1987/01/06Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
P~ESENT:
ABSENT:
VACANCY:
P~ESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
One
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PURCHASING AGENT: Diane Hughart
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Bay called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
L'~CCATION: Reverend Louis Rohrs, Trinity United Methodist Church, gave the
l:i~vocation.
SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
~._giance to the Flag.
~.~i}%{T OF SILENCE: Councilman Pickler requested a Moment of Silence on the
p~s~ing of Frank Lowry, former Assistant City Attorney and also on the passing
cf ~e daughter of the City's Data Processing Director, Phil Grammatica.
PRESENTATION - UNITED WAY: Mayor Bay, on behalf of his colleagues and
City employees, presented a check for ~53,998.22 to Mr. Joe Lumarda,
Ci.e~ign Associate, United Way of Orange County, representing the total
c;~.'~i~ribution from City of Anaheim employees.
i~.~. Lumarda gratefully accepted the check on behalf of United Way and thanked
the Council, the City employees and all those responsible for making the
campaign such a success. United Way is overwhelmed by the spirit of giving
from the City of Anaheim. He also thanked Mr. Phil Grammatica, Data
Prucassing Director, 1986 City of Anaheim Chairman of the United Way Campaign
who was assisted by Wendell Stephens, Data Processing Administrative Services
Coordinator.
Mr. Lumarda then made a presentation of United Way's "Gold Award" which is
presented to the City in Orange County contributing the most to the campaign -
the City of Anaheim.
The Mayor and Council Members then presented certificates to all those
rep!~esentatives in City Departments who worked so diligently as United Way
Campaign Coordinators, thus resulting in the contribution of over ~53,000.
h?,'UTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FiNaNCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~3,794,685.66, in
ac¢,rdance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
1
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.h'..
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. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,794,685.66, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 87R-1 through 87R-3, 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 Mrs. Sharon Neiswonger for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 4, 1986,
b. Claim submitted by Linda Ferguson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 16, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by Robert S. Kintner &Mary J. Kintner for bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
September 5, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Robert Bruce Kellar for for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 10, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Bill Pangillinan Qutbuyen for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 3, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by John H. Heppy for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 20, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by Maria Rios, Lizette Rios, Manuel Rios & Alehandra"
Ureta for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about October 3, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by Barbara K. Mizuno for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 18, 1986.
i. Claim submitted by Victor S. Salazar for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 20, 1986.
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
J. Claim submitted by ComCo Management, Inc. for indemnity for lawsuit,
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 14, 1986.
k. Claim submitted by Pyro Spectaculars, Inc. for indemnity for lawsuit,
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 4, 1984.
1. Claim submitted by Stadium Motor Sports Corporation for indemnity for
lawsuit, sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
January 29, 1983.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 114: City of Signal Hill Resolution No. 86-11-3806, encouraging,
supporting and promoting a single postal zip code for all of Signal Hill
addresses and requesting support from Congressional representatives for
same.
b. 175: Receiving and filing the Southern California Public Power
Authority Report and Financial Statements for the year ended June 10, 1986
and a Management Letter dated October 10, 1986. (on file)
3. 179: Granting a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No.
2571, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant (Anaheim Truck
Depot) located at 1231 North Blue Gum, to expire on June 12, 1987.
(C ~..~cilwoman Kaywood voted no).
4. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to Agreement with CSG Security
Se~%-ices, Inc., dba Continental Security Guards, in an amount not to exceed
5176,000 for 1987, and 5188,000 for 1988, to provide security services to
assist in parking enforcement for the Street sweeping program, for the term
December 1, 1986 through November 30, 1988.
5. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to Agreement with BSI Consultants,
Inc., to conduct an Operations Assessment Study of the commercial/recreation
ar~-, extending the term for 90 days to March 31, 1987.
6. 123: Authorizing the Third Amendment to Agreement with Thirtieth Street
Arch~.tects, Inc., for consulting and professional services to rehabilitate the
Carnegie Library, increasing the compensation to a total not to exceed
$53,594, to include preparation of State mandated revisions.
7. 150: Accepting 5350,000 in 1984 State Park Bond Act monies and ~113,750
in R~berti-Z'berg Urban Open Space Program monies and appropriating said funds
in~o Little People's Park Expansion (16-846) 357,000, Pearson Park
Amphitheatre Lighting & Sound System Improvements (16-820) ~250,000, John
Marshall Park Group Picnic Shelter (16-812) ~43,000, and Manzanita Park
Recreation Building Expansion (16-803) ~113,750.
8. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of ~61,814 for five (5) police patrol vehicles.
3
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M~
9. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-1: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (NOBEST
INCORPORATED) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Nobest, Inc., in the amount of ~6,853.29, for Santa Ana Street Street
Improvement south side 218 feet west of Harbor Boulevard to Janss Street,
Account No. 25-792-6325-E2240)
10. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(ELLSWORTH STREET STREET AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS) (Accepting the completion of
construction of Ellsworth Street - Street and Water Improvements, Olive Street'
to Anaheim Boulevard, Account Nos. 25-793-6325-E3010 and 52-606-6329-04951,
Silveri & Le Bouef, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of
Completion therefor)
11. 123: Waiving Council Policy No. 401 and authorizing an agreement with
Kinney System, Inc., in the amount of ~500 per month, to provide parking
management services in connection with performances at the Freedman Forum
Theatre located at 201 East Broadway, for a term of 5 years.
12. 175/123: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-3: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS
RELATING TO AN ENTITLEMENT FROM THE HOOVER POWER PLANT AND APPROVING A
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL RELATING TO AN ACTION ENTITLED STATE OF NEVADA,
PLAINTIFF V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND A RELEASE OF
CLAIMS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID DOCUMENTS. (Authorizing the
execution of a contract for the Advance of Funds with the Bureau of
Reclamation for the Uprating Program at Hoover Power Plant; Electric Service
Contract with the Western Area Power Administration; Release of Claims;
Voluntary Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice; Hoover Integration
Agreement with the Southern California Edison Company; and Hoover Firm
Transmission Agreement with the Southern California Edison Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER§~ None
VACANCY: One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-1 through 87R-3, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
152/160/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4794 - PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSAL OF CITY SURPLUS
PERSONAL PROPERTY: Adding New Section 1.04.315, relating to Purchasing
Agent's authority to sell surplus personal property having a value not to
exceed ~50,000. Submitted was report dated December 23, 1986 from the
Purchasing Agent, recommending the proposed ordinance.
4
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Bay wanted to know the reasons for initiating the proposed change noting
that prior to this time, handling of surplus property was governed by
Administrative Regulation (A.R.) 4.52. He wanted to know the reasons for
increasing the 51,000 current limit without City Manager approval to 550,000.
The change did not imply that the City Manager had to approve the sale of City
surplus personal property having a value of 550,000 or less.
Diane Hughart, Purchasing Agent, explained the intent of the ordinance is to
get clear definition on her signature authority. The A.R. outlines the
procedure for the sale but the question arose on the sale of vehicles and who
can sign the Pink Slip on behalf of the City. In researching the matter with
the City Attorney's Office, there was no vehicle used for that purpose. The
A.R. refers to the sale with the City Manager's approval of up to 51,000 but
the Code also refers to the Purchasing Agent's Authority up to $50,000 without
Council approval. The ordinance is established to be consistent with the Code
and would in no way affect the fact that the City Manager would still have
approval on sales over 51,000 up to the $50,000.
Mayor Bay then posed additional questions for purposes of clarification
answered by both Mrs. Hughart and the City Attorney. City Attorney White
explained it is his understanding the intent of the ordinance is not to change
the procedure in the current A.R. with regard to who makes the decision on
detarmining surplus property. The Department had always made that
determination. The ordinance, once adopted, will be more permanent than the
A.R. which can be changed easier than an ordinance. For the time being, the
A.R. would be operative and not be in conflict with this provision.
Maynr Bay then asked the City Manager who makes the final decision on what is
declared surplus to be put up for sale.
City Manager William Talley answered that it would depend on the type of item
involved. Normal departmental property can be declared surplus by any Program
Manager which would include Executive and Administrative Managers. In order
to give a more definitive answer, it would be necessary to know the type of
property involved.
Mayor Bay stated his concern is general. He is also interested in an audit
trail - what is declared surplus, who was it sold to, what are the checks and
balances on declaring something a surplus, how is the property confirmed to be
surplus. If six months go by and the Council is not aware of surplus sales in
the City, how would the Council and City Manager be aware how much and what
big items are being declared surplus, where the check is relative to whether
the item is really surplus or if it was used when it was purchased in the
first place.
Mr. Talley suggested if the Mayor was interested in further pursuing the
subject, when the Audit Committee meets with its auditor, asking the auditor
as part of their overall evaluation next year to take a look at the General
Disposal Policies. It could be made part of their effort.
Mayor Bay stated that he could handle that by talking to the City Manager or
the auditors.
Ctt~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
In concluding, Mr. Talley confirmed there is no one way that the City disposes
of something. He emphasized that no one can Just declare something surplus
and merely get rid of it.
117/113: DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS - BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL
APPLICATIONS: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-4 for adoption,
authorizing the destruction of City records more than two years old pertaining
to business license renewal applications dated prior to January 1, 1984, as
requested by the City Treasurer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-4: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: One
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-4 duly passed and adopted.
175: APPEAL OF WATER FACILITIES FEE - OAK HILLS LTD.: Request by James W.
Dennehy, Oak Hills Ltd. - appeal to exempt an office building development from
payment of the Stadium Business Center water facilities fee in the amount of
$67,566.40.
Submitted was report dated December 29, 1986 from the Public Utilities General
Manager, recommending denial of the appeal.
City Clerk, Leonora Sob_l, referred to letter dated January 4, 1987 from James
Dennehy Requesting a continuance of the subject appeal to January 12, 1987.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the subject appeal to Tuesday,
January 13, 1987. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
(It was noted that Mr. Dennehy's letter requested a continuance to January 12,
1987. Staff was instructed to be certain that Mr. Dennehy was aware that the
Council meeting date is January 13, 1987).
170: TRACT NO. 12658--FINALMAP:
DEVELOPER: Chaparral Development
TRACT LOCATION: Southeasterly of Nohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway, east
of Hudson Bay Drive.
PROPOSED SUBDIVISON: one lot, 16-unit, RM-3000.
STAFF INPUT: See the City Engineer's report dated December 30, 1986,
recommending approval of Final Map of Tract No. 12658, subject to the approval
of the covenants, conditions and restrictions by the City Attorney's Office.
6
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final
Map Tract No. 12658, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated December 30, 1986. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4791: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4791 for
adoption, amending Section 14.32.158 of the Code, pertaining to parking
restrictions and prohibitions on portions of Rutgers Drive from Serrano Avenue
to Loyola Drive. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4791: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING PROVISIONS
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND
PROHIBITIONS ON PORTIONS OF RUTGERS DRIVE PROM SERRANO AVENUE TO LOYOLA DRIVE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: One
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4791 duly passed and adopted.
162/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4792 - AMENDMENT TO SMOKING ORDINANCE: Amending
Section 6.30.050 of the Code, relating to smoking in public places.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4792 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4792: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
6.30.050 OF CHAPTER 6.30 OF TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Hunter stated his understanding was that
currently in the Council Chamber the last three rows are for those who might
smoke.
City Att0rneyWhlte clarified that was correct. He explained that the
ordinance previously adopted relating to non-smoking throughout the City
adopted a Section relating to the Council Chamber providing that at least 50
percent of the Chamber shall be designated as non-smoking and that in excess
of that amount can be designated upon the posting of signs. He believes that
the signs are posted to allow smoking in the last two or three rows in the
Council Chamber. He then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood the provisions in
State law requiring that at least 50 percent of any public meeting room be
designated as non-smoking but that it also provides more than that may be
designated as non-smoking as well.
Councilman Pickler explained he favors the amendment to the ordinance as
proposed by Councilwoman Kaywood. The ordinance is in effect throughout the
City. There are areas in City Hall where people can smoke. If people do want
7
ii:Ii) 4
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
to smoke when they attend a Council meeting, they can do so in the area behind
the doors leading to the Chamber (between the outside and inside Chamber doors
- foyer area) and not miss any of the meeting since the sound system allows
for the meeting to be heard in that area. He is concerned about Jeopardizing
the lives of other people who would be affected by smokers even if smoking is
allowed in the last three rows only. Smoking does not belong in the Council
Chamber.
City Attorney White then clarified for Councilman Hunter that smoking is not
currently prohibited by any action of the Council in the foyer area and the
proposed amendment would not prohibit smoking in that area either. Smoking
would be permitted outside the glass doors in the back of the Chamber unless
the Council designated that as No Smoking as well.
Councilwoman Kaywood then explained the reason she requested the proposed
amendment and the timing for doing so. The Surgeon General's report of
December 18, 198§ revealed incontrovertible evidence that non-smokers are
particularly affected by secondhand smoke. She then read portions of the
report as well as portions of a report from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District citing the evidence. It was also her intent that the
ordinance conform with the rest of City Hall since it was hypocrisy leaving
out the Council Chamber. The health of people attending the Council meetings
would then not be Jeopardized.
Councilman Hunter expressed his concern that the Council is spending too much
time on the smoking issue when there are so many big problems in the City to
be solved. He was going to go along with the proposed amendment to the
ordinance since he is a member of the Cancer Society and has been a non-smoker
all his life.
Mayor Bay stated that he did not intend to oppose the move by the Council. He
has never suggested that people should smoke and he joins the ranks
encouraging people not to smoke and to quit smoking. It has been his belief
that the issue in this case is not really smoke but he did not intend to
revive the debate since too much time had been spent on the issue in the
past. He then countered some other statements made noting that smoking is not
totally banned in the City. It is not totally banned in a single, restaurant,
the Convention Center, portions of the Stadium or any place the City has a
financial interest and it is not totally banned in the workplace across the
City. He intends to abstain on the proposed change but wanted clarified Just
what the new limitations were going to be. If the lines were drawn at the
double entry doors in the rear of the Chamber, he assumes the ash trays will
be removed from the rows where they are now located and also assumes that the
line is drawn at the outside door to his right and also at the small door also
to his right (leading to the restrooms and Council Conference Room). If those
were the lines of defining No Smoking in the Council Chamber, he would not
oppose the ordinance. He still feels it is discriminatory against people who
want to attend meetings and want the right to at least smoke in the last two
to three rows. If that would create an incidental smoke problem in the
Chamber, he still feels it is a problem of ventilation. He did not agree it
is the function of government to protect people's lives, i.e., seat belt laws,
no smoking laws, etc. Laws were not going to stop people from doing what they
like to do as long as they lived in a free society.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter and Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
VACANCY: One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4792 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that there would be no smoking in
those areas where there is no ventilation or windows.
City Attorney White clarified that the ordinance relates only to the area
between all the doors in the Chamber. It does not include the small foyer
area or anteroom to the Council's right that leads to the Council conference
room. It did not include the enclosed press room in the back of the Chamber
or the foyer area between the double glass doors immediately to the rear of
the Chamber.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4793: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4793 for
adoption, amending Section 18.61.050 of the Code, to permit the installation,
repair and sales of mobile telephones as a conditional use in the ML zone.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4793: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.61.050 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT
THE INSTALI.ATION, REPAIR AND SALES OF AUTOMOBILE TELEPHONES AS A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT IN THE M-L ZONE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: One
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4793 duly passed and adopted.
119: SYMPATHY EXPRESSED ON THE PASSING OF FRANK LOWRY: Council Members then
expressed their sympathy and offered their condolences on the sudden passing
of Frank Lowry, who in the past had served as Assistant City Attorney for the
City of Anaheim and most recently was employed by the law firm of Farano &
Kieviet. Mr. Lowry and his close association with the City as well as his
community service would be missed.
119: COMMENTS ON THE SUCCESS OF FREEDOM BOWL III: Council Members expressed
how pleased they were over the success of Freedom Bowl III held at Anaheim
Stadium on December 30, 1986 where over 56,000 tickets were sold. Mayor Bay
stated that the Bowl's success this year confirmed the previous decision of
9
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
the Council to support this year's Bowl. The City was looking forward to
successful Freedom Bowls in the future. He noted too, that fans were treated
to a great game where they saw UCLA beat Brigham Young University (31-10).
114: COMMENTS REGARDING COUNCIL MEETINGS AND PROPOSED CHANGE OF COUNCIL
MEETING TIME: Councilman Hunter prefaced his comments by noting that this was
his eighth Council meeting. He then proceeded to question certain matters
regarding Council meetings such as starting time, holding Closed Sessions at
noon and starting the Council meeting at 1:30 p.m. with public hearings at
3:00 p.m. With a change in Council meeting time, he felt perhaps there would
be more people, not retired, but still working who would like to serve on the
Council but now could not do so because to take one whole day off from a work
week would be very difficult. He also believed it was a disservice to the
public by having Council meetings start on Tuesday mornings, especially since
most households are now dual working households. He would like some report
from staff with regard to what it would cost for non-managerial employees in
overtime if the meetings once in a while went past 5:00 p.m. He knows that
most of the staff is on salary but others were not on salary and would need to
be paid overtime. He would like a cost factor relative to that. He was only
posing the questions for Council consideration at this time.
Councilman Hunter continued that another issue of concern to him as a Council
person was exactly what should be discussed in Closed Sessions. He knows that
the Council discusses litigation and personnel matters but other matters
should be discussed out front. If there are other things that should be
discussed in Closed Session, he would like some direction from the City in
that regard.
City Manager Talley, speaking to the issue of staff being present at Council
meetings, on every item on the City Manager's agenda, a staff person is
instructed to be present at the meeting starting time. Most are present in
the building and should come down to the meeting before it starts and be
present for Council and then be dismissed. He does not know if the Council is
directing him to prepare a report. Whether the meeting is held in the morning
or afternoon, the amount of staff time devoted to it would be about the same.
There would be a limited number of people who, after 5:00 p.m., would be
entitled to overtime. Otherwise the requirements would basically be time off
for work performed as any exempt employee is entitled to. There would be
almost immaterial differences if the meetings went past $:00 p.m.
Councilman Pickler stated he has no problem starting at noon with the public
agenda starting at 1:30 p.m. He suggested that the matter be placed on the
Council agenda for discussion.
Councilman Hunter felt it would be a good idea to try out the new schedule and
if it caused problems, it could be changed.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the suggestion by Councilman Hunter was not
new and she had previously spoken with him, hoping that he would like to do
that. In years past, Council meetings did start at 1:00 p.m with
Redevelopment Agency and 1:30 p.m. with City Manager/Departmental items and
public hearings at 3:00 p.m. which she felt accommodated the public. She was
10
9.q
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
very concerned when the Council went to morning sessions and she agreed that
it does preclude much of the public from being present. She had also heard
suggestions relative to having night meetings all the time but she had been
through that as well and nobody attends those meetings. If the matter is
placed on the agenda next week, she will be happy to offer the proposed
meeting time change as a motion or second it.
Mayor Bay stated what the Council experienced when meetings started at
1:30 p.m., they sometimes lasted well into the evening until 10:00 p.m. or
midnight and on some occasions beyond midnight which literally "wiped out" the
next day or at least the next morning. He and former Council Members Overholt
and Roth were the working members when the meeting time was changed to
10:00 a.m. He was not opposing changing the meeting time to 1:30 p.m. at this
point because he is now retired. Anyone who is still working should have the
most to say about the issue. He reiterated, he is not opposed. He also felt
that the day of the meeting should be changed to Monday in order to avoid a
parking conflict with the Freedman Forum when the Freedman Forum opens.
Councilwoman Kaywood spoke against a change in the meeting day noting for one
thing that the Planning Commission meets on Mondays and often had night
meetings. Also, Freedman Forum did not have the entire parking structure at
their disposition and there was access to the entire structure across old
Lincoln Avenue as well. There was no intention when they discussed sharing
parking with the Theatre to give up public hearings, City Council or City Hall
business. She does not want to see a total shakeup where everyone is
confused. She pointed out that Councilman Overholt was opposed to morning
meetings and had voted against it.
Councilman Hunter asked that the Council think about the proposal and that the
matter be placed on the Council agenda in one week; Mayor Bay suggested that
in looking at all the potential impacts of the change, he wanted the Council
to consider breaking for an evening meal when the occasion arose since in the
past there were no breaks at all when meetings extended into the night which
played a hardship on Council Members in trying to arrive at important
decisions.
114: CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTEE TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Pickler
asked that consideration of an appointee to the City Council to fill the 5th
seat be placed on the Council agenda next week. He then stated for the record
that the Council had not set any precedent. People who have been appointed to
the Council in the past have never been runner-ups in an Election.
It was determined that consideration of a Council Appointee would be placed on
the Council agenda of Tuesday, January 13, 1987.
144: JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY - EASTERN/FOOTHILL CORRIDORS: Mayor Bay
announced that a Joint Powers Authority Operations Committee meeting was held
on Monday, January 5, 1987 at 1:00 p.m. at the Hall of Administration in Santa
Aha wherein key operations involving the Corridors were discussed. The next
regular meeting of the Joint Powers Authority will be held January 8, 1987 at
9:30 a.m. in Santa Aha City Hall.
114/148: r.R~GUE OF CITIES - APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES AND BOARDS:
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that at the Thursday, January 8, 1987 meeting of
11
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
the League of Cities various appointments to League Committees and Boards were
going to be considered.
Mayor Bay asked that the Council Members each receive a summary of the
nominations between now and the Thursday meeting.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had not received any of the letters from
the League and if these were being sent only to the Mayor that he have them
distributed to the entire Council.
Mayor Bay stated he did not circulate the letters that were addressed to him
but will do so in the future.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Bay announced that a Closed Session would be
held to confer with the City Attorney regarding:
(a) Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46.
(b) To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.9(c).
(c) To confer with its Attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c).
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
(11:50 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:38 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 108 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED):
APPLICANT: Wattson Company
840 Newport Center Drive #655
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
Owners: Margo & Lowell Dukleth
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Request for amendment to delete a portion of La Mesa
Avenue, west of White Star Avenue and north of the Riverside Freeway in order
to develop approximately 80 acres bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue, on
the east by Kraemer Boulevard, and the south and west by the Riverside Freeway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-242 denied the request for
amendment to the Area Development Plan; EIR - Negative Declaration previously
approved.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Richard L. Riemer for Margo Dukleth. This matter was continued
from the meetings of November 4 and December 9, 1986, to this date.
12
97
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 23, 1986.
Posting of property October 24, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 24, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 15, 1986.
APPELLANT'S STATEMENT:
Richard Riemer representing Margo Dukleth, the owner of a
portion of the property covered by the request.
At the meeting of December 9, 1986, a request was made of the
City Attorney to provide an advisory opinion to the Council with
respect to certain of the allegations he (Riemer) had made as to
his interpretation of the law. He has talked to the Deputy City
Attorney and it is his understanding such an opinion has been
prepared. He is now prepared to address points with which he
disagrees relative to his interpretation of the law. At the
last meeting, a request had been made by Mr. Frank Lowry for a
continuance of the public hearing to this date which was
granted. He met with Mr. Lowry outside the Chamber after the
meeting who indicated he was going to call but he did not hear
from him. He subsequently attempted to contact him and did not
know until yesterday that Mr. Lowry had since died. He was
contacted by another member of Mr. Lowry's firm this morning
indicating the desire to proceed and would not be requesting a
continuance. He had indicated by letter and in his conversation
with Mr. Lowry, his client is willing to talk and to go about
seeing how the matter could be resolved. No attempts on the
part of Mr. Lowry's clients have been made in that regard.
City Attorney White.
His office provided to each Council Member on December 3, 1986 a
confidential memo containing an analysis of the information
Council had received at the public hearing together with
possible courses of action. Unless the Council wished to waive
the attorney-client privilege, it would not be his intention to
divulge the nature of that confidential attorney-client
information any further.
Mr. Floyd Farano, 100 South Anaheim Blvd., representing Mr. &
Mrs. Harold Coykendall, owner of approximately 15 acres.
He first apologized for the erroneous impression left with the
Council at the last hearing. Mr. Coykendall retained his firm
(Farano & Kieviet) on December 5, 1986. The reason the request
for a continuance was made on December 9, 1986 was only because
he did not have opportunity to review the necessary records in
order to determine a course of action and a recommendation to
Mr. Coykendall. It was subsequently determined after
investigating the matter in discussions with Mr. Coykendall that
there was nothing of any material significance they could
discuss with Mr. Riemer because any other alternative than what
13
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
was adopted in ADP No. 108 would take a significant amount of
property from Mr. Coykendall and disturb a lot of reliance that
Mr. Coykendall and other property owners in the area placed upon
the previous decision relative to ADP No. 108. Mr. Lowry was to
contact Mr. Riemer to advise him of the decision. He was,
therefore, prepared to proceed with the hearing today. Based
upon the position and the factors going to be presented to the
Council, any serious consideration other than ADP No. 108 as it
now stands would be very detrimental and prejudicial to his
client.
Mayor Bay.
From what he has heard he assumes there is not a great deal of
room for negotiation between the parties. Councilman Pickler
had earlier suggested that Council recess into Closed Session to
discuss the issue.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney before continuing the public
hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED. (1:49 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (2:05 p.m.)
Mayor Bay.
He announced if it is the intent of both parties, the Council
will continue with the public hearing.
Richard Riemer. He first noted that Councilman Hunter was not
present at the time of the first hearing and if he merely
continues with his presentation, he (Hunter) will not be a party
to his preliminary remarks.
Councilman Hunter.
He has read all the documentation on the matter including staff
reports, letters, the City Attorney's report and he has seen all
the pertinent maps and the Council ~ust discussed the matter in
Closed Session. He is very much up to date and suggested that
the public hearing proceed.
Richard Riemer.
As indicated previously, (see minutes of November 4, 1986
wherein Mr. Riemer explained the basis for his client's reasons
why ADP No. 108 should be amended) the result of the requirement
that La Mesa Avenue be dedicated by his clients would mean
relinquishment to the City of 83 percent of the property leaving
a usable portion of only 17 percent resulting in lots with a
total depth at the deepest point of 39 feet. In conversation
with the City Attorney yesterday, he agrees with his (Riemer's)
contention that the legal description used in Resolution No.
71R-220 is correct in that his client's property was not
included in that resolution which purported to take a portion of
the property from the County of Orange which at that time was
14
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
zoned industrial in Orange County and then rezoned Mi in
Anaheim. Subsequently, Resolution No. 71R-349 (Council) and its
predecessor, Resolution No. PC71-123 (Planning Commission) were
adopted. He questioned if the latter Resolution included his
client's property. It was here that he and the City Attorney
had a slight difference of opinion because he (Riemer) does not
think it does.
Resolution No. 71R-349 does contain a legal description which
states that ADP No. 108, Exhibit D modified, encompasses the
following described land and then describes the area: an area
bounded by Kraemer Blvd. on the east, La Palma Avenue on the
north and the Riverside Freeway on the south. In 1971, the
freeway was not on the other side of the fence. The State
acquired a parcel of property for freeway purposes and that
parcel included his client's property. Consequently in 1971
when the legal description reads that the area went to the
Riverside freeway on the south, it stopped when it got to Canal
Street or the beginning of his client's property. Therefore, it
was not included in 71R-349 which created ADP No. 108. His
client is now being asked to dedicate something when the
resolution creating the area to be dedicated did not affect
him. As a consequence, La Mesa Avenue should be eliminated.
After further remarks and in concluding his presentation, Mr.
Riemer stated that if his client did not develop the property
and downstream adjacent property owners, the Coykendalls, wanted
to develop their property, the City could still not get the
circulation it desires because La Mesa Street could not be built
without his client's property. They should not be punished by
having 83 percent of their property taken for street purposes
that they cannot possibly use.
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet.
Working from the aerial photograph of the subject and
surrounding property posted on Chamber wall, he stated that in
1971, the City Council adopted ADP No. 108 which included 80
acres. He pointed to the only portion of the property remaining
undeveloped, a portion of which is owned by Mr. Coykendall. A
Mr. Hald also owns portions of the property. Mr. Dukleth (Mr.
Riemer's client) owns .84 acres. He purchased the property from
the State in 1976 for ~6,000. He them submitted to the Council
a Data Sheet documenting the proposed transaction wherein it was
also noted that the property is landlocked (Data Sheet made a
part of the record). Subsequently Mr. Dukleth entered into some
litigation with Mr. Hald and as a result received a 25 foot
easement, an easement by necessity, which resulted in the
property no longer being landlocked. In 1971, five years before
Mr. Dukleth acquired the property, ADP No. 108 followed the
green line as indicated on the posted aerial photograph which
set forth the way La Mesa Street should be developed to provide
circulation in the area and an attractive window on the freeway
15
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
so that the passerby could see the front part of the buildings
instead of the back. Mr. Farano then explained that the
application which started the process and the Environmental
Impact Negative Declaration said that the property owner was Mr.
Hald and that the representative was Wattson Company. That
hearing in September 1986 resulted in a 6-0 vote against the
proposition by the City Planning Commission. Authorization was
given by Mr. Hald in August of 1986 to the Wattson Company for
the purpose of a zoning application to change the zoning of the
property to industrial -ML. (He thereupon submitted the
authorization - see letter dated August 7, 1986 to the City of
Anaheim by Mr. Hald - made a part of the record). Mr. Hald said
he never authorized Wattson or anyone to request the amendment
of ADP No. 108 nor does he request it at this time. As a result
of the September denial of Wattson's request, the sales
agreement between Wattson and Hald terminated and no longer
exists today. The basis upon which this proceeding was
initiated has also now terminated. Therefore, there is a strong
question in his mind as to whether or not Mr. Dukleth has
standing at this point in time. Perhaps a nunc pro tunc order
or even a filed amendment which will change the property
description, if it is necessary, is all that, it would take. At
least it is a tryable issue. The fact that Mr. Dukleth was able
to obtain a 25-foot easement from Mr. Hald to have free access
would have been done in full recognition that unless he received
that easement, the property was landlocked and it was going to
be a road. He (Farano) agrees with the City Attorney and feels
that the property was included in ADP No. 108 and there was no
way anybody could deny it was not.
Concerning inverse condemnation of .84 acres and considering the
fact that this has been known as a potential road, a road in the
future, during the condemnation proceedings or inverse
condemnation litigation that would take place there would have
to be testimony given as to the value of that property. With a
road having been previously designated on ADP No. 108, any
appraiser would be hard pressed to say that the property is
worth anything more than the value of the road. The owners of
approximately 79.2 acres have relied upon the Council's and the
City's decision and it is a matter of keeping faith with those
property owners not to change its mind at this point under
circumstances which are highly questionable. He requested that
the Council leave ADP No. 108 as is at least until such time as
there is some additional showing of justification for a
circulation pattern.
Frank Granato, representing James and Marsha Hald, owners of
approximately 1 1/3 acre of the property Mr. Farano described
from the posted Exhibit. With respect to the Wattson Company it
is true they approached Mr. Hald regarding a zone change and
that is all he (Hald) was aware of and all he authorized them to
do. It came to Mr. Hald's attention at a later date that there
16
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
SUMMATION~
was something more than a zone change which the Wattson Company
had implemented. With regard to the easement that was gained,
that was submitted to binding arbitration between the parties to
attempt to resolve it. The arbitrator found there was
reservation of an easement which had never been taken off the
original tract map that had been filed. His client Just brought
the matter to his attention and he attempted to get in touch
with the City Attorney. He has reviewed the minutes of the
meeting and noted there was some discussion about trying to work
out some compromise if that was possible. His client at this
point does not know what position to take with respect to this
potential street. He does want to have the opportunity to
review the matter and would hesitate to take a position one way
or the other. He has signs on the property, he is drawing
income from the property and is in a position to where he can
sit back and take a look at everything. They have no qualms
about continuing the hearing so that all parties can be aware of
what is going on with the property.
Mr. Bob Miekelson, 328 North Glassell, Orange, representing La
Palma Business Park.
The owners and managers of La Palma Business Park are concerned
with any amendment to ADP No. 108. They constructed the park in
1977/78, seven years after the adoption of the plan in full
reliance on the plan. The aerial photograph does not go far
enough because it would show Kraemer Place coming down at the
northeast corner and then bending back 250 feet toward White
Star indicating not only La Palma Business Park but all the
people to the east. Ail those who developed to the west have
had to dedicate and improve the frontage road as it comes down
from La Palma and heads easterly toward the applicant's
property. They are concerned about any amendment to the ADP
which will have some effect on the value of their property
particularly that it may reduce the circulation in the area for
business and for safety services. It is obvious that everyone
has relied upon that plan. He urged the Council to retain it as
it is. La Palma Business Park is required to dedicate a very
small triangle at the southeast corner of the tract for the
extension of La Mesa. Procedurally it is important to know when
the parcel map was approved by the City when dedication for the
ultimate extension of La Palma was required of his client.
Richard Riemer.
His Client is not involved with La Palma Business Park and their
concern has no reference to the discussion at this point in
time. Relative to Mr. Hald, the Council will find in its file
letter dated October 13, 1986 from the Wattson Company which
assigns all of Wattson's rights insofar as the application is
concerned to Lowell Dukleth, his client's husband. The property
has fallen out of a 3400,000 escrow. It does not mean that
there is still not a lot of interest on his client's part to
have the matter resolved. Relative to Mr. Farano's remarks, it
17
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
is to Mr. Coykendall's benefit to see the requirement of La Mesa
remain as it is because it means he will not have to dedicate
anything but a small piece of property. He would recommend that
the Council not take the risk and think they are only going to
pay nominal value for the property in the event of eminent
domain. The highest and best use of the property is clearly not
for a street.
Mr. Riemer then reiterated much of the testimony given at the
meeting of November 4, 1986 that ADP No. 108, in his opinion,
did not include his client's property and that in July of 1975
the State offered both the County and the City the opportunity
to purchase the subject property which was surplus but both
rejected the offer by not responding.
Mr. Riemer concluded the bottom line is - his client has a piece
of property which has been in escrow for an excess of $400,000
to be used logically for industrial purposes in an area depicted
by the General Plan as industrial and a request that he give
away 83 percent of that property for construction of a road that
is unnecessary for the use of that parcel. It appears that the
only one who will benefit are the owners of the 15 acre parcel
next door, a parcel which, based upon his experience in eminent
domain law, the surface use is for agricultural purposes. Any
oil uses are basically subsurface uses. It would be a piece of
property which is presently zoned and utilized for agricultural
purposes but perhaps with a reasonable probability of a change
of zone to industrial. The business of oil uses as broached by
Mr. Farano will not in any way affect the road. Fairness
dictates that his client not be offered as a sacrificial lamb to
the adjacent property owners and called upon to dedicate 83
percent of their property for a road which will basically serve
the adjacent property and eliminate the necessity of dedicating
a road which clearly is going to be needed by Mr. Coykendall in
order to establish circulation through his property.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. He then requested a Closed Session to
discuss the matter with the City Attorney.
KECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
(2:50 p.m.)
AFTER tLECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (3:10 p.m.)
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the public hearing be continued to at least
the second meeting in March or March 10, 1987 and that staff in the interim
submit a report to the Council on the matter, the location, and the potential
source of funding for the extension of La Mesa per the plan under question.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
18
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6~ 1987, 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney White. He noted the hearing was closed but the Council may wish
to indicate that additional testimony may be received at the hearing on March
10, 1987.
Mayor Bay stated it is at the Council's discretion to open the hearing again
at that time or to call back anyone to answer questions.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2863 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Joseph and Julie Casale
630 North Clementine
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a granny unit on RS-7200 zoned property
located at 630 North Clementine Street, with the following Code waivers: (a)
minimum rear yard setback, (b) maximum rear yard coverage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-292 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2863; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of December 16, 1986.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin December 26, 1986.
Posting of property December 24, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 24, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 24, 1986.
City Clerk Sohl announced that she had received a telephone call from Mr.
Casale when the Council was in Closed Session indicating that he would not be
able to attend the public hearing today. His wife is ill and she is also
unable to attend. He did not ask for a continuance of the public hearing but
wished instead to speak with Councilwoman Kaywood by telephone.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone was present who wished to speak on the matter; there
was no response,
Councilman Pickler.
He reported that he had spoken with the Casales who he had known
for a long time and he is familiar with the work they are doing
on their house. The proposed granny unit is going to be used
for family and not intended for lease or rent.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The issue could not be settled outside of a public hearing. The
reason she set the public hearing, it was the precedent not to
permit rental of granny units but that was not made a condition
of the Planning Commission approval. The Council could not
allow one and then deny others. The infrastructure or parking
19
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
were not adequate and single-family neighborhoods would then
become multiple family.
Mayor Bay stated since there was no one present to testify and
since the applicant could not be present, he suggested a
continuance.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2863 to Tuesday, January 27, 1987 at 1:30 p.m.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3618ANDNEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Inch Investments, (Greyhound Bus Lines),
65 Capp Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94103
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a liquor store in an existing bus terminal
on CL zoned property located at 2080 South Harbor Boulevard, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) minimum number of
required parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-288 granted Variance
No. 3618; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of December 16, 1986.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin December 26, 1986.
Posting of property December 24, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 24, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 24, 1986.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Mr. Lowry (Farano & Kieviet) had called her about a week ago and
she had not realized that the request involved a Redevelopment
relocation. He did answer her concerns at that time.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, representing the applicant
stated he was present to answer questions and would be happy to
do whatever the Council wished.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She wanted to have on the record that the store will have a
divider, that hot sandwiches would be served to bus passengers
but no alcohol.
Floyd Farano, attorney, representing Brian McClellan (dba Ford's
Liquor). He explained there is presently a door between the bus
2O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
station premises and the proposed use. The door will be removed
and there will be a solid wall placed between the bus station
and the liquor store. The proposal is the result of a
redevelopment relocation project that has been pending for some
time. The applicant will serve hot sandwiches to patrons of the
bus service but no alcoholic beverages.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She assumed also that no package liquor would be allowed to go
on board the bus.
Floyd Farano.
The owner will not intentionally do so. Mr. McClellan has no
opposition to saying that but he does not know how he can
control a person from doing so without his knowledge. He cannot
be responsible for anyone who walks into the store to purchase
something that that person will not turn around and get on the
bus.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-5 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3618. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-5: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3618.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked that Mr. Farano stipulate
that there will be a wall between the bus station and the liquor store
replacing the existing door, and that only hot sandwiches would be sold or
served to bus passengers and no alcoholic beverage.
Floyd Farano.
He stipulated to the conditions as stated by Councilwoman
Kaywood.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution including the stipulations
by Mr. Farano:
Roll Call Vote:
21
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: One
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-5 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Mayor Bay announced that those persons who wished
to address the Council relative to items under the Council's Jurisdiction may
do so at this time (3 minute time limit - limit 10 minutes per subject).
Phil Aguilar, Pastor, Set-Free Christian Fellowship.
Pastor Aguilar, accompanied by a group of representatives
affiliated with Set-Free Christian Fellowship, gave a report to
the Council outlining and reiterating the services provided by
the fellowship such as assisting the homeless, destitute, drug
addicts and the "subcultures" in Anaheim. They are concerned
about the community, are open 24-hours a day and offer their
assistance and services to the City in any way they can help
should it ever be needed.
ADJOURNMENT:
the motion.
Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded
One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (3:33 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
22