1983/01/25City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
AB SENT:
PRE SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL M~4BERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ZONING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST: Anthony Montoya
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Rick Gastil, Hotline Help Center at Melodyland, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF C~MMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Susan Garrison on
behalf of Kaiser Hospital for their $1,000 donation to the Parks and
Recreation Program.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
Travel Industry Week in Anaheim, February 1 through 7, 1983.
The proclamation was accepted by Ronnie Orr and Guido Borges.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,527,742.92, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
175: INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT: To consider downsizing of the
Intermountain Power Project from four units to two units. This matter was
continued from the joint meeting with the Public Utilities Board on
January 18, 1983, where extensive discussion took place and input
received--see minutes that date.
37
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth first asked to hear from the Chamber of Commerce as to the vote of
their Board of Directors on the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) modification.
Mr. Les Riddell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber,
reported that the results of the report of the Board of Directors was as
follows, with 31 of 33 members voting: (1) Support urging the Anaheim City
Council to approve participation in the building of two generating units at
IPP, rather than the previously planned four units--30 "YES," 0 "NO," 1
"ABSTENTION." (2) Support urging Anaheim to retain a 198-Megawatt share of
the IPP project--26 "YES," 4 "NO," 1 "ABSTENTION." (See letter dated
January 25, 1983, from the Chamber, which was submitted by Mr. Riddell--on
file in the City Clerk's office.)
Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, then explained for Mayor
Roth that thus far in the approval procedure, three cities which had not yet
completed the process were Bountiful, Utah, Anaheim and Los Angeles. Last
week, the Los Angeles Board of Water and Power voted unanimously to support
recommendations similar to those he (Hoyt) had made to the Council, but with
the numbers of Los Angeles inserted. It was now just a matter of presenting
it to the Los Angeles City Council. Other cities had approved the
modifications last Tuesday. He then explained for Councilman Bay the time
frame involved for approval by the California Utilities, as well as the
ultimate deadline, which was keyed to the financing of the project.
Councilman Bay then stated that he had a week to think about the issue, and
the more he did so, the less he liked it. What he disliked most of all was
the lack of alternatives Council had, i.e., either they had to go along with
the proposal, or kill the project, thereby inheriting a tremendous liability
of ~8.8 million for 38 years. He then reviewed the situation the way he saw
it and why he felt they were limited to only those two alternatives, his main
thrust being the absence of any appreciable penalty assessed to Utah Power and
Light (UPL), the only privately owned power company within the partnership who
reneged on a contract for their 25 percent liability for the total IPP
project, thus threatening the entire project. In finality, they would be
taking 98 percent of UPL's problems "off their back" at the expense of the
rest of the partners and at some expense to the whole project by cutting it in
half. At this time, he favored cutting it in half, not to save UPL, but
looking at some new risk factors that occurred in the last week.
Councilman Bay continued that if Anaheim's liability for 10.225 percent was
$8.8 million a year for 38 years should the project be terminated, UPL's
liability for a 25 percent share was approximately ~22 million a year for the
same 38 years. He saw no good business reason for Anaheim to accept the 3
percent of UPL's liability or for that matter, for Los Angeles to accept 17
percent of the liability on a dollar for dollar basis. He felt that the
negotiations should be reopened, even if it required a delay. They should
request that if the partnership was so anxious to pick up shares at dollar for
dollar, that Anaheim offer its 10.225 percent share dollar for dollar, or if
no one wanted to pick up Anaheim's share, then start offering UPL fifty cents
on the dollar.
38
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
In concluding, Councilman Bay stated he offered those thoughts because he
would like to explore the possibility of gaining more negotiation time because
of what happened with OPEC this week and the projections he was reading on the
potential oil prices, whether short term or long term. The possibility of oil
going from ~35 a barrel to ~25, ~20 or even lower was a new impact to their
projections. He did not prefer liquidation of the program, but he supported
it being cut in half, but not with Anaheim picking up an additional 3 percent
on a dollar for dollar basis.
Mr. Hoyt then explained that the various participants in California on the
Coordinating Committee nominated Los Angeles to negotiate the arrangement, and
there were a number of things that came out in favor of the California
participants. He explained what those were, as well as the fact that UPL was
still "on the hook" through the layoff contract for 25 percent of the project
until ~1.5 billion in bonds, which had been sold thus far, had been refunded
or retired.
After further discussion between Councilman Bay and Mr. Hoyt on the issue,
Councilman Bay asked the alternative plan if Anaheim said "no" to the added 3
percent. He wanted to know if someone else was ready to pick up that
percentage.
Mr~ Hoyt answered that he had spoken with the Chief Electrical Engineer of Los
Angeles and the indications that came out of that discussion were that Los
Angeles would give serious consideration to picking up that portion. He felt
there was a good chance if that were the remaining issue, that Los Angeles
would pick up the extra 45 Megawatts, but he did not have firm assurances from
them.
City Manager William Talley, at the request of Councilman Bay, then gave his
opinion on Anaheim's reopening negotiations. He stated that his impression,
no matter what in hindsight they might think, once a negotiator was selected
and negotiated a deal, there was almost no way to renegotiate because that
would be casting doubt and credibility on the former negotiators.
Mayor Roth stated the issue with him today was not pulling out of IPP, but
whether he wanted to continue increasing the liability. It was the
uncertaiaty of not only the 0il, but also the technology in the future. He
had problems about participating in an additional 3 percent.
Mr. Hoyt stated from a standpoint of staff, he still believed it was a very
good project~ The long-term savings for Anaheim rate payers were very
substantial and that was why he recommended the larger percentage.
Councilman Overholt stated they had to look at the matter in terms of whether
it was an opportunity for the City. He considered the acquisition of 3
percent as an opportunity. It was consistent with what the voters voted on
and with what the Council unanimously supported and still continued to do so,
to seek out cheaper power for the City, so that in the 1990's they would not
be beholden to Southern California Edison.
39
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve an Amendatory Power Sales
Contract with the Intermountain Power Agency, as recommended in report dated
January 10, 1983, from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION: Councilman Pickier moved to approve a Lay-off Power Purchase Contract
with Utah Power & Light Company and Intermountain Power Agency, as recommended
in report dated January 10, 1983, from the Public Utilities General Manager.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he did not feel that they
should increase their liability when they had a choice. He was not convinced
that the figures on the savings they were looking at, nor the material that
was presented to the Chamber, figures, estimates and projections were correct
as of today. To him, the opportunity to cut the project in half was a
"Godsend" for the City. He was not convinced that long-term oil would
escalate at 12 percent, or that coal prices would stay at the percentages
projected. They should retain their 10.225 percent because they had no
choice, but he saw no reason to add another 3 percent. He was also not
convinced this would be the last opportunity to increase their percentage in
IPP. He maintained when such important negotiations were occurring within the
partnership, the Council should be privy to those negotiations at the time.
They needed to stay close to what was happening in generation projects where
the risk factors affected the users of the City, the citizens who owned the
utility.
Councilman Overholt stated his previous remarks were a rebuttal to Councilman
Bay's remarks, and although he respected his opinion, he did not agree with
it. He reiterated it was an opportunity and not a liability to increase
participation in IPP, which was the most preferred source of power they had
available at the present time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion approving a Lay-off Power
Purchase Contract with Utah Power & Light Company and the Intermountain Power
Agency and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL
Kaywood, Pickler and Overholt
Bay and Roth
~one
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Roth, 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. 83R-23 through 83R-26, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
4O
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
A. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Graphis Group/Inc., for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a voltage drop at 1441 North Red Gum, Suite
E, on or about November 30, 1982.
2. Claim submitted by Gene Caprio for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a power outage at 5586 Vista del Amigo, on or
about November 30, 1982.
3. Claim submitted by John R. Siers for personal property damages to
claimant's truck and camper purportedly sustained due to a fire hose
hanging from hose tower during high winds, at 1563 South Manchester, on or
about November 30, 1982.
4. Claim submitted by Akshay Marfatia for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a City tree interfering with sewer lines at
315 North Bush, on or about December 3 through 8, 1982.
5. Claim submitted by Rondell Homes for personal property damage
purportedly sustained due to actions of City employees at Chateau Loire,
2535 West Lincoln Avenue, on or about October 25, 1982.
6. Claim submitted by Herbert W. Stille for personal property damages to
car purportedly sustained due to an accident involving a City street
sweeper at Anaheim Boulevard and Chestnut Street, in front of the Pickwick
Hotel, on or about December 15, 1982.
7. Claim submitted by Robert D. Hutton for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to parkway tree branch dropping on claimant's
car at 2105 Midwood, on or about November 30, 1982.
8. Claim submitted by William R. Herndon for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a power outage at 2937 Skywood Circle, on or
about November 9, 1982.
B. Claims denied and referred to Governmental Programs Division, Markel
Services, Inc.:
9. Claim submitted by Frank Rosol for personal injuries and unlawful
arrest purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers, on
or about October 5, 1982.
10. Claim submitted by Richard Paul Russo for personal injuries
purportedly sustained due to false detention by Anaheim Police Officer at
1728 West Katella, on or about December 24 and 25, 1982.
C. Amended claim denied and referred to Risk Management:
41
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
11. Amended claim submitted by Deborah Sackett for personal injuries
purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium,
on or about October 6, 1982.
2. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by
Patrick Maurice Collins, for C.V. Productions, to hold a dance at the Anaheim
Convention Center on March 18~ 1983, from 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
3. 123/170: Approving the assignment of a special water facilities
reimbursement agreement with Arliss L. Ungar to Johnson Levine & Company,
effective November 1, 1982; and reassignment from Johnson Levine & Company to
Jones-Hamilton DPST effective December 1, 1982, relating to Tract No. 9749 in
the Anaheim Hills area.
4. 174/106/140: Authorizing appropriation of 525,000 in Community
Development Block Grant Funds (Fund 25-215) to Program 177 for continuation of
the Outreach Bookmobile service from February through June 30, 1983.
5. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Thrifty Oil Company to
allow encroachment of a double-faced sign on an existing steel single-pole
standard presently located within the future right-of-way of East Street, at
the northwest corner of South Street and East Street. (82-3E)
6. 123: Authorizing License Agreement No. BP-72142-25 with The Atchison,
Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company, and payment in the amount of 5250, to
cover the installation of conduit in the railroad right-of-way for the
modification of a traffic signal at Lakeview Avenue and 0rangethorpe Avenue.
7. 160: Accepting the bid of AA Equipment Rentals Company, Inc., in the
amount of 513,700.50, for one truck-mounted emulsion unit in accordance with
Bid No. 3938.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND C~PLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: KATELLA
AVENUE STREET IMPROV~ENT, HASTER STREET TO WALNUT STREET, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-793-6325-E3710. (Bids to be opened February 24, 1983,
2:00 p.m.)
129: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FIRE STATION
NO. 8 STORAGE BUILDING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-914-6325.
(Bids to be opened February 24, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
Later in the meeting, the City Clerk announced that the award date on the
Katella Avenue Street Improvement and on Fire Station No. 8 Storage Building
would be March 15, 1983, rather than March 8, 1983.
42
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
123/174: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONTRACT NO. X-7146 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PERTAINING TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS AT HARBOR
BOULEVARD AND KATELLA AVENUE. (to be funded by Federal Hazard Elimination
Safety Funds, with unfunded overhead charges of ~455 to be paid by the City)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Martha K.
Schumacher)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-23 through 83R-26,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
140/106: RECEIPT AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS INTO VARIOUS LIBRARY MATERIAL
ACCOUNTS: Councilwoman Kaywood asked that a letter of thanks be prepared for
signature by the entire Council to be sent to the Kiwanis Club of Greater
Anaheim and the Anaheim Host Lions Club for their monetary donations, which
were gifts to the City. The Council was grateful and appreciative when the
private sector joined in assisting the City.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept 32,245.51 resulting from lost
materials and appropriating said amount into various Library Material
Accounts; accepting ~75 donated by the Kiwanis Club of Greater Anaheim for two
atlases; and accepting ~547 donated by the Anaheim Host Lions Club for a book
display unit, as recommended in memorandum dated January 18, 1983, from the
City Librarian, William Griffith. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
123/160: WESTERN COUNTIES MAINTENANCE CCMPANY~ INC: Following clarification,
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize Change Order No. 2 to Purchase Order
19750-M issued to Western Counties Maintenance Co., Inc., in the amount of
$7~240, tO include the Fire Headquarters, and Ponderosa, Manzanita~ Peralta
Canyon, and Reid Recreation Centers, in the janitorial services contract for
25 other City facilities for a term of one year, as authorized under Bid No.
3892 (expiring September 30, 1983), as recommended in memorandum dated
January 18, 1983, from the Purchasing Agent, Diane Hughart. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - FIVE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1982: After
posing questions to the Director of Finance, George Ferrone, for purposes of
clarification, Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the Monthly Financial
Analysis presented by the Director of Finance for the five-month period ending
November 30, 1982. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
43
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
123: INCREASE IN HOURLY RATE FOR LEGAL SERVICES - OLIVER, STOEVER AND
LASKIN: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the Second Amendment to an
agreement with Oliver, Stoever and Laskin, increasing the hourly rate to $95
per hour and the "court time" rate to 3640 per day for legal services in the
acquisition of real property, commencing February 1, 1983, as recommended in
memorandum dated January 11, 1983, from the City Attorney's office.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINIMENT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT CCMMISSION: Councilman Bay
nominated Robert Anthony as an appointee to the Community Redevelopment
Commission for the term ending June 30, 1985: Councilwoman Kaywood nominated
Joanne Stanton.
Councilman Overholt moved that nominations be closed. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A roll call vote was then taken first on Robert Anthony.
AYES: COUNCIL M~4BERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL M~MBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Bay and Roth
Overholt
Kaywood
None
Councilman Overholt moved to cast a unanimous vote for Robert Anthony,
appointing him to fill a vacancy on the Community Redevelopment Commission for
the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC REQUESTS - CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following actions were authorized in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda; Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-27 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006--EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Joseph D.
Donaldson, .~athy Rigby Gymnastics Academy, for an extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006, to permit a gymnastics academy on ML zoned
property located at 1015 North Armando Street, was approved in accordance with
the recommendations of the Zoning Division, to expire October 16, 1985.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274--EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Ron
Christain, for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2274, to
permit a truck and heavy equipment storage yard on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned
property located at 1124 North Richfield Road, was approved in accordance with
the recommendations of the Zoning Division, to expire on December 29, 1983.
3. VARIANCE NO. 132--TERMINATION: Request by the City of Anaheim Community
Development Department for termination of Variance No. 132, to permit the use
of the upper floor of a two-story building for a ladies' garment manufacturing
44
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 25~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
plant on property located on the southeast corner of Old Lincoln Avenue and
Anaheim Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Reclassification No. 82-83-11
to reclassify subject property from the CG to the CO zone.
179: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 132 AND
DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 1798 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-27 duly passed and
adopted.
179/185: SETTING A DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2400 AND EIR NO. 252: Councilman Overholt moved to
approve the request of the Planning Commission for the City Council to review
Commission action on CUP 2400, EIR 252, Orangewood Block Master Plan,
Development Agreement #83-01, Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Easements
and Restrictions and other related operating documents; and setting
February 8, 1983, at 1:30 p.m., as the date and time for public hearing
therefor. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4382: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4382
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4382: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS
CHAPTERS, SECTIONS, SUBSECTIONS, PARAGRAPHS AND SUBPARAGRAPHS OF TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HEALTH SPAS AND PHYSICAL FITNESS
CENTERS. (as a conditionally permitted use in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial
Area and as a permitted primary use in all commercial zones in the City)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~4BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
~o~e
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4382 duly passed and adopted.
106: REDUCTION OF CITY'S BAILOUT FUNDS FRC~f THE STATE: Councilman Pickler
reported on the testimony he gave before the Senate Committee on Local
Government in Sacramento on Wednesday, January 19, 1983, relative to the
proposed reduction in the City's bailout funds.
Councilman Overholt urged citizens to write to their local State Senators
opposing the State attempting to balance their budget at the expense of the
cities.
45
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
105: CCMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT CC~ISSION LIAISON MEETING: Councilman Bay
reported on his attendance at the Community Redevelopment Commission Liaison
meeting Wednesday, January 19, 1983, wherein they discussed the status of the
Freedman Theater. At the meeting, it was made clear that the City, nor the
Agency, was interested in becoming a part owner or a partner to a theater
operation. Mr. Freedman was encouraged to proceed with what he could do in
developing a theater for the site.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations, personnel and potential litigation with no action
anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:42 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (12:09 p.m.)
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed to public hearing time at
1:30 p.m. (12:09 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:38 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS--REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Chairman Roth reconvened the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, all Agency Members being present, for the purpose of
conducting a joint public hearing with the City Council. (1:38 p.m.)
185/161: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL:
To consider a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement with Wood Bridge
Village, LTD., relating to land located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard
between "Old" Lincoln Avenue and Lincoln Avenue in Redevelopment Project
Alpha, known as Parcel 4a.
Executive Director of Community Development Norman Priest briefed the
Council/Agency on his report dated January 18, 1983, recommending (1) that the
Agency adopt a resolution certifying an initial study of environmental impact
which finds that no further environmental documentation is necessary as a
result of the sale of certain real property and terms of a Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA); (2) that the Agency adopt a resolution approving
the sale of certain real property and approving the DDA between the Agency and
Wood Bridge Village, Ltd.; (3) that the City Council adopt a resolution
certifying the initial study of environmental impact for the proposed
development, finding that the sale of certain real property is not less than
fair market value according to the terms of the DDA between the Agency and
developer, and approving the sale of the property according to the terms of
the DDA; and (4) that the Redevelopment Agency, by motion, approve a lease for
parking spaces provided as Attachment No. 6 of the DDA and approving the basic
concept drawings*submitted by the developer. The site involved, Redevelopment
46
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Parcel 4a of Project Alpha consisting of 58,196 square feet, was presently
owned in its entirety by the Redevelopment Agency. According to the
agreement, the developer would construct a three-story building of
approximately 35,000 square feet, including office, retail and restaurant
uses. The proposed development required approximately 180 parking spaces,
one-third of the spaces to be provided on the site. The remaining spaces
required would be provided off-site through a lease between the Agency and the
developer (Attachment No. 6 of the DDA).
After Mr. Priest's presentation, the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak,
either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the
public hearing.
Council/Agency Member Pickler offered Resolution No. ARA83-5, ARA83-6 and
83R-28 for adoption, as recommended by the Executive Director. Refer to
Resolution Book~
161.185: RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-5: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOtl~ENT
AGENCY CERTIFYING AN INITIAL STUDY WHICH FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT THE
PROPOSED SALE AND REDEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT ALPHA WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRO~4ENT AND THAT A
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRO~[ENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEED NOT BE PREPARED.
161.185: RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-6: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ALPHA: APPROVING THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING
THERETO: AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.
185: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WOOD
BRIDGE VILLAGE, LTD., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND FINDING THAT THE
CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THEREUNDER'IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR
MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE:
~ APPROVING THE SABLE OF SUCH PROPERTY AND SAID DISPOSITION ~ DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS:
COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS:
COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor/Chairman declared Resolution Nos. ARA83-5, ARA83-6 and 83R-28 duly
passed and adopted.
Council/Agency Member Pickler moved to approve the Basic Concept Drawings and
to authorize a lease agreement with Wood Bridge Village, Ltd., for up to 120
parking spaces, in the parking structure to be constructed east of the E1
47
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Camino Building, in the amount of $1,000 per space, for a term of 660 months,
as recommended by the Executive Director in his report dated January 18,
1983. Council/Agency Member Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE REDEVELOI~iENT AGENCY: By general consent, the
Redevelopment Agency was adjourned. (1:43 p.m.)
120: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PUBLIC NUISANCE - 949 NORTH MOHICAN AVENUE:
To determine the existence of a public nuisance at 949 North Mohican Avenue,
and to abate in whole or part, Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Neiswanger, owners.
(continued from the meetings of November 2 and 30, and December 28, 1982)
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the issue, either the
Neiswangers, their representative, attorney or agent; no one was present.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that a resolution had been prepared,
the adoption of which would be the next step of the Nuisance Ordinance
procedure, i.e., determining the existence of a public nuisance at 949 North
Mohican Avenue.
Mr. Anthony Montoya, Code Enforcement Officer, reported that the subject
property was found to be in violation that morning at 11:00 a.m. No
corrective action had been taken by the Neiswangers.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt the Council had "bent over backwards" to
cooperate with the Neiswangers, because of their extreme senior years, to
enable them to correct the situation. However, they had done nothing and had
not even cooperated with their own counsel who, he was convinced, worked hard
to bring about a resolution of the problem.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 83R-29 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AlqAHEIM DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AI~D ORDERING ABAT~4ENT
THEREOF.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MMMBERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-29 duly passed and adopted.
Later in the meeting (approximately 6:00 p.m.), City Attorney Hopkins noted
that although no one appeared at the hearing, at approximately 4:00 p.m., he
received a real property covenant signed by Mr. and Mrs. Neiswanger, which was
48
~Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Janua~ 10:00 A.M.
substantially the wording the City Council previously approved. He also noted
the disclaimer attached to it expressing disapproval with the agreement. If
the Council wished, they could rescind the previous resolution and approve the
real property covenant. If so, he suggested a motion giving the Neiswangers
30 to 60 days in which to install the required improvement.
Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if it was his recommendation that
they accept the document received in its present form.
City Attorney Hopkins reiterated, he felt it was substantially the agreement
the Council previously approved. He did not feel the disclaimer invalidated
the agreement in any way, but merely expressed disapproval.
Councilman Overholt felt that the matter should be considered again in one
week, because he had some reservations; Councilman Bay did as well. He wanted
to be sure if the Neiswangers left their residence, for any reason, the
temporary driveway would have to be removed. He was not certain from glancing
at the agreement that was what it said.
Councilman Overholt maintained this was not a satisfactory solution and that
they not yet rescind the resolution previously adopted.
By general consent, it was determined that the matter would again be discussed
at the next Council meeting, February 1, 1983.
179/136: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2397 (READVERTISED) AND
ENVIRObMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 260: Continental Pacific Enterprises, Inc.,
to permit a hospital and medical office complex on CL(SC) zoned property
located on the southwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-219, having
considered EIR No. 260 for the proposed Anaheim Hills Hospital and Medical
Office Building, and having reviewed evidence both written and oral presented
to supplement Draft EIR No. 260, the Planning Commission finds that
Environmental Impact Report No. 260 is in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and with City and State CEQA guidelines that
potential environmental impacts can be reduced to an insignificant level by
conformance with City plans, policies and ordinances, and therefore, based
upon such information, the Planning CommisSiOn certified Environmental Impact
Report No. 260, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2397, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That prior to commencement of the use herein approved or issuance of a
building permit whichever occurs first, the developer, as owner of the
adjacent 2.2 acre parcel (Parcel 4), shall execute and record a covenant as to
Parcel 4, in a form approved by the City Attorney's office, agreeing that,
prior to the application for, or issuance of, any building permits for any
commercial development on said Parcel 4, the owner of said Parcel 4 shall
obtain approval from the Planning Commission or City Council of said
commercial development with its associated vehicular traffic impacts, both
individual and cumulative.
49
Ci~ Hall, Anaheim,California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
2. That prior to the issuance of building permits, and in addition to payment
of regular traffic signal assessment fees, the developer shall pay for a
traffic signal inner-connection in an amount of not less than ~40,680.
3. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, the developer shall
construct a deceleration lane on Nohl Ranch Road, 200 feet long and 12 feet
wide with tire busters at the southern throat, and that construction shall be
done in a manner to preclude left-turns from west bound traffic on Nohl Ranch
Road.
4. That the incline of the service vehicle road shall not exceed 2% per 40
feet from the back of the sidewalk on Anaheim Hills Road, and that the
visibility clearance from both driveways on Anaheim Hills Road shall be
provided for a distance of 120 feet northerly and 80 feet southerly, 7 feet
back from the sidewalk or crosswalk.
5. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, the handicapped
parking spaces shall be provided conforming to the latest California and
Federal Code, with said spaces to be a minimum of 12 feet wide with not less
than 8 feet 2 inches height clearance, and with 4-foot ramps along the side
having access to the building without wheel chairs transversing or entering
the travel lanes.
6. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
7. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
8. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
10. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal
assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896), in an amount as determined by the City
Council, for commercial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. That appropriate water assessment ~ee~ a~ d~rminad by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
12. That the location and design of all vehicular ingress and egress
driveways shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic
Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
13. That a pedestrian access plan shall be submitted by the developer to the
City Traffic Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
5O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Janua 25, 1983 10:00 A.M.
i4. That the design and development of any public street improvements shall
be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of building permits.
15. That the owner(s) of subject property shall obtain from the City
vehicular access rights to Nohl Ranch Road.
16. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 10.
17. That Condition No. 15, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to
the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year
from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
18. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, and 16, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of January 4, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled this
-- date.
After the Mayor explained the procedure to be followed in the public hearing,
he asked to first hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Irvine, representing American Medical __
Mr. Dan Salceda, 14 Rimroc~, .... were requesting approval of a CU~ for a
International (AMI), stated tna~ tney ~ Ranch
157-bed hospital facility to be located at the southwest corner of Nohl
Road and Anaheim Hills Road. They were present to discuss whether or not the
particular piece of property was suited for the Anaheim Hills area. The
report of their consultants, the Frieson Report, concluded very strongly that
in the western portion of the County of Orange that there were certain beds
.. e of the Frteson Report and the change in population
underutilized- Becaus .... ~--d that the northeast quadrant,
trends in the County, it was
specifically the Anaheim Hills area, was the most appropriate place to
relocate and reassign the 157 beds~ replacing their present facilities, Beach
Community Hospital and Anaheim General Hospital. Mr. Salceda then gave an
historic overview of events leading to their request today (also see AMI,
Inc., Canyon Hills Medical Center Briefing Package and the Project Chronology
starting on Page 1 of that document--made a part of the record). They chose
the subject site because of its identification, easy access to and from the
freeway, because it was not intruding into the residential integrity of the
community and not affecting any property owners, there was one residential
property fronting on the route that most people would take to get to the
hospital and no variances were being requested. The singular thing that
Anaheim Hills, the planned community, had not provided its residents was
immediate and quality health care.
51
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Salceda then summarized the issues that were discussed at the Planning
Commission meetings of November 29, 1982 and December 13, 1982 (see Planning
Commission minutes those dates--made a part of the record). One of the major
issues was traffic and Mr. Salceda pointed out that if the hospital was
allowed to be built, relative to traffic, they would be downzoning the
property, since traffic would be 29 percent less than that which would be
generated on the site as presently zoned, i.e., general commercial. Some of
the perceptions and anxieties of the local constituency was not what the
empirical data suggested. The noise decibel level discussed definitively in
the EIR would raise approximately 1.2 percent, and according to EIR consultant
he had been able to talk with, a 3.0 percent factor and less could not even be
detected. In summation, Mr. Salceda stated that the proposal was an
appropriate land use, they had talked to the constituency, particularly the
people along Brighton Way, most proximate to the facility, and this was the
last piece of the puzzle for making Anaheim Hills a complete planned community.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in support of the proposed hospital.
The following people then spoke in favor of a hospital being built on the
subject site: Carol Hager, 1228 North Amelia; Dallas Margrave, 6952 East
Country Club Lane; Barbara Walker, 855 Swallow Way; Sheryl Hernandez, resident
of Orange but owner of two pieces of property in Anaheim Hills, 760 Carriage
Circle and 300 North Deerfield. Ms. Hernandez submitted a petition containing
approximately 63 signatures of those who were in favor of the proposed
hospital, most of whom were patients of doctors in the medical building
located across from the proposed site (made a part of the record).
Major reasons expressed in favor were: The convenience provided by having a
hospital located in Anaheim Hills, especially for emergencies; the streets
were designed to handle the traffic that would be generated, the same as if
the site were developed for commercial use; there were no residents facing
Anaheim Hills Road, and the residents above the site would not be able to see
the hospital.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to the proposed hospital.
The following people spoke in opposition: Mrs. Mary Mlyashiro, 6971 East
Williams Circle. (Mrs. Miyashiro also submitted petitions containing
approximately 600 signatures, which she stated began as a survey and covered a
wide range of residents in Anaheim Hills as well as businesses, doctors and a
local church. Her findings indicated that approximately 80 percent of the
residents were opposed to the hospital. (the petition was made a part of the
record); Ethel Gowa, 531 Paseo De Luna; Glenn Salsbury, 249 Hillcrest Street;
Melvin Hunt, 273 Hillcrest Street; Grace Allen, 5901 East Tyber Drive; Roger
Stampe, 242 Hillcrest Street; Lou Wagstaff, 5378 Rural Ridge Circle; Gabriella
Lyon, 6019 Hillcrest Street; Pat Reas, 5275 Rural Ridge Road (Mrs. Reas also
submitted a letter from William V. Lyon, which was sent to a number of Anaheim
Hills residents--subject: Proposed Hospital in Your Backyard on Anaheim Hills
and Nohl Ranch Roads--sent out to poll his neighbors to find out if they were
52
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
opposed. Approximately 30 of 100 residents responded and all were opposed.
She then read some of the comments received in opposition); Pat Goodman, 6020
La Plaza Way; Mr. Trueman Gates, Administrator, Placentia-Linda Community
Hospital, 1513 Collins, Placentia.
~CESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
p.m.)
(3:45
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:50 p.m.)
Major concerns expressed by those opposed were: It was inconceivable that
anyone would build a 157-bed hospital and a 50,O00-square foot medical office
building on such a small area of 9.4 acres; ambulances would be coming from
other counties and other cities and there was no guarantee they would be
taking Santa Ana Canyon Road and Anaheim Hills Road as indicated by AMI; the
site chosen, a residential area, was wrong for a hospital; a hospital was a
24-hour a day, 365-days a year use; concern was expressed over the quality of
care to be offered or lack of it and how the hospital would operate; the back
of 30 homes faced the traffic pattern; adding more traffic to the intersection
of the 91 Freeway and Imperial Highway seemed irresponsible; the area would
not support a project of the magnitude proposed; the complexion of Anaheim
Hills was being changed from rural to that of large cities; the additional
traffic would be detrimental to the area, as well as the noise that would be
generated; the proposal would bring strangers to the community, as well as
additional litter, crime and pollution; there were many hospitals in the area
at present closer than one-half hour away; there was lack of notification to
the residents of the proposed plan for the site; there was no community outcry
as to the need for a hospital in the area; the proposed ingress and egress
from Imperial would cause a problem; if the stipulated "no sirens on Anaheim
Hills Road" went into effect, there could be accidents at both the bottom and
top of the hill, if there was a red light or opposing traffic and people did
not see the ambulance coming at a high rate of speed; it was necessary to
consider the supportive facilities that had to be utilized in conjunction with
a hospital, as well as the 50,O00-square foot medical building.
At the conclusion of Mrs. Miyashiro's presentation and in answer to Councilman
Pickler, Mrs. Miyashir0 stated that she felt the residents wanted something
that was not open 24 hours a day. They would not mind something commercial
being built on the site--stores, a restaurant, but definitely not a hospital.
The Mayor pointed out that in Mr. Salceda's presentation, he reported that a
commercial use would increase traffic 29 percent; Mrs. Miyashiro did not agree
and felt commercial use would generate less traffic.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then~reported that a neighborhood center covering
approximately 10 acres would §enerate 900 trip ends per acre, whereas a
hospital would generate 200 ~rip ends per acre. There would be 4.5 times as
much traffic for a neighborhood center as opposed to a hospital, or 400
percent more than a hospital.
53
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Gates, the administrator of Placentia-Linda Community Hospital, clarified
that he came to the meeting to learn of the results and not to speak. He did,
however, explain the day-to-day operation of his hospital. In concluding, he
stated the real issue was where patients would go for care and too much was
being proposed on the subject property. His hospital was located at the
corner of Rose Drive and Yorba Linde Boulevard and at present, they were not
operating at full capacity, but at between 65 and 75 percent occupancy.
Somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of their patients were from the Anaheim
Hills zip code area.
During Mrs. Allen's testimony, she requested that another public hearing be
scheduled to discuss the issue, but that it be held at night to enable
husbands and mothers with school age children to attend.
After questions were posed to several of the speakers by Council Members, the
Mayor gave Mr. Salceda an opportunity for rebuttal and summation.
Mr. Salceda then answered the concerns expressed by those who spoke in
opposition. Relative to the sirens, he stipulated that they would request
carriers to shut their sirens off at Solomon Drive, which was one block east
of where they were going to do so. Also during his summation, Mr. Salceda
broached an issue which he had not previously covered in his opening remarks,
that being, if they received approval, the Certificate of Need process that
they had to submit to, which was long and precise, the public hearings for
which would be held at night in the community. He then elaborated on the
components necessary to the successful acquisition of a Certificate of Need.
In concluding, Mr. Salceda stated they were asking for a 157-bed facility and
he confirmed there was no way they would try to buy some of the properties on
Brighton Way. The site had its own self-imposed constraints. Relative to the
50,000-square foot commercial office, if traffic was a concern, at the time
they were to submit any plans, they would resubmit those to the Planning
Commission, along with an updated traffic report. The Planning Commission,
staff and Council were going to have one more look at the feasibility of that
project. Today, they were looking at a facility for the short- and long-term
future of Anaheim Hills. The matters they were subscribing to today were
earmarked for 1990.
Councilwoman Kaywood then expressed her concern about turning off the sirens
and questioned if there was heavy traffic, how ambulances would get through.
She did not believe Mr. Salceda could make the stipulation that sirens would
be turned off at Solomon Drive. Further, she was concerned that at no time
did they ever envision something of the magnitude being proposed to be built
on the subject site. Surrounding residents would be impacted by the use 24
hours a day, which was different for somebody living 1/2 mile or a mile away
who thought it was advantageous, because they would be so close. She then
asked Miss Santalahti if the Council approved the CUP and the State denied the
hospital, what would they be building.
54
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Miss Santalahti explained that if the Council approved, she supposed it could
be conditioned that if the hospital was subsequently denied, the CUP would not
deem to be granted or be terminated at that point.
Councilman Overholt then posed questions to Traffic Engineer Paul Singer and
Mr. Salceda, during which Mr. A1 Rattan, President of Continental Pacific
Enterprises, clarified some of the comments made by Mr. Salceda.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Miss Santalahti then explained for Councilman Bay that the new bill regarding
permits for medical facilities would apply to any hospital seeking building
permits after January 1, 1983. Any conditions the Council may wish to apply
when approving a project would have to be satisfied.
Councilman Bay noted then that the State would have the prime responsibility
for the inspections, building permits, etc. The function of the Council was,
therefore, purely one of consideration of land use and a CUP permitted within
that zoning. If the Council approved, it would be imperative that all
stipulations and conditions be carried with that CUP.
Mayor Roth stated that approval would be contingent upon approval of the
Certificate of Need. There would be no development until they received that
from the State. Further, the people in Anaheim Hills or in the general area
would have another opportunity to address the issue when night meetings were
held relative to the acquisition of that Certificate.
Mr. Salceda then explained for Councilman Overholt that testimony by citizens
at those hearings could be one of objection to a hospital in their community,
thereby suggesting an absence of community support. That would be valid
testimony for public hearing purposes.
Councilman Overholt stated that was really the basis of their opposition, the
residents did not want the hospital to be located on the subject site. He did
not want to be a part of putting something into their neighborhood that they
did not want.
Mayor Roth stated that no matter what the outcome today, the citizens would
still have an opportunity to again addre~ the i~ue when the C~rtifieat~ of
Need process was initiated. As a resident of Anaheim Hills, he had mixed
emotions, but considering what the Traffic Engineer reported and the concern
expressed by the citizens regarding traffic, if the CUP were denied and the
property utilized for commercial, the traffic impact would increase 400
percent.
Councilman Bay then spoke from his experience living within five blocks of
Martin Luther Hospital in addressing the impacts expressed by the residents.
After he did so, he stated that he could empathize with the residents, but he
also knew from experience that the Council had good judgment in determining
55
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 25, 19.83, 10:00 A.M.
the actual impacts from all that they heard in this and similar hearings
versus the tangible impacts. Compared to almost any other commercial
development, the impacts overall would be less. He urged that they look at
the situation from a realistic and objective view with regard to the impacts,
which he did not believe would become a reality.
ENVIROh~ENTAL IMPACT REPORT -~CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report No.
260, having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City
Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines, and
the State of California Environmental Quality Act, and finding that potential
environmental impacts could be reduced to an insignificant level by
conformance with City plans, policies and ordinances, the City Council acting
upon such information and belief does hereby certify, on motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, that Environmental
Impact Report No. 260 is in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and City and State Guidelines, as recommended by the City Planning
Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No.
2397, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated the reason she offered a
resolution of denial was not for a hospital in the area, because there
probably was a need, which would be determined at the Health Planning Council
and at the State level. However, she felt that the subject corner was not the
place to put it. If the hospital were allowed on that corner, she maintained
that would be a very big and bad step for changing to a use that was never
contemplated at that site.
A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution of denial and failed to carry
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood and Overholt
Pickler, Bay and Roth
None
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-30 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2397, in accordance with the City Planning
Commission conditions~ including the stipulation that issuance of any building
permit be contingent upon approval of the Certificate of Need. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2397.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
Pickler, Bay and Roth
Kaywood and Overholt
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-30 duly passed and adopted.
56
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 25~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
136: MOTION: Councilman Roth then moved that AMI be responsible for
gathering all the names and addresses as listed on the petitions submitted to
the Council and that those people, the people covered in their original
mailings and the Council be informed of all hearings to take place on the
Certificate of Need approval. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
105: APPOIN/MENTS TO THE YOUTH CCMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood requested
that appointments to the Youth Commission be scheduled as an agenda item for
next Tuesday's meeting, February 1, 1983.
106: CLOSED SESSION AND BUDGET SEMINAR: Mayor Roth stated that he realized
they were scheduled to recess into Closed Session but, due to a previous
commitment, he asked to be excused. They could recess into Closed Session
without him, or otherwise adjourn to Wednesday, January 26, 1983, at 10:00
a.m., as they were scheduled to do.
City Manager Talley asked if it would be possible to recess into Closed
Session after tomorrow morning's meeting.
Council discussion then followed to ascertain when the Closed Session would
take place. In conclusion, it was determined that Council would meet in
Closed Session at 9:30 a.m., with the Budget meeting to discuss Council Policy
directives to start at 10:00 a.m.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Wednesday, January 26, 1983, at
9:30 a.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:05 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
57