1984/10/23City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF: Ron Evans
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend David Beadles, West Anaheim United Methodist Church,
gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Vaughn Herrick, one
of the City's Code Enforcement Officers commending him for his effort in
assisting to save the life of Mary Helen Martin. A relative of Mrs. Martin
went to a neighbors house to ask for assistance. The neighbor, Mr. Herrick,
arrived and applied Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) until the paramedics
arrived.
Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council and the City, highly commended Mr.
Herrick as did Mrs. Martin who stated that had it not been for Mr. Herrick,
she would not have been present today.
119: PLAQUE OF RECOGNITION: A Plaque of Recognition from the City was
presented to Anaheim Police Officer Walt Jackson and Police Dog, Chico, upon
being awarded a plaque at the Dog Olympics in Germany, a very prestigious
world-wide competition.
119/150: PRESENTATION: Mr. Jim Brinton, President of the Anaheim Senior
Citizens Club, presented a check to the City in the amount of ~,000 to pay
for the installation of an electric door at the Anaheim Senior Citizens Center.
The Mayor, on behalf of the Council and the City, thanked Mr. Brinton and the
Anaheim Senior Citizens Club, approximately 6,000 strong, for their continuing
generosity to the Anaheim community.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A unanimous Resolution of
Congratulations to Cindy Cave, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, was
ratified by the Council. The resolution was presented to Ms. Cave on
October 22, 1984 upon her leaving the employ of the City and commending her on
1021
Cit~ Ha.il, Anaheim,..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
her fine service to Anaheim for the past three years and also extending best
wishes for continued success in her new position with the City of Santa Aha.
119: EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD: Employee Service Awards were presented to the
following and each was congratulated by the Mayor and the Council commending
their long and distinguished service:
30-YEARS OF SERVICE:
Lieutenant Henry Bryant, Police Department;
Earl Bouslog, Engineering Department (unable to be present);
Gilbert Meierhenry, Treetrimmer Supervisor, Parks Division;
John McGraw, Principal Engineering Aide, Street Design Section.
25-YEARS OF SERVICE:
Oletha Meadows, Deputy City Treasurer;
Catherine Langer, Library;
Richard Gray, Captain, Police Department;
George Damiano, Parks Division;
Walter Hess, Warrent Officer, Police Department;
Raymond Jara, Parks Division;
Lawrence Hutcheson, Captain, Police Department;
Eugene Fundum, Facility Maintenance;
Theodore Morris, Police Department; (unable to be present)
Gayle Herbel, Electrical General Supervisor.
Before proceeding with the meeting, Mayor Roth acknowledged the group of
children who were in the Chamber audience from St. Anthony Claret School of
Anaheim. On behalf of the Council, he welcomed them to the meeting.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to defer approval of the minutes of the
regular meetings held August 7, August 14 and August 21, 1984 for one week to
give her an opportunity to read them. 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 Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 33,005,425.99, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
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 Overholt
1022
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:.00 A.M.
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-417 through 84R-423, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management.
a. Claim submitted by Golden West Baseball Company for indemnity based on
Superior Court Case No. 424518, Howard S. Lawrence, III, by and through his
Guardian ad Litem, Sharon Lawrence, Plaintiff, vs. City of Anaheim, California
Angels, Szabo Enterprises, Does 1 through 20, inclusive.
b. Claim submitted by Tom C. Laney for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to power outage at 1935 Chanticleer, on or about
September 4, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Suzanne Renfeldt for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to directions given by parking attendant at the
Convention Center, on or about September 5, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by Boydstun Realty for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of City crew at 707 North Janss Street, on or about
August 28, 1984.
e. Claim submitted by Nancy L. Ozsvath for personal property loss
sustained purportedly due to power outage at 5245 East Bergh Drive, on or
about September 5 through 6, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Ryan M. Ream (Minor), Harry and Sandra Ream
(Parents), for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to negligence
on the part of the City in the pool area at Canyon High School on Imperial
Highway, on or about August 9, 1984.
g. Claim submitted by Richard Pritchard for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers at 11712 West
Street, Garden Grove, on or about August 7, 1984.
h. Claim submitted by David A. (Alan) Power for personal property loss
sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police 0£~icers at the Anaheim
Jail, on or about September 5, 1984.
Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim:
i. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim was submitted by Klaus
W. Koch for personal property loss sustained purportedly due to actions of
Anaheim Police Officers at 1119 Curtis Court, Apt. A, on or about February 16,
1983.
2. Approving the following applications in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
1023
162
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 2.3~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
a. 108: Dinner Dancing Place Permit, Joseph S. Brown, Jr., San Diego
Hotel, Inc. for the Inn at the Park, 1855 South Harbor Boulevard, for
dinner dancing seven days a week, from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
b. 108: Public Dance Permit, Sudha R. Megha, for "Bit O' Sweden~
Restaurant, 1425 East Lincoln Avenue, to hold a dance October 27th, 1984,
from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
3. 123: Authorizing a Cooperative Agreement with the County of Orange for
participation in the County Tax Exempt Bond Issue.
4. 144: Authorizing inclusion in the Orange County Multi-family Revenue Bond
Program proposed developments to be located at 2546 West Lincoln Avenue, 129
South Olive Street, 129 South Melrose Street and 920 Western Avenue.
5. 160: Accepting the iow bid of G.M.C. Truck & Coach in the amount of
$45,604.38 for four cargo vans, in accordance with Bid No. 4137.
6. 160: Accepting the low bid of Mission G.M.C., in the amount of
~101,982.91 for ten 1985 G.M.C. Truck Cab/Chassis, in accordance with Bid No.
4134.
7. 160: Accepting the low bid of Rafferty International in the amount of
~61,984.91 for three 24,000 G.V.W. Conventional Cab/Chassis, in accordance
with Bid No. 4136.
8. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to Yaesu Electronics Corporation, in the amount of
$36,779.62, for radio equipment and accessories to be used at Anaheim
Stadium, in accordance with their quotation dated August 29, 1984.
9. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to Granger Associates Corporation in the amount of
$36,350.58 for one Master Station, seven "remote~ units, and complementary
accessories for remote control of well sites.
10. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-417: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AN~NEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE TF, E CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IHPROV~MENT, TO WIT: BALL
ROAD-SUNKIST STREET TO STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD; SUNKIST STREET-HILDA STREET TO
BALL ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, ACCOUNT
NOS. 12-792-6325-E2750 AND 51-484-6993-00713, FEDERAL AID URBAN PROJECT NO.
L060(4). (opening of bids on November 29, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
11. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-418: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY CONCERNING MULTIFAMILY REHABILITATION AND
INFILL NEW CONSTRUCTION.
12. 109/150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-419: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE REGIONAL
COMPETITIVE PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ACT OF
1024
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
1984 FOR (i) THE CANYON AREA COMMUNITY CENTER, (ii) IMPERIAL PARK, (iii) OAK
CANYON NATURE CENTER AND (iv) PERALTA CANYON PARK. (total amount of
34,131,400, for the development of the Canyon Community Center).
13. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-420: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING A CONTRACT WITH A & A PIPELINE,.INC.
(construction of a waterline on Brookhurst Street between Pacific Avenue to
Harriet Lane, and authorizing the City Engineer to negotiate for a replacement
contractor to complete said contract)
14. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-421: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1810 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-415 NULL AND VOID. (to
permit a veterinary hospital with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces on property located on the southwest corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road
and Fairmont Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2618)
15. 103: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-422: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DESIGNATING CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS OAK
HILLS RANCH ANNEXATION AS UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE MASTER PROPERTY
TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-423: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO PUBLIC ROAD
PURPOSES. (C.P. NO. 26 AND R/W NO. 3429). MOTION CARRIED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-417 through 84R-423 duly passed and
adopted.
177: AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM - ORANGE COUNTY MULTIFAMILY REVENUE
BOND ISSUE~ DENSITY BONUS AND SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAMS: Approving a policy
establishing affordable rents for the subject programs. Submitted was a
detailed report dated October 15, 1984 from the Executive Director of
Community Development, Norm Priest, recommending that the Council approve a
policy for establishing affordable rents for certain rental projects in the
City of Anaheim along with attachments.
Mr. Priest then answered questions posed by Councilman Pickler relative to the
affordable housing aspect and the length of control. He explained that staff
was recommending 10 years, whereas up to this time, it had been 5 years. The
Planning Commission recommended 20 years but the tax exempt financing in some
instances required 10 years and staff was trying to be compatible across the
Board to preclude a series of programs with different time frames; Councilman
Overholt also gave an overview of the numerous discussions the Council had on
1025
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
the matter before Councilman Pickler became a Council Member. He felt that 10
years was a good approach and was totally in favor of it.
Mr. Priest pointed out that in this instance, it involved rental housing;
Councilman Overholt stated that was true, but it was the same concept.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that even with the 10 year
restriction, the owner was still entitled to a cost-of-living increase in rent
each year; Mr. Priest answered that was correct.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the density bonus for 5 years was for any
short term investment which she felt was Just an excuse for higher density
because after that, the affordable portion was then gone. Ten years would be
a minimum compromise keeping in mind that it did not freeze rents. She would
be in favor of a 10 year minimum.
Mr. Priest then explained for Councilman Bay relative to the 30 year control
on Senior projects, 30 years was called out in a proposed Senior Citizen
Housing ordinance. As the Council would recall, hearings had been held
relative to Senior Housing developments and the 30 years reflected the outcome
of those hearings, but at this time it was not in an adopted ordinance.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification on the proposed motion. He especially
wanted to know if, in approving the proposed recommendation, the Council would
be setting a 30 year control on Senior Housing.
Mr. Priest answered "yes." It picked up the effect of the proposed ordinance
in that one area and it would become the Council's policy fixing 30 years on
Senior Housing. He did not believe it would present a problem with Federal
Law.
Councilman Bay stated he had no problem on a minimum of 10 years on a density
bonus, but with establishing a policy today that might change when they
reviewed, studied and discussed the new Senior ordinance. That ordinance was
supposed to encourage new Senior Housing developments in the City. If the
Council today voted on a 30 year policy even before completing the study on
the proposed ordinance, they could in effect deter the building of Senior
Housing. He did not want to approve a 30 year control until they had an
opportunity to see the ordinance.
After further discussion on the issue of the 30 year control, Councilman
Overholt asked when the Council would be receiving the study on the proposed
Senior Housing ordinance; Mr. Priest answered the study would be submitted as
part of the ordinance adoption process.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the original
staff report and ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission
approximately 3 weeks ago and it was then it came to staff's attention that
State Law had changed (see Page 1, No. 1 of the subject staff report) and had
some impacts. The Planning Commission would be discussing the matter again in
approximately 3 weeks followed by the 22-day appeal period. Mr. Priest stated
the Council could make it 10 years across the Board and then amend the policy
1026
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California. - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
if they wished when they considered the Senior ordinance. Staff would like to
see a 30 year limitation in order to get as much affordabiltty as possible but
since they were moving from zero at present, 10 years was better than zero.
He would personally prefer 30 years.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve a policy for establishing affordable rents
for the Orange County Multi-family Revenue Bond Issue Program, Density Bonus
Program and the Senior Housing Program as recommended by staff in memorandum
dated October 15, 1984 with 10 years under control for a density bonus and 30
years under control for Senior Housing. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he might not be opposed to 30
years once they studied the ordinance on defining Senior Citizen developments
but he was opposed to doing so in advance. He did not have a problem with 10
years on the density bonus. However, on the 30 years, he cautioned it could
discourage the private sector from building the Senior Housing the Council was
trying to motivate. A 30 year control policy at this time was a demotivator.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted
MOTION CARRIED.
142/101/124: ORDINANCE NO. 4547 - THROWING~ DISCHARGING OR LAUNCHING
SUBSTANCES AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance
No. 4547 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4547: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADDING TO TITLE 11, CHAPTER 11.04, SECTION 11.04.090 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT AT THE ANAHEIM STADIUM AND CONVENTION
CENTER.
Councilman Overholt wanted to know if the proposed ordinance prohibited
throwing beach balls. He was concerned that the ordinance be spelled out in
such a way so that things that were not obnoxious, malicious, etc. did not
fall into the category of prohibited conduct. He did not want an ordinance
that would come down hard on people having a good time who were not
interfering with their neighbors. He asked if the City had such an ordinance
before and if there was such an ordinance in existence in other cities.
City Attorney William Hopkins answered that the City did not have such an
ordinance previously and that with regard to other cities, they did not have
an identical ordinance.
Councilman Overholt stated that unfortunately ordinances were "blind" and he
wanted to see the back up information used to form the proposed ordinance;
City Attorney Hopkins responded that such information would be available for
the final reading of the ordinance in one week.
Councilman Bay stated he was concerned also that the ordinance not be worded
as Councilman Overholt stated. It used terms that could be interpreted many
different ways and should be looked at again from that standpoint.
1027
118
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
142/112/107: ORDINANCE NO. 4548 - PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS: Councilman Bay
offered Ordinance No. 4548 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4548: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
1.01.370 OF CHAPTER 1.01 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
CODE ADOPTION AND CONSTRUCTION.
123: REQUEST FOR RATE INCREASE FOR LEGAL SERVICES - OLIVER STOEVER AND
LASKIN: Submitted was a report dated September 27, 1984 from the City
Attorney's Office recommending approval of the subject request.
Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the Third Amendment to an agreement
with Oliver, Stoever and Laskin, increasing the hourly rate to $110 and the
"court time" rate to 3800 per day for legal services in the acquisition of
real property, commencing November 1, 1984 as recommended in memorandum dated
September 27, 1984 and upon the City Attorney's recommendation that the rates
were competitive. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held October 1, 1984, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-3 (READV.) AND VARIANCE NO. 3417 (READV.):
Application submitted by Armand A. and Virginia A. Stephanian, for a change in
zone from CL to RM-1200, to construct a 40-unit affordable apartment complex
on property located at 2546 West Lincoln Avenue, with Code waivers as
follows: (a) permitted encroachment into front yard, (deleted) (b) maximum
fence height, (deleted) (c) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (d)
maximum building height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-193 and 194,
granted Reclassification No. 84-85-3 (Readv.) in part, and Variance No. 3417
(Readv.), and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2622: Application submitted by Continental
Pacific Enterprises, Inc., to construct a 45-foot high, 205-room senior
citizens' retirement facility on CL(SC) zoned property located at 505 South
Anaheim Hills Road, with Code waiver of minimum number and type of parking
spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-196, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2622, and granted a negative declaration status.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answered questions posed by
Councilwoman Kaywood for purposes of clarification relative to the subject
CUP; at the conclusion of questioning, Councilwoman Kaywood stated the Council
had been careful in considering all projects proposed for Anaheim Hills. They
had now approved two senior retirement projects but had no track record of how
such projects would turn out. She did not want to see something which would
turn out to be a disaster in Anaheim Hills. However, if no other Council
Members had a problem with the project, she would not set it for a public
hearing.
1028
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984,. 10:00 A.M.
No action was taken by the Council.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2625: Application submitted by Louis H. and
Ada Perlof, (Pick your Part), to permit expansion of an automobile dismantling
and storage yard on CL zoned property located at 1235 South Beach Boulevard.
The Cit~ Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-199, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2625, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2617: Application submitted by John Howard
Turtle and W. Ronald Dye, (Auto Concepts and Mussche Automotive), to retain
and permit two automotive repair facilities on ML zoned property located at
1131 and 1135 North Blue Gum Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-200, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2617 for 2 years, and granted a negative
declaration status.
5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-10: Application submitted by Comet, Inc., for
a change in zone from CL to RM-1200, to construct a 66-unit apartment complex
on property located at 1235 East Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-201, granted
Reclassification No. 84-85-10, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-8 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2623:
Application submitted by N/B Associates, for a change in zone from ML to CR,
to permit a 3-story business and professional office building on property
located at 2201 East Orangewood Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-202 and 203,
granted Reclassification No. 84-85-8 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2623, and
granted a negative declaration status.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3425: Application submitted by Zoe L. and Diane G. Grillas,
to construct a 6-foot high block wall on RS-5000(SC) zoned property located at
6104 Camino Manzano, with Code waiver of permitted wall height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-204, granted
Variance No. 3425, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination (Class 3).
8. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-4 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2249 -
EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Application submitted by Presbyterian Church, requesting
extensions of time to Reclassification No. 81-82-4 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 2249, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to CL(SC), to permit a
church, preschool and office complex with certain Code waivers on property
located on the south side of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Fairmont Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 81-82-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2249, to expire August 24, 1985.
1029
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
9. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-16 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted
by Hugo A. Vazquez, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No.
77-78-16, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a
1-story, 8-unit apartment complex on property located at 920 South Western
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 77-78-16, to expire September 12, 1985.
10. VARIANCE NO. 3244 - TERMINATION: Application submitted by Euclid
Development Partners, requesting termination of Variance No. 3244, to
construct a 3-story medical office building on CO zoned property located at
1300 South Euclid Street, as a condition of approval of Variance No. 3420.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-205, terminated
Variance No. 3244.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-16 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2311 -
EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Application submitted by Pacesetter Homes, requesting
extension of time to Reclassification No. 81-82-16 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 2311, for a change in zone from RM-1200 to RM-3000, to construct a 4-lot,
169 unit condominium complex on property located east of Citron, and north of
Santa Ana Street (former Fremont Junior High School playfield).
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 81-82-16 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2311, to expire March 22, 1985.
12. VARIANCE NO. 3419 (READV.): Application submitted by Vernon W. Edmonds,
to construct a 15-unit apartment complex on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located
at 920 South Western Avenue, with Code waivers as follows: (a) maximum
structural height, (b) maximum site coverage, (c) maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-195, granted
Variance No. 3419 (Readv.), and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilman Overholt requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
on Variance No. 3419. Therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a
later date.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2621 (READV.): Application submitted by Wood
Bridge Village, Ltd., to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed
semi-enclosed restaurant on CG zoned property located at 50 South Anaheim
Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-197, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2621 (Readv.), and granted a negative
declaration status.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
therefore a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
1030
CitX Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2624: Application submitted by Anaheim Hills
Development Corp., to permit a remote telephone switching facility on
RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road,
west of Serrano Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum structural setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-198, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2624, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Roth and therefore a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
153/119: DISABILITY RETIREMENT ABUSES: Series of articles by the Register
newspaper on the pension crisis specifically dealing with disability
retirement abuse. This matter was continued from the meeting of October 16,
1984 (see minutes that date).
Councilman Overholt reoffered the following motion: Authorizing the Mayor to
contact Senators Seymour and Russell, and the Register, on behalf of the
Council, commending the Register for their articles relating to disability
retirements, and indicating the Council is 100% behind them. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth suggested that a letter be prepared to be
signed by all Council Members; Councilman Pickler recommended that the
Register articles also be included.
Councilman Bay stated that the Council should contact all of the City's local
representatives, both State Senators and Assemblymen.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
139: OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 36: Councilman Pickler reported on the
information meeting on Proposition 36 held October 6, 1984, sponsored by the
Orange County League of Cities at the Garden Grove Community Center. He felt
personally that Proposition 36 was bad for the cities of Orange County and
there were many agencies and groups who supported Proposition 13 who were
opposed to Proposition 36 as were the California Chamber of Commerce, League
of Women Voters, Senior Citizens, The Building Industry Association and many
more. He considered it to be a bad proposition with many problems and most
important, it was unfair taxation. It would give 1/3 of the homeowners a tax
break, the people who already received it, and it would raise taxes for
homeowners already paying higher taxes. Two thirds would be picking up the
tab for 1/3 receiving the benefits. If cities needed money, they would have
to go to Sacramento and he believed there should be local control, not control
by the State. He wanted to go on record in opposition to Proposition 36 and
urged close scrutiny of that proposition by the people.
Councilman Pickler thereupon moved that the Council go on record in opposition
to Proposition 36.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt recounted that the Council
had supported placing Proposition A on the ballot and it was resoundingly
1031
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
defeated. He heard it was partly because every politician in the County was
for it. Councilman Pickler felt that Proposition 36 went too far and he had a
great deal of company in that regard. He (Overholt) also shared that view and
if Councilman Pickler wanted to press the Council for a position, he would
support that position. The whole issue was expressed by Senator Seymour at
the League of Cities meeting although he had not taken a position. He
(Seymour) felt it was going to pass and he couched it in terms of purely an
issue of local control vs. State control and it would put all the "marbles" in
Sacramento. The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce had taken no position and the
California Chamber of Commerce had come out strongly against it because it
shifted the financial control to the State and limited the ability of the
local elected officials to deal with the problems of the community. If the
proposition passed, the Council and the City would deal with it, but the
impact on the local community and others in the State would be devastating.
Councilman Overholt thereupon seconded the motion offered by Councilman
Pickler.
Councilman Roth stated he would support the motion but felt strongly the more
politicians who came out in opposition would bring about the same result as
Proposition A. In a discussion with Supervisor Pete Shabarum who was a member
of the most conservative Board of Supervisors in the nation, the Los Angeles
Board of Supervisors, he (Shabarum) said if Proposition 36 passed in November,
he would not have anything to supervise because it would shift more and more
responsibility to the State.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt it was important to get the facts out
which facts had been hard to find. (1) Why did something that merely required
a majority vote tie up the hands of everything that would then require 2/3rds
vote. The minority would be making all of the decisions. (2) If a 2/3rds
vote was required for everything, she questioned who was going to pay for all
the elections. In Anaheim alone, the public safety budget for police and fire
was over ~40 million while the property tax paid only ~8 million and it had
nothing to do with Public Works. Revenues had shrunk where needs continued to
grow. She questioned where the services would be coming from that were
provided at the local level. It was very important for people to understand
that and to put all of the other rhetoric aside.
Councilman Bay stated he was going to abstain on the motion although he
personally felt it was a bad law. He could understand what caused it to be
created and why it had received the support it had. There were cities in the
state who had taken advantage of the intent of Proposition 13 and constantly
increased fees and other things which he had always called taxes. The problem
with Proposition 36 was the poor job done in writing it. His own opinion was
that it would blatantly impair local control. On the other hand, it existed
primarily because of abuses on the local, County and State governmental levels
in the constant search for new revenues which had become a fad where fees were
increased over and above the cost of service. The best way to defeat
Proposition 36 was to talk to those people who had been abusing the intent of
Proposition 13 which was to hold down taxes. He was abstaining because he
felt it was up to the people to decide and he also agreed if enough
politicians climbed on board to oppose it, it would pass.
1032
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation, potential litigation and labor relations with no action
anticipated; City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation
and potential litigation with no action anticipated.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the
City's attorneys concerning pending or potential litigation. Councilman Roth
moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (11:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (1:40 p.m.)
155: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 267: To
consider Environmental Impact Report No. 267 for the proposed development of
an automobile sales and service center on approximately 10.6 acre parcel of
land located on the south side of Ball Road, east of the Orange Freeway
(Route 57). Public hearing was held on October 9, 1984, testimony received
and the public hearing was closed and continued to this date. (See minutes of
October 9, 1984).
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, briefed staff report from the
Planning Department/Planning Division to the City Manager/City Council dated
October 22, 1984, recommending that the Council certify EIR No. 267.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 267 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact
Report No. 267 having been reviewed by the EIR Review Committee was found to
be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the State of California
Environmental Quality, the City Council acting upon such information and
belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by
Councilman Overholt that Environmental Impact Report No. 267 is in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality and City and State guidelines as
recommended by the EIR Review Committee. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2603: Application submitted
by Retirement Fund Trust of the Plumbing, Heating and P~ping Industry of
Southern California, to permit a self-storage facility on CG zoned property
located on the south side of Wilken Way, east of Harbor Boulevard, with Code
waivers as follows: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum
required public parking area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-179, approved
the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 2603, subject to the following conditions:
1033
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for the new dwelling unit and new industrial
buildings.
2. That a modified cul-de-sac shall be provided at the terminus of
Willowbrook Lane and Tiller Avenue as required by the City Engineer.
3. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner
which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets.
Installation of any gates within a distance of forty (40) feet from said
public street rights-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Traffic Engineer.
4. That all driveways shall be designed to accommodate ten (10) foot
radius curb returns as required by City Traffic Engineer.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall
be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the
Chief of the Fire Department.
8. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
9. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee for tree planting purposes along wtlken Way in an amount as determined by
the City Council.
10. That a perpetual easement agreement for a strip of land 20 feet wide
for water utility purposes, connecting the northerly existing terminus of
Willowbrook Lane to the southerly existing terminus of Madrid Street shall be
submitted to the Planning Department and then be transmitted to the City
Attorney's Office and the Water Engineering Division for review and approval.
The approved agreement shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Recorder, and a copy of said recorded agreement shall be
provided to the Planning Department.
11. That fire sprinklers shall be installed as required by the City Fire
Marshall.
12. That the use herein approved shall not commence until after the
effective date of the Code Amendment, now pending, permitting
self-storage/mini-warehouse facilities in the CG Zone as a conditional use.
13. That all lockable vehicular access gates shall be equipped with a
"knox box" device gate opener to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall.
1034
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
14. That a screened "crash gate" shall be installed at the northerly
terminus of Willowbrook Lane to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall.
Said access shall be restricted to emergency use only.
15. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the CG
Zone, unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
16. That a 6-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed and
maintained along the south, east, and easterly approximate 284 feet of the
north property lines.
17. That any proposed exterior lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted
with a maximum height of 12 feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed
away from adjacent property lines to protect the residential integrity of the
area.
18. That 15-gallon trees planted on 10-foot centers, with appropriate
irrigation facilities, shall be installed and maintained along the south,
east, and easterly approximate 284 feet of the north property lines.
19. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Variance No. 3125 to the Planning Department.
20. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
21. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one
year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos.
1, 9, 10, 12 and 19, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for
further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with
Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
22. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Richard Brown, Representing Brown Development, was present to answer
questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood repeated her concern that a perfectly square ten acre
parcel was going to be used for self-storage. Normally strips of land with
minimal acreage usually freeway remnants, were utilized for such
developments. She was also concerned with regard to parking and the waiver
requested.
1035
110
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Brown then answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood informing the
Council as follows: The storage units themselves would be divided by
partitions which could be moved depending on demand. The reason the parking
waiver was agreed to by staff and the Traffic Engineer was that storage units
required very little on-site parking and theirs was vastly in excess of the
number of spaces that would be used, to the point where they could rent
parking spaces out if they wished to do so. The waiver was typical for the
use. There would be some approach to the units and on the smaller units,
carts would be provided to bring storage goods to the unit. It was not
restricted to commercial storage and could be used to relieve some of the
overflow problems of storage in the surrounding apartments.
Mayor Roth then gave an overview of the actions that had taken place on the
property, the first proposal being an apartment complex which was ultimately
denied by the Council (see minutes of April 17, 1984) when there was a ground
swell of citizens in the community who were opposed.
Mr. Brown explained that in the final analysis, the proposal for a
self-storage facility did satisfy most of the opposition, if not all and as
the Council would recall when apartments were proposed at the public hearing
before the Council, he asked the neighbors at that time if self-storage would
be an acceptable concept and they agreed. After the proposal was made, they
met with the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council and it was determined that the
Neighborhood Council would take no action in opposition to the self-storage
proposal.
Councilwoman Kaywood again reiterated her concern that even though waivers for
self-storage had been granted in the past, the City did not have a record of
experience to know whether those decisions were good or bad. She then asked
Mr. Brown if he considered the subject project to be an interim use.
Mr. Brown answered that there was no way to consider a ~10 million plus
installation as an interim use. It was not to say that 15 years from now that
someone was not going to come in and say that self-storage was not the best
use of the property and that they would like to do something else with the
property.
Councilman Pickler noted that in the past for self-storage projects had been
approved with an average of five percent parking. He asked if any problems
had occurred.
Miss Santalahti answered that she was not aware of any problems with the
currently existing facilities. In one project, some of the spaces were
converted to actual storage units. People did not stay long at the storage
units and the use had not tended to be a parking problem.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response, he closed
the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
1036
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
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 Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-424 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2603, upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission and subject to City Planning Commission Conditions. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-424: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2603.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-424 duly passed and adopted.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11936 (REVISION NO. 1):
Application submitted by State Wide Developers, to establish a 4-'iot,
332-unit, RM-3000 zoned condominium subdivision on property located on the
east side of Knott Street, south of Ball Road (former Apollo Junior High
School Site).
At its meeting of September 17, 1984, the Planning Commission approved
Tentative Tract No. 11936 (Revision I) for 332 units.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Tariq Sbmmma, Shamma Enterprises representing State Wide Developers, 229
East Lincoln Avenue, was present to answer questions. He then explained for
Councilwoman Kaywood the request was for turning the dividing line between lot
1 and 2, ninety degrees which required more adjustment to provide driveways to
lot 2. That was the sum of the request; however, he confirmed for
Councilwoman Kaywood that change did take away the look of the railroad car
affect and it improved the situation.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had no problem with that.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there being no response, he
closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve Tentative Tract No. 11936
(Revision I) as recommended by the City Planning Commission, subject to the
following conditions:
1037
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
1. That prior to final tract map approval, the owner of subject property
shall record a covenant guaranteeing that as each phase develops, that phase
shall contain the Code required minimum number and type of parking spaces
calculated either independently or including previously developed phase(s).
2. That prior to final tract map approval, the owner of subject property
shall agree to relocate any bus stops and bus shelters adjacent to subject
property on Knott Street to the satisfaction of the Orange County Transit
District. Said approval shall be in the form of a written agreement between
the owner and Orange County Transit District, a copy of which shall be
presented to the Planning Department.
3. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder.
4. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved
by the City Planning Department.
5. That temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any
occupancy if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
6. That prior to approval of the final map, the vehicular access rights
to Myra Avenue and Kingsway Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
7. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to th City Attorney's Office and Engineering Division. Said documents, as
approved will then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder.
8. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
9. That prior to approval of the final map, the owner of subject property
shall post a bond to guarantee the installation of a modified cul-de-sac at
the terminus of Kingsway Avenue and Myra Avenue as required by the City
Engineer. Said installation shall occur prior to final building and zoning
inspections.
10. That prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall enter
into an agreement with the City of Anaheim pursuant to Government Code Section
65915 to provide that not less than 83 of the residential units shall be sold
as low or moderate income housing as defined in Government Code Section 65915
and with appropriate resale controls as approved by the City of Anaheim.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt referred to a telephone call
received from Mrs. Windflower Ochoa reminding the Council that the developer
1038
Cit~ ~all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
had agreed to use graffiti repellant paint on the wall surrounding the
development. Mrs. Ochoa lived next door to the development and that was one
of her concerns.
Mr. Shamma was not aware of the requirement and he questioned where the
graffiti would come from. One side of the wall faced the neighbors and the
other was inside the development. There was a condominium project and not
apartments and thus there would be pride of ownership. He did not see the
problem.
Councilman Bay stated there was a coating available, which when applied to a
surface, graffiti would not hold to it. It was a matter of planning ahead in
case the development did experience graffiti.
Mr. Shamma stated he would be happy to look into the matter and would discuss
it with the developer. He did not see the need for the coating on a
condominium project especially since there was no wall along the public access
way.
Councilman Pickler asked what would happen if the Council approved the
tentative tract and there was no stipulation made as to the graffiti repellant.
Miss Santalahti stated it was not a condition that could be applied to a
subdivision map; Mr. Shamma confirmed that he would look into the matter and
raise the issue with the developer.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, approving Tentative Tract No.
11936 (Revision I). MOTION CARRIED.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - TRACT NOS. 10980, 10981~ 10982~ 109.83 .AND 1.0984: To
amend conditions of approval, in particular Condition Nos. 25 and 33, of
Tentative Tract No. 10980 and 10982, respectively, relating to posting a Bond
with the City to guarantee grading and landscaping of the slope adjacent to
the regional shopping center site; Condition No. 32 of Tentative Tract No.
10981, relating to entering a reimbursement agreement for fire station and
park sites; and Tract Nos. 10983 and 10984, relating to onsite and offsite
drainage, on property located south of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east and west of
Weir Canyon Road. (Bauer Ranch)
City Clerk Lee Sohl announced that letter dated October 19, 1984 had been
received from Robert M. Galloway, Senior Vice President of Kaufman and Broad,
requesting a one week continuance on Tract No. 10980, Condition No. 25 and
Tract No. 10982, Condition No. 33.
Mr. Tom Winfield, representing Kaufman and Broad, explained he had met with
Messrs. Thompson, Fick and Johnson that morning on Tract No. 10980 and 10982.
Since a staff report would not be possible to submit for next week's agenda,
he was now requesting a two week continuance. He further clarified that those
were the only two items they were requesting be continued and not the
remainder of the tracts.
1039
106
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of amendment to
conditions of approval on Tract No. 10980 and Tract No. 10982 to November 6,
1984 at 1:30 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Winfield then explained as to the storm drain issues of Tract No. 10983,
Condition 18 and 19 and Tract No. 10984, Condition 16, Kaufman and Broad was
prepared to agree with City Engineer Gary Johnson and staff's recommendation
in that regard. They received Fish and Game approval to place the storm drain
in the wilderness area. The only additional recommendation was that the storm
drain be completed by October 1985. With that proviso, they were also advised
that there was an agreement that the bond amount would be unchanged. With
that, Kaufman and Broad was agreeable to those two items.
As to the fire station issue, Mr. Winfield stated although it was originally
their understanding that the fire ladder truck would not have to be provided
until the third story level of the regional shopping center was under
construction, they had talked with staff and the Fire Department and Kaufman
and Broad was agreeable to memorializing the obligations of the Public
Facilities Plan (PFP) as they existed on Pages 18 through 21 of the November,
1983 Revision II, Public Facilities Plan to reflect the fact that Kaufman and
Broad would deliver the fire station facility with both the pumper and the
ladder truck. They were requesting that delivery date of the ladder truck be
specified to be December, 1986. The Public Facilities Plan as proposed talked
about delivery with the construction of the third floor of the shopping center
but there was also language indicating that it was anticipated the shopping
center would be built in 1986/87. They were suggesting to split the
difference and make delivery December, 1986. With that, they would again
support staff's position and if the Council's motion was to approve staff
recommendation, that they authorize execution of the agreement once it was
prepared by the City Attorney to preclude the additional time to take it back
to the Council.
Mayor Roth asked to hear from the City Engineer.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, explained that relative to the wilderness area
storm drain, when the staff report was prepared (see report dated October 15,
1984) Kaufman and Broad had not obtained a permit from the California Fish and
Game. Staff's concern was that K&B would be unable to place the drain in the
area hut that was no longer the case. In reviewing the permit, it had
requirements for starting dates, and the method of installing the drain and
wild-life mitigation measures, all satisfactory to Engineering. The bond
amount appeared to be appropriate. He asked that the Council modify the
condition to state that the drain be constructed within one year from today's
date.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the 1986 delivery date for the fire truck was
acceptable; Mr. Johnson answered that he would prefer someone from the Fire
Department to speak to that issue specifically. The concern of his staff was
that they had a binding agreement requiring the developer to comply with the
conditions to provide the City with a fire station and fire apparatus. The
City Attorney's opinion was that the Public Facilities Plan did not stand
alone and the City could not rely on that document to obtain the fire station
1040
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
and apparatus and, therefore, an agreement would be necessary if the condition
were to be waived. The applicant had agreed to that. That relieved his
(Johnson's) concern.
The Fire Department prepared a memorandum dated October 10, 1984 (see
memorandum from Ron Evans, Assistant Fire Chief, to Gary Johnson, City
Engineer) discussing the time for delivery of the ladder truck and the concern
over the.delivery date. The memorandum indicated the purchase of the ladder
truck was tied to the third story of the shopping center strictly for
convenience, based on the information available in 1980, and that the ladder
truck was to be placed into operation for general firefighttng requirements in
the canyon area and not specifically for fighting fires for third stories of
shopping centers.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it was possible to have the funding for the fire
truck prior to the December 1986 date; Mr. Winfield answered they had already
provided the pumper and the question was only relative to the timing on the
ladder truck. As the Public Facilities Plan indicated, it was intended that
it be delivered in 1986 or 1987 and they were asking that it be December,
1986. It would be a help to them if that delivery date could be maintained.
City Manager Talley explained that he had asked Chief Evans to be present
because the Chief was as surprised as he (Talley) that they were trying to
negotiate before the Council. The Fire Department had on several occasions
attempted to bring the matter to the developer's attention and to work out
what they thought were very favorable terms in order to deliver the equipment.
The City needed the equipment and thought under the original schedule it would
be available 18 months ago up to 30 months ago. It was now being put out from
the 1982/83 Fiscal Year to the 1985/86 Fiscal Year or three years beyond what
the City originally believed delivery would be. The Fire Department was
saying if there was a delay in placing the equipment in service beyond
1985/86, it would drastically affect the overall protection plans of the Fire
Department and severely impact the fire protection available to all of the
Santa Aha Canyon area. The original proposal was based on the fact that the
City believed that over 1 1/2 years ago, possibly two years ago, it would have
that piece of equipment and also the shopping center constructed.
After further discussion with Mr. Winfield on the issue, Assistant Fire Chief
Ron Evans explained that the Fire Department could use the equipment any
time. He did not recall discussing a delivery date of December, 1986 with
anyone and personally he wanted a delivery date of January, 1986 to meet the
fire protection needs of the area. The Department's original fire protection
plans for the area had been affected by the Bauer Ranch Development and those
plans were modified upon receipt of the original Bauer Ranch Development which
was to include the purchase of the fire pumper and the fire truck. The
Department did not move the existing truck in the canyon area at Station 5.
It was purposely left there because of the industrial area that it served
awaiting arrival of the truck intended for Station 10 which at that time was
calculated to be in the 1982/83 Fiscal Year.
1041
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler asked Mr. Winfield if delivery in January of 1986 would
create a problem; Mr. Winfield first explained that Kaufman and Broad supplied
the pumper truck to the Fire Department 18 months before they were required to
give it to the City. The problem they were having in this case, the agreement
they made last November stated that the ladder truck would be delivered in
1986 or 1987. It represented a ~370,000 expenditure and the extra 11 months
would be of benefit. It was an economic issue and the Council had to balance
that. The need the City had for that equipment was not related to what K&B
were building.
Mr. Robert Galloway, Senior Vice President, Kaufman and Broad, also gave an
overview of the entire situation, the point being that they delivered the
pumper ahead of schedule and now they wanted to deliver the ladder truck in
December of 1986.
Further discussion took place on the issue of the delivery of the ladder truck
between Council Members, City Manager Talley, Mr. Winfield and Mr. Galloway
during which Mr. Talley stated that Fire Chief Simpson and Assistant Chief
Evans wanted delivery January 1, 1986 but could live with July 1, 1986.
Mr. Galloway offered a delivery date of July 1986 and follow up within the
next couple of weeks with Assistant Chief Evans, because he felt there was
possibly a deal they could make that was even better.
Mr. Winfield asked if the Council supported his request that the Council
authorize execution of an agreement as prepared by the City Attorney.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Charter required approval by the
Council and it had been the policy that the Council could not approve
something unless they actually saw it. He suggested that a written agreement
be submitted to the Council; Mr. Winfield then asked if it would be
unreasonable to bring such an agreement back to the Council in one week.
It was determined that the issue would again be brought before the Council in
one week.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue consideration of amendment to
conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 10981 (Condition No. 32) to
November 5, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve Tract No. 10983, Condition Nos.
18 and 19 and Tract No. 10984, Condition Nos. 15 and 16 which conditions were
a part of the approval of the subject Tracts, with the modification however,
that the drain be constructed within one year from today's date or October 23,
1985. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
155: PUBLIC HEARING - TRACT NOS. 10996, 10997 AND 10998: To consider the
appeal of the Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Inc., and the Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians appealing the decisions of the City Engineer certifying
Environmental Impact Report No. 236G; approving the grading plan of
Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc.; and approving the issuance of a grading permit to
1042
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., relating to the grading of Tract Nos. 10996, 10997
and 10998, located generally southerly of Avenida de Santiago and
southwesterly of the terminus of Hidden Canyon Road.
Report of the City Engineer dated October 12, 1984 recommended that the
Council (1) certify final Environmental Impact Report No. 236-G and make
certain findings in conjunction therewith and (2) approve the Grading Plan of
Texaco-Anaheim Hills Inc. and issuance of a Grading Permit therefore relating
to the Grading of Tract Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998.
The City Engineer of the City of Anaheim as the decision making body of the
lead agency for purposes of the said project reviewed and evaluated the
comments received from public agencies and persons who reviewed the draft EIR
including comments and testimony received at the public hearing of
September 14, 1983 and determined that final EIR No. 236-G has been completed
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) adopting
and incorporating the findings of fact, mitigation measures and statement of
overriding considerations heretofor adopted by the respective decision-making
bodies of the lead agency in conjunction with certification of EIR Reports
Nos. 231 and 236 to the extent the same are applicable to the project.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, stated that three months ago he began to review
the minutes of the hearing of September 14, 1983, the transcript, the Grading
Plan and working with the City Attorney's Office regarding the EIR. It was
his recommendation after that review that the Council take the action before
them today primarily to certify EIR No. 236-G approving the Grading Plan and
approving issuance of the Grading Permit to Texaco-Anaheim Hills. It was his
opinion and belief at this time that the concerns of the appellant and his
constituents had been dealt with fairly and it would be appropriate to hear
from them at this time as well as the proponents.
Mayor Roth announced that he had received a message from the City Attorney to
read into the record as follows: "Attorney Richard Derevan for Sea and Sage
Audobons society and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians called to advise that
he will not oppose the City Engineer's decision."
The Mayor then asked if anyone was present to speak to the matter and if there
were any representatives present from either Sea and Sage or the Juaneno Band
of Mission Indians; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-425 for adoption, certifying EIR
No. 236-G and Resolution No. 84R-425, approving the Grading Plan of
Texaco-Anaheim Hills Inc. and approving issuance of a Grading Permit therefor
relating to Tract Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-425: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 236-GAND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-426: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE GRADING PLAN OF TEXACO-ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND APPROVING
1043
102
Ctt~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT THEREFOR RELATING TO THE GRADING OF TRACTS 10996,
10997 AND 10998 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-425 and 84R-426 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:03 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:40 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:41 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1044