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if the street closure would be
included in the reimbursement plan along with the sewer improvements.
Annika Santalahti.
She does not recall if that has ever been discussed. She was
not certain whether the cost of the closure is such that there
is any serious value in going to the cost of setting up a
reimbursement program.
If the plans are to enlarge the sewer lines, and with the
increase in density, he feels it is only practical to do so,
there are to be enough between the street closure and the sewer
line to make a reimbursement plan feasible.
Annika Santalahti.
They can make provisions for both conditions.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She stated there should be another condition added that the
developer be required to work with the Parks and Recreation
Department to mitigate the potential shortage of recreational
facilities. They are changing the zoning and increasing the
density. It will impact the area. She asked that it be
incorporated as a condition, otherwise, she will not vote
approval.
Councilman Bay did not have an objection to that condition.
Hugo Vazquez stated he does not object to that as a condition
either.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution including the added
condition relative to the developer working with the Parks and Recreation
Department.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES'
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
926
4O
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4 1986 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-503 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-504 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3595, subject to all Interdepartmental Committee recommendations and
additional conditions as discussed. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86K-504: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VAKI~CE NO. 3595.
Roll Call Vote;
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-504 duly passed and adopted.
Before closing, Councilman Bay stated before anything multiple is built in the
area, he wanted to be sure that Cypress Street will be closed at Evelyn Drive.
176. PUBLIC HEARING - _ABANDONMF~_T NO. 86-2A? In accordance with application
· ~r~s~ public~aring was held on proposed abandonment of an
unused former Southern California Edison Company utility easement located on
the west side of Lakeview Avenue, south of Miraloma Avenue, pursuant to
Resolution No. 86R-443 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices
thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated September 29, 1986 was submitted
recommending approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer
~ed that the proposed activit-----~falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically .exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-501 for adoption, approvin§
Abandonment No. 86-2A. Refer to Resolutlou Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-501: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING AN UNDSED FORMER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY UTILITY
EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SOUTH OF MIRALOMA AVENUE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
927
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-501 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 108 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(PREY. APPROVED):
APPLICANT: Wattson Company
840 Newport Center Drive #655
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
Owners: Margo & Lowell Dukleth
REQUEST/LOCATION: Request for amendment to delete a portion of La Mesa
Avenue, west of White Star Avenue and north of the Riverside Freeway in order
to develop approximately 80 acres bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue, on
the east by Kraemer Boulevard, and the south and west by the Riverside Freeway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-242 denied the request for
amendment to the Area Development Plan; EIR - Negative Declaration previously
approved.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Richard L. Riemer for Margo Dukleth.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQULR~TS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 23, 1986.
Posting of property October 24, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 24, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 15, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Richard L. Riemer, 850 North Partner Street, Santa Aha, attorney
for the appellants, Mr. & Mrs. Lowell Dukleth, owners of one of
the two properties involved.
The property which is the subject of the application aud appeal
is approximately 2.25 acres composed of two ownerships - one is
· 94 and the other is 1.31 acres. Iu all correspondence he has
read~ the reference is to an 80-acre parcel and he is assuming
that refers to the entire area covered by Area Development 108.
The basic problem is the width of the subject property since it
is only 104 feet wide at the widest point and tapers to a point
at the westerly end. Pursuant to Area Development Plan (ADP)
108 and Resolution No. 71R-220, as a precondition to the
proposed industrial use, a 60-foot right-of-way be dedicated and
improved for a frontage road to be known as La Mesa Avenue.
This application seeks the elimination of that requirement.
Since the proposed developer has entered into an escrow to
purchase the property for ~437,000 per acre, the owners are
forced to see the matter through to the end especially when
considering the required dedication and construction would
require an expenditure of more than ~150,000 to create a totally
928
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
useless strip lot with a maximum width of approximately 40
feet. The imposition of the requirement clearly precludes the
economic development of the subject property and constitutes a
taking for which the City would be called upon to compensate the
owners under inverse condemnation principles. Mr. Riemer then
gave the history of the property concluding that actions by the
City have created a problem for the City and the property
owners. There is also no mention on the circulation element of
the General Plan of La Mesa Avenue. He then elaborated upon
other problems that complicated the matter further. He then
submitted letters dated July 9, 1975 from the State Department
of Transportation, one to the City of Anaheim to the attention
of the Public Works Director and the other to the County of
Orange, Environmental Agency. He read the letter directed to
the City of Anaheim. (Letters made a part of the record). The
State gave the City an opportunity to purchase the property and
requested a response within 60 days. The City chose not to do
so nor the County of Orange. The property was not annexed to
the City until sometime subsequent to 1984. When the request
for an amendment to ADP went to the Planning Commission, it was
denied, meaning that in order to develop the property, the owner
would have to dedicate the 60-foot strip. If the owner improves
it, she will have created a 7,000 square-foot lot with
dimensions of approximately 350 by 40. It is not usable. The
dedication seeks to take from the owners approximately 83
percent of the property leaving the owners with less than 17
percent and that is not usable.
Mr. Riemer then presented a series of alternatives shown as A, B
and C on the diagrams posted in the Chamber. In summary,
because of factual situations and acts that have gone on in the
past and the failures on the part of a number of people to be a
little more careful in drafting legal descriptions, there is a
taking of property if they are forced to dedicate the road
whereby they will be giving away 83 percent of their property.
It will create an unnecessary road serving an unusable lot. It
has created an island which contradicts all good zoning
practices. It affords no utility to the neighboring parcel.
The City~ in a sense~ has done it to itself in part. The area
iS not included in the Area Development Plan because of a
failure to include it in a proper legal description. It clearly
is not included in Resolution No. 71R-220. There is only one
logical and simple solution, to adopt the recommendation given
in the staff report and to approve the deletion of the required
dedication.
Mayor Roth.
He heard the same presentation in 1980. It was clear at that
time that the individual bought the property in 1976 as a
freeway remnant. The intent of the property was to be a
frontage road along the freeway. Perhaps the concerns of the
Traffic Engineer have changed and there are other alternatives.
929
City Hall~ A~shetm~ Californ~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He has not changed his mind. His main concern is that full
circulation be maintained in that area. The applicant has
brought forth several alternatives to accomplish the
circulation. However, each one of them traverses the middle or
a good segment of the parcel of property that belongs to the
Coykendalls. He (Singer) has had no contact with that property
owner indicating it will be acceptable for any plans he might
have for the property. He feels strongly that circulation is
required and the General Plan, as shown, will accomplish that
circulation. He would be glad to work with any other
alternatives that may be available but the underlying property
owner would have to be involved to see what his plans for the
property would be.
Mayor Roth.
The street is in place to the west and it is serving light
industrial and quasi-comnmercial buildings which was part of the
master plan for a circulation in that area. There is a dead end
on La Mesa Avenue from both the east and west. It is not
completed because of the width of the freeway remnant. He
agrees by taking a good portion of that away will result in only
a 40-foot width making it impractical to develop. That was the
argument heard six years ago.
Richard Riemer.
In 1976, a buyer's investigation would have disclosed an offer
to the City and the City ignored the request and did not accept
the property. At that time the property was also not in the
City of Anaheim but in the County of Orange and the County did
not want it either and the zoning in the County was M-1. If the
buyer proceeds to acquire property which ultimately has value,
the buyer should not be penalized because he proceeded to
purchase the property. The Traffic Engineer wants circulation.
If the developer were to put in La Mesa Avenue to the extent
that his client's property would permit, there would not be
circulation because the adjacent property owner's property would
still be affected. They would still have to join in a
dedication before the City could have a street that would afford
any circulation.
Jack White, City Attorney.
If the required dedication or the prohibition on development of
the property in question because of the right-of-way the City is
requiring would render the remaining portion of the property
economically unfeasible or substantially inaccessible, that in
essence would require the City to compensate the property owner
as a result of the damaging or taking of that parcel of
property. It is a factual issue a Court would have to
determine. One of the alternatives not explored would be
possibly assimilating these properties together for purposes in
the nature of redevelopment allowing an alternative roadway to
930
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
either be developed or to render the portion of that property
that would be remaining after the right-of-way is installed to
be valuable in that it would be a portion of a larger parcel and
be contiguous to the new public right-of-way. It is his
understanding that has not been explored.
Extensive discussion and questioning followed between Council Members, staff
and Mr. Riemer. During the discussion, Councilman Overholt read a portion of
letter dated October 29, 1986 from Harold Coykendall, owner of the adjacent
property (previously made a part of the record) who is strongly in favor of
ADP 108 since it was adopted. Mr. Riemer pointed out that everyone seems to
ignore the fact that in examining ADP 180 there is nothing in the legal
description that includes the subject property.
Bob Mickelson, 3823 Glassell, Orange, representing Income
Property Services.
They do not want to appear to be thwarting anyone else's
development plans. However, they have a very serious concern.
They are the owners and managers of La Palma Business Park
northerly of White Star developed in 1977 or 1978. They are
very much aware of ADP 108 and designed the south easterly
portion of the project to take advantage of the freeway frontage
they are going to enjoy with that frontage road in place when it
does become a reality. A large part of the value of that
project is related to the freeway frontage that does exist. The
concern is, if the arguments are valid and successful on the
western portion of La Mesa the same may be true on the easterly
portion and that is a privately owned piece of property which
has even more severe conditions on it. If that is to be
abandoned, they will lose freeway frontage. They want to be on
record as having a sincere concern relative to that, and a
concern for the traffic circulation in the area.
Harold Coykendall, 2890 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim Ca. 92806.
He is asking the Council to deny the request for the deletion of
the dedication. He is willing to work with the Council at any
time toward completion of La Mesa at its present location. It
is not fair to have the appellant's hardships shifted to him.
He reiterated he is willing to work at anytime with the City on
the present alignment. He has no immediate plans to develop his
property but will do so sometime in the future. His father is
92 years old and he wants to live out his life on the property.
Councilman Bay.
He is concerned this is a chronic problem that will continue.
It was time to thoroughly research the matter from a legal
standpoint to know the position of the City. If there is a
problem where the City is faced with liability such as inverse
condemnation, before final decisions are made, it will be
necessary to have legal advice from the City Attorney.
931
33.,
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Jack White, City Attorney.
He will research the matter and submit a report to the Council.
It is his belief if the Council wishes to reaffirm the Area
Development Plan as it now exists, there is potential risk of
inverse condemnation. It would be prudent to have him prepare a
written opinion for the Council to look at and to continue the
matter for a given period of time.
Councilman Overholt.
What concerns him, the action requested is to amend ADP 108 to
delete La Mesa from the plan. If the property is not even
described in the plan, then the requested relief is
inappropriate.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on Area
Development Plan No. 108 to Tuesday, December 9, 1986 at 1:30 p.m.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(2:59 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:05 p.m.)
161/172: MEDIAN CLOSURE - CLEMENTINE STREET AT LINCOLN AVENUE: Mayor Roth
referred to the center median on Clementine Street (south of Lincoln Avenue)
on the west side of the downtown shopping center next to the driveway entrance
by Savon Drugs (now Osco). The cut in the median allowed for left-turns into
the center off Clementine Street. Apparently the cut in the median had been
closed which was supposed to occur when development took place on the parcels
to the south. The merchants of the center, because of its effect to the
business, had the cut reopened. However, the median was now again closed and
yesterday petitions were being circulated at the center to have it reopened.
He was even forced to sign one of the petitions before he could leave the
center. In order to head off a larger problem, he directed staff to look into
the matter.
City Manager Talley was surprised to learn that the median had been
reinstalled and did not understand why it had been done. He will submit a
report to the Council.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss the balance of the items not completed in the previous Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Bay. (5:43 p.m)
153: COUNCIL APPOINTEE SALARY ADJUSTMENTS: Councilman Roth moved to approve
the following salary adjustments for the four Council appointees to the new
annual salary level as indicated: City Treasurer - $54,100, effective
September 19, 1986; City Clerk - $56,343, effective October 3, 1986; City
932
Cit Hall ~aheim ~lifornia - COUNCIL ~NUTES - November 4 1986 10:00 A.M.
Attorney $81,313, effective September 19, 1986; City ~nager - ~101,700,
effective October 3, 1986. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Council~n Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIe.
114: MOTION: Counci~an Roth anno~ced due to the Veteran's Day Holiday on
November 11,--1986, the regular~aheim City Council meeting~ll be held the
following day, Wednesday, Nove~er 12, 1986. Councilwoman ~ood seconded
the motion. MOTION CAR~I~.
~jOURNMENT: Counci~an Roth moved to adjourn. Co~cil~n Pickler seconded
the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:45 p.m.)
LEON0~ N. SO~, CI~ CLERK
933