1986/02/0447
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
SGT. VICE DETAIL: James Brantley
CIVIL ENGINEER - DESIGN: Art Daw
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Pastor Paul McCoy, Anaheim Friends Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION TO MAYOR DON ROTH: Carol Maleki, stated that she was happy
and honored to make a special presentation to Mayor Roth of an oil painting
which she had created from a photograph. As citizens were aware the Mayor
spent countless hours of service to the City and the citizens. She hoped that
the Mayor would enjoy the painting and place it in his office. She then
unveiled the painting.
Mayor Roth thanked Mrs. Maleki for the unexpected presented. He noted upon
the unveiling that Councilman Bay's son-in-law took the original photograph
from which the painting was made.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
Children's Dental Health Month, February 1986,
Bowl-a-thom Day for Cancer Research in Anaheim, February 8, 1986.
Dr. Peter Strand accepted the Children's Dental Health Month proclamation;
Beverly Savage and Linda Klein accepted the Bowl-a-thom proclamation.
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 0verholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
69
48
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,331,756.95, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
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 Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 86R-44 through 86R-52, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book. Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4692 for first reading.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Charles and Mary Tapp for personal injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 22, 1985 through
June 28, 1985.
b. Claim submitted by Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Main
action: Valerie Lee Hussain and Loren W. Pallas) for indemnity purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about September 30, 1985.
c. Claim submitted by Hale's Self Service, Inc. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 2, 1985
through September 30, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Frank Castillo for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City between July, 1985 through September,
1985.
e. Claim submitted by Shelley Broderick and Douglas R. Pricer for bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 5,
1985.
f. Claim submitted by Gloria Christiansen for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 14, 1985.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - denied:
g. Claim submitted by Hoang Huu Nguyen for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 26, 1985.
Claims filed against the City - recommended to be allowed:
h. Claim submitted by Henry J. Mitchell for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 21, 1985.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 178: Orange County Water District Report for 1985.
7O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4; 1986; 10:00 A.M.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of December 5, 1985.
c. 105: Community Center Authority, Minutes of Special Meeting held
January 20, 1986.
3. Approving the following applications in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. 108: Dinner-Dancing Place Permit, submitted by Hungry Tiger, Inc. for
Reuben's #735, 1168 South State College Boulevard, for dancing 7 days a
week, from 8:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
4. 106: Accepting reimbursement from the Los Angeles Organizing Committee
Amateur Athletic Foundation in the amount of $2,254.33 for tournament expenses
incurred during the Snmmer '85' Program, and appropriating said funds into
Account No. 01-270-6525.
5. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with William A. and Patricia E.
Monroe, to encroach upon a five,foot public utility easement along the
southerly five feet of property located at 1655 South Euclid Avenue, to
provide for additional parking spaces and landscaping. (85-2E)
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Consolidated Volume Transporters,
Inc., to provide disposal services in connection with all residential,
commercial and industrial solid waste collected by the City's authorized
refuse collection contractors, with the exception of hazardous waste for a
minimum term of 10 years, at a cost of of ~12.15 per ton for all residential
and multi-family solid waste and $16.80 per ton for all commercial and
industrial solid waste collected until March 31, 1986, rates to be negotiated
annually.
7. 123: Authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Nash and Company,
Inc., to perform a classification study of Service, Maintenance and Skilled
Craft Job classes, to provide for ~1,000,000 professional liability insurance
and $500,000 auto liability insurance.
8. 150: Authorizing termination of any further action on the Pearson Park
Amphitheater Courtyard project at this time.
9. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTIONAND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Microwave System,
Account No. 75-936-6421; and opening of bids on March 6, 1986)
10. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-45: 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 WORK. (Telephone System,
Central Maintenance Yard, Account No. 75-936-6421; and opening of bids on
March 6, 1986)
11. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-46: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINAr~.Y ACCEPTING THE COMPLETIONAND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
71
46
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AD EQUIPMENTANDALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AN WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE ORANGE
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Dale Avenue to Bel Air
Street, Account No. 01-792-6325-2130, Emmanuel Engineering, contractor, and
authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
12. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DIRECTING THE FILING AND POSTING OF PREVAILING RATES OF PER DIEM
WAGES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC WORKS.
13. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 39
FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY. (Authorizing Cooperation Agreement No. 39 with the Agency in an
amount not to exceed 5120,000 for widening Lakeview Avenue from Orangethorpe
Avenue to La Palms Avenue and for lengthening the existing Atwood Channel
culvert under Lakeview Avenue)
14. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-49: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 39
FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY. (Authorizing Cooperation Agreement No. 40 with the Agency in an
amount not to exceed 5825,000 to reconstruct the East Richfield Channel to
increase the storm water capacity from the Santa Aha River to Orangethorpe
Avenue)
15. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 28 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO.
07-5055 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID SUPPLEMENT.
(Approving Supplement No. 28 to Local Agency-State Agreement No. 07-5055 to
provide Redevelopment Agency funds in the amount of 582,680 and FAU funds in
the amount of ~517,320 towards the cost of reconstructing, rehabilitating and
resurfacing asphalt concrete pavement and markings on Kraemer Boulevard from
Crowther Avenue to south City limit)
16. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-51: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EAEEMENTE. (ES-gA) (Declaring intent to abandon an existing
access easement to a sewer line, located south of Mohler Drive, east of Timken
Road, subject to the acquisition of easements for access purposes across Penny
Lane from the affected owners, 85-6A, and setting a date for the public
hearing therefor, suggested date: March 4, 1986, 1:30 p.m.)
17. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
18. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4692: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
A NEW SUBSECTION .2270 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING AND STOPPING.
Roll Call Vote:
72
43
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-44 through 86R-52, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION - FOXEY'S: Submitted by Jette Birgitte
Holgersen, for Foxey's, 1007 East Balsam, for dancers, seven days a week, from
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. The Chief of Police recommended approval.
Councilman Pickler asked if this was a new application or if Foxie's had
previously employed dancers and were any problems experienced at the business.
Sgt. James Brantley explained that the application was a renewal and that
there were less problems at the establishment this calendar year than last.
He also confirmed for Councilman Overholt that the Police Department did, as a
matter of course, investigate to see whether or not managers had a criminal
record.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the entertainment permit application for
Foxey's, 1007 East Balsam, for dancers, seven days a week, from 11:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendation from the Chief of Police.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler voted No. MOTION
179: PROPOSED BILLBOARD SIGN ORDINANCE: Amending sections of Title 18
pertaining to billboards. This matter was discussed and continued from the
meetings of May 28, July 16, and September 24, 1985, and January 28, 1986 to
this date.
City Attorney Jack White explained at the request of the Council his office
had incorporated those certain revisions as directed at the Council meeting of
January 28, 1986 into the proposed ordinance. He had submitted a copy of the
revised ordinance in a form capable of being given first reading today
together with a form showing changes from the previous version with
underlining and line outs.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had been deluged with calls concerning the
issue. It was her opinion that the Council had made a big mistake in not
setting the matter as a public hearing or at least scheduling discussion in
the afternoon session. The people she spoke with did not know the issue was
being considered and they were very much opposed to freeway billboards.
Extensive Council discussion, debate, questioning and recommendations then
followed along with input by staff basically revolving around the following
provisions of the proposed ordinance and/or staff's recommendations:
Removal of non-conforming signs; size of billboards; shape of billboards;
procedure for processing of application; location of boards at freeway
73
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
interchanges; proximity to other billboards; conflicting provisions - the
change from Code to Chapter; required setback; proximity to landscape freeway;
maximum height; deletion of CO and RSA-43,000 from certain prohibited zones;
time limit of the Conditional Use Permit.
Councilman Bay recommended if a company wanted to install a new billboard in
the inner city and that company owned 4 or 5 non-conforming boards, if the
City allowed the installation of one board anywhere, one non-conforming board
would have to be removed. He felt that was critical to the ordinance.
Amongst her many concerns, expressed opposition and recommendations relative
to the provisions of the ordinance proposed by the industry, Councilwoman
Kaywood felt that allowing freeway billboards was putting the City back 20
years plus being the only City in Orange County to allow freeway boards.
Further, the industry was looking for another 15 to 20 percent of space over
and above the 1200 square-foot board if the Council allowed projections beyond
the edge of the board up to 200 square feet. Everything was doubled and
tripled but the industry did not want to have anything taken away. She was of
the opinion that the boards should be rectangular, not to exceed 1200 square
feet and no projections. Even if that provision was changed, she would still
vote no. Relative to Mayor Roth's stand on the matter, it was "shocking" to
her how it was completely different than his stand a year ago when the Mayor
stated that the issue would never come back to the Council as long as he was
still a Member.
At the conclusion of discussion, Floyd Farano, attorney representing the
Outdoor Advertising Industry (excluding Foster and Kleiser) clarified for
Councilman 0verholt that the reason the industry wanted the RSA-43,000 zone
deleted from Section .010, certain prohibited zones, was due to the fact that
it was an interim zone and not permanent and not more than a few pieces of
property on the freeway were involved. He stated, however, if the Council
felt more comfortable adding that back into the ordinance, the industry had no
problem with it.
Following the foregoing discussion, Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No.
4693 for an amended first reading incorporating the changes articulated in the
discussion as well as the recommended wording by the City Attorney on certain
provisions.
ORDINANCE NO. 4693: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
18.05.110, 18.05.111, 18.05.112, 18.05.113, 18.05.114, 18.05.115, 18.05.116
AND 18.05.117, ADDING SECTIONS 18.05 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING.
Before concluding, Councilman Pickler stated that he was going to recommend
that the business license fee for billboards be $2.00 per square foot for
freeway boards and .35~ per square foot for inner city boards. He felt that
once the ordinance was adopted, the fees as recommended should also be
established.
Councilman Overholt stated that he found the recommendation very disturbing
especially since a Council-ordered study was underway analyzing the entire
74
4!
City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
business fee structure schedule, including outdoor advertising. He did not
feel that piecemeal legislation was a good idea.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 4694: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4694 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4694: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
4.08.02 AND SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 4.08.050 OF CHAPTER 4.08 OF TITLE 4 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS AND
STRUCTURES -- NEAR FREEWAYS.
108: RECONSIDERATION - ENTERTAINMENT APPLICATION - THE AT.TBI: Requested by
Louis R. Mlttelstadt, Blake, Barnett, MIlman and Bell, Attorney for Franceska
Honigmann, for reconsideration of the denial of an Entertainment Permit
Application for The Alibi, 2230 West Colchester, for one dancer, 7 days a
week, from noon to 2:00 a.m. Submitted was report dated January 31, 1985 from
the Chief of Police stating that the Police Department finds no reason to deny
the entertainment permit to the applicant.
In accordance with the request made by the City Council notice of this hearing
was given by:
Legal notices published in Anaheim Bulletin January 24, 1986.
Notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet - January 24, 1985.
Notices hand delivered to tenants of Shopping Center by Code Enforcement
January 31, 1986.
Mr. Louis Mlttelstadt, Attorney representing the applicant, first referred to
the concerns expressed by Councilman Overholt at the meeting of January 14,
1986. He reported that the entrance sign on the rear door of the
establishment had been removed by Mr. Honigmann and the door locked from the
interior so that it could be used only as an exit. He had photographs
depicting same. A number of persons were present and prepared to address the
Council - employees, residents and patrons. Their testimony would convey in
substance that The Alibi has always, particularly under the Honigmanns, been
operated in a quiet manner. The Alibi is a small friendly neighborhood
tavern. He did not know the nature of the opposition if there was any.
The Mayor first asked if anybody was present who was opposed to the
entertainment permit application.
Mr. Ron Martin, 2003 West Broadway, stated he was not present requesting
denial of the application but for consideration of other pertinent matters.
He owned the batting cages located in front of The Alibi, which in the past
six years he had built into a community recreational area frequented by many
children. He was concerned about having to do battle first of all with the
Wounded Knee over the use of his parking lot, and having to clean up after
them. That business located in the same area did not have adequate parking to
accommodate their many patrons. His major concern was relative to people
parking in his 8 spaces and if a larger crowd was going to be generated, there
would be a larger flow of traffic and less parking. He did have signs posted
that stated unauthorized vehicles would be towed away but had never enforced
75
City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4t 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the restriction. He was also concerned about an increase of noise but
parking, traffic and related problems such as trash were his main concerns.
Up to this time, he had not had any problems with patrons from The Alibi
taking his parking spaces but was looking to the future. There had been no
incidents of any kind with The Alibi and he agreed that the Honigmanns had
been running a clean business.
Answering Council questions, Mr. Martin stated that he had owned his property
for 6 years and since the Honigmanns took over The Alibi, the problems had
lessened since they were promoting a different kind of clientele, however, he
was not in favor of bikini clad dancers.
Nancy Cartwright, 2243 West Colchester, Apt. #D. She lived right behind The
Alibi and started frequenting the business after moving in. It was very
clean, nice and friendly. She had no problem going to the business by herself
in the evening, and felt safe. She did not know if it was an improvement over
the previous business because she had not been there before it was owned by
the Honigmanns. The bikini clad dancers would not stop her from going there.
She confirmed if there were problems, she would let the Council know.
Councilman Overholt stated he was glad to hear the entrance sign was gone from
the rear door of the business. He was now convinced, given the neighborhood
and the other kinds of tenants in the area, if The Alibi was run the way the
present owners wanted to run it, it would be a compatible business.
Councilman Overholt moved to approve the entertainment application for The
Alibi at 2230 West Colchester, for one dancer, 7 days a week, from noon to
2:00 a.m., as recommended by the Chief of Police. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he did not think the
business was compatible. The Council should get to a point were they started
cleaning up the City. The business was not in an industrial complex but in a
commercial area surrounded by residential. Bikini clad dancers would not
enhance the area but deteriorate it.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated based on the fact that testimony was received
today that the clientele frequenting the business had changed, that the
business had been improved, that notices were sent to those within 300 feet
advising them of the hearing today and the only people present were not
opposed, she would vote for approval.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Pickler voted No.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be
held to confer with the City's Attorney on the following:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
O.C. Superior Court Case No. 40 92 46.
76
39
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4; 1986; 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:40 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:20 p.m.)
162/142: PROPOSED NO SMOKING ORDINANCE: A proposed No Smoking Ordinance,
adding new Chapter 6.30 to the Code, relating to smoking in public places,
First Reading of this Ordinance at the meeting of December 17, 1985 and an
Amended First Reading at the meeting of January 7, 1986. This matter was
continued from the meetings of November 26, and December 17, 1985, and
January 7, 1986, to this date.
Submitted was report dated January 30, 1986 from the City Manager to the City
Council recommending that the Council approve the amendments to the proposed
smoking ordinance as presented in the report dealing with three sections of
the ordinance relative to Smoking Prohibited - theatre, public restrooms and
eating establishments as outlined on Pages 1 through 3 of the report.
City Manager William Talley then briefed his report, the major points of which
were as follows: as a result of a survey made of 20 major competitors of the
Convention Center and Stadium throughout the state and nation, it was found
that the proposed ordinance in its present state would cause negative economic
and competitive impact. Staff was, therefore, recommending that the existing
ordinance be modified to allow City facilities and other major private
facilities such as the Hilton and Disneyland Hotels to maintain their present
operations. Staff was recommending that in auditoriums or other enclosed
facilities that smoking restrictions be determined by either the owners or the
person leasing the facilities. It would be enabling legislation rather than
compulsory.
In eating establishments, the modified language only concerned those eating
functions not open to the general public and recommending that private clubs
be exempted from the ordinance. This would allow private membership clubs to
determine their own restrictions. The present ordinance contemplates public
eating places would be required to set aside 50 percent of their area for
non-smoking. The report listed on Page 3 the ordinances of eight major Orange
County cities including Anaheim's proposal, and two other major southern
Cali[ornia cities, Long Beach and gan Diego. There were only two
Jurisdictions requiring 25 percent. The City of Long Beach was the only city
requiring that 50 percent be set aside. The ordinance being proposed would be
amongst the most restrictive. In publically owned eating facilities, if there
were any in the community, State law required 20 percent be set aside as a
non-smoking area.
Mayor Roth wanted clarification that all the conventions that were held in the
City that were closed were exempt from the ordinance.
City Attorney Jack White explained under the current language of the ordinance
if there was a convention that could not be attended simply by walking up to
the door and paying a fee but open only to members of a certain group or trade
show requiring that person to be a member of some organization, the ordinance
77
40
City Hall; Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
would not apply. Although it is discriminatory, it is not unlawfully
discriminatory. State law differentiates between places open to the public
and those which are not. In his opinion, it would withstand a constitutional
challenge.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted when an exhibitor rents the Convention Center for a
a show, people are not forced to sit in one place but can be walking through.
It was not the same as a working environment.
The following people then spoke to the issue:
Charles Marshall, 6401 East Nohl Ranch Road, owner of Mr. Stox's
Restaurant and member of the Board of Directors of the
California Restaurant Association.
His restaurant has been particularly attentive to requests from
customers for no smoking areas but he found that there is very
little vocalization of such requests. On Friday and Saturday
nights his restaurant served 612 dinners and only one party of 4
requested no smoking seating. Restaurant owners agreed it was a
problem they would like to handle themselves, not somethin~ that
requires legislation. No smoking requirementswill vary at
various times of the day and seasons depending on customer
profiles. It would be difficult to set aside a specific
percentage of space for a no smoking area. An ordinance that
would require 50 percent for non-smoking would be detrimental to
his business in certain instances. One of the effects the no
smoking issue had on his business was that as a result of
discussions, Mr. Stox decided to set up a no smoking area.
Councilman Pickler asked how long it would take the industry to
come back with a voluntary ordinance relative to no smokin~
area; Mr. Marshall stated there was no specific group
representing Anaheim. He would have to do it as an individual
or in conjunction with the Visitor and Convention Bureau and the
Ch-mber of Commerce but did not feel it would take more than 30
days to come back to come up with some guidelines.
Councilman Overholt referred to the ordinance previously
submitted by Mr. Marshall which was approved by the Board of
Supervisors of Santa Cruz County. He asked Mr. Marshall if he
felt it contained certain provisions the Restaurant Association
members could live with if those provisions were incorporated
into the City's proposed ordinance.
Mr. Marshall answered yes and that was his purpose in submitting
the ordinance.
Gary Parkinson, General Partner and General Manager, The Catch
Restaurant. They catered to varied markets - when Anaheim
Stadium was operating and when it was not. The result of a poll
taken last weekend (Friday lunch, Friday dinner and Saturday
dinner) showed that of 762 guests, 8 parties requested no
smoking or a total of 19 people. It did not mean that only 19
78
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
people were non smokers but there were only a fewpeople who
were adamant about the issue and certainly nowhere near 50
percent. He agreed there should be provisions for non-smokers
but the exact percentage of 50 percent would be a tremendous
hardship. He would be happy to work with Mr. Marshall to come
up with guidelines for the restaurant industry relative to no
smoking areas.
Councilman 0verholt then asked Mr. Parkinson the following three
questions which revolved around the provisions contained in the
Santa Cruz ordinance: (1) Would it be unreasonable for the City
of Anaheim to have an ordinance requiring him to place a sign in
the front entry way to his business stating that the restaurant
would accommodate smokers and non-smokers, (2) unreasonable to
have The Catch and other restaurants have signage in their
restaurants identifying smoking and non-smoking areas, which
areas could be changed, (3) unreasonable to require restaurants
to prepare a policy regarding smoking and no smoking and to have
it available as a policy statement.
Mr. Parkinson stated he would have no problem complying with the
Santa Cruz provisions.
Lynn Maloney, 5740 River Valley Trail, owner of the Foxfire
Restaurant.
She had established a no smoking area over a year ago and during
lunch hour that area was filled. In the evening it was
different. The no smoking area specifically set aside was
approximately 20 percent and that area was available at all
times. She also had a sign at the front desk that a patron
could request a no smoking area. It would be devastating to her
business if she were required to set aside 50 percent for no
smoking. She also had no problem if the Santa Cruz provisions
were required.
Ron Craig, Disneyland Hotel.
They do not have no smoking areas set aside in their 8
restaurants but accommodate requests on a case by case basis.
He meets with his restaurant managers on a weekly basis.
Smoking is an issue that has arisen in the past year but
complaints he was aware of were less than a dozen and those
situations were resolved. He felt they could police their own
operations and do an adequate Job. Relative to the questions
posed, he agreed with signage but the type of posting was an
integral part of the interior decor. Some of their restaurants
did not lend themselves to the posting of a sign. If he could
provide a comfortable area without a sign, he would prefer to do
that or to provide a table top sign.
Sharon Buck, H. Werner Buck Enterprises.
She produces the Sports, Vacation and Recreational Vehicle Show
and the Boat Show held at the Anaheim Convention Center. In the
79
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4; 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
nine show seasons since she took over her husband's production
business, she heard many complaints from the public and
exhibitors but never any one who complained about smoking at the
Convention Center. It was an expansive facllity with high
ceilings and more than adequate air-conditioning. The public
attended her shows for entertainment and recreation consistent
with their life styles. The Convention Center was not a forum
to impose specific social conduct on people.
City Attorney Jack White confirmed that Mrs. Buck's shows were
not under the ordinance. As a result of the consultation with
staff of the Convention Center, the ordinance was redrafted and
the current draft provided that in facilities where public
events are staged, either in the Convention Center or any
private facilities as public events, the tenant who controls or
leases the use of that space has the right to determine smoking
policy. As an example, Mrs. Buck as the tenant who is hiring
the facility would have the right to determine the smoking
policy for that show - smoking, or no smoking, or anything in
between. The ordinance is meant to exempt out entirely from any
considerations the facilities when they are used for private
purposes - trade shows, where members of the general public
could not attend even upon payment of a fee but had to have some
other qualification for admission. With regard to public
events, he reiterated those were in the hands of the entity in
charge of hiring the facility to present that event.
Mayor Roth wanted to know relative to the ordinance as revised
and before them today what no smoking provisions would be
imposed at what facilities, if any.
Mr. White answered there would be nothing that would be required
to be a no smoking area at the Convention Center. However, if
the exhibitor determined to make a portion no smoking, then the
ordinance would be the mechanism by which that provision could
be enforced.
George Colouris, producer of the Home and Garden Show at the
Convention Center for the past 19 years. He did not believe
that a trade show was a place where people smoked much in any
case. His activity did not fit the program. A trade show with
a moving audience of Z0,000 or 30,000 people on a Saturday or
Sunday is not a place where smoking could be controlled. He did
not have a problem with the ordinance.
Pat Patterson, Kwikset.
He reiterated his concerns about the many agencies now
exercising control over his business. He still felt the
proposed ordinance was a mischief maker as it applied to the
work place. He had not heard anybody address the work place or
to try to amend the ordinance to make it workable for industry.
He did not want the City to do anything for him. His company
8O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
did not have a no smoking policy except in those areas of the
plant where it would be hazardous to smoke. He had been with
Kwikset for 33 years. They did not have a problem and he did
not believe that 1,300 employees were afraid to approach him if
there was a problem. His basic concern with the provisions in
the ordinance relative to regulation of smoking in the work
place was the fact that any problem will be resolved in favor of
the non-smoker. Smoking will not be allowed in conference rooms
and restrooms but that was not true at the Marriott, the Hilton,
Disneyland Hotel, etc. That was discrimination against
employers in the work place.
Councilman Pickler asked Allan Hughes, Executive Director of the
Chamber, if he still felt a voluntary program could be submitted
which would involve all phases of industry, restaurants,
commercial, etc.
Mr. Hughes answered that the Chamber felt strongly about the
idea that industry should regulate itself and that a volunteer
program coupled with education could be promoted by the Chamber
which would effectively improve the situation over what it was
today. He would be happy to cooperate in any way. The Chamber
was already on record stating they would be happy to implement
the County volunteer program or anything else the Council would
like them to do. Councilman Bay urged that the private sector
in general look at some voluntary plans for the small minority
of complaints that they have heard and asked the Council to keep
its governmental ~nose" out of the private sector.
Merrill J. Matchett, representing Californians for Non-smokers'
Rights.
Spoke to the idea of a voluntary program, what is available and
what could be expected. It was important to understand the
definition of a voluntary program rather than an educational
process that the Tobacco Institute might come up with which had
a specific place. There has never been an educational program
that has been accepted and evaluated to work in a community
where such programs were an alternative to an ordinance.
Volunteer programs were an attempt to delay the ordinance as
long as possible and nothing would happen.
Mayor Roth, referring to previous testimony by Mr. Matchett, was
aware that he (Matchett) favored mandatory requirements rather
than a voluntary program.
Mr. Matchett commented on what he felt was the consensus of the
Council, i.e., the idea of putting ~p a sign in a restaurant
saying that the restaurant would have to provide a no smoking
section. It would probably be acceptable and it would be a good
idea to cite the ordinance as well. If the restaurant does have
a sign and asks the preference of their patrons, that would be
fine. It is a good idea if such provisions were included in the
81
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4, 1986~ 10:00 A.M
ordinance to provide a place for smokers and non-smokers because
it made it easier for the restaurants.
Mr. Chuck Cooper, owner of Hickory Farms at Anaheim Plaza.
He is not a smoker, but he wanted to keep government out of his
business and let him run it as best he can.
Jeff Storey, 4813 Kendall Street, San Diego, representative of
Air Cleaning Technology.
He submitted a letter referring to the fact that his company had
been successful in resolving hundreds of smoking situations with
the use of their commercial electric air cleaners along with
Assembly Bills from the State of New Jersey concerning smoking
in restaurants and the work place which included reference to
the use of electronic air cleaners and air recirculating systems.
Mayor Roth asked that the material be submitted to the Chamber
of Commerce.
Karen Horgan, 140 South Sunkist.
She was a smoker and felt if smokers organized like non-smokers,
their rights would not be taken away. She worked under a
pension system and, therefore, could not walk away from her
job. Now her city was going to interfere with her leisure time
as well because there was going to be no smoking at Anaheim
Stadium. Mayor Roth interrupted and confirmed that it was not
true that no smoking was being recommended at Anaheim Stadium,
but only in certain enclosed areas.
Mayor Roth stated he was pleased with the input received today relative to the
restaurant industry and the situation regarding shows at the Convention Center
but the Council now had to determine a course of action relative to industry
perhaps requesting that the Chamber of Commerce come forth with some volunteer
plan.
City Attorney White then answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood
relative to specific provisions of the proposed ordinance at the conclusion of
which Councilman Overholt stated that the Council had an ordinance before it
having been offered for first reading approximately a month ago. He wanted to
keep the ordinance alive and continue further deliberation but moved to
instruct the City Attorney to draft and bring back to the Council an amendment
to that proposed ordinance incorporating the amendments proposed in the City
Manager's report and in the restaurant food service section, incorporate those
sections of the Santa Cruz ordinance which are applicable having to do with
policies within restaurants - signing of smoking and no smoking sections,
signing in the front regarding having a choice of being in either section,
incorporating in essence the Santa Cruz concept regarding restaurants in
whole. Relative to the work place portion that the housekeeping items
discussed by the City Attorney and Councilwoman Kaywood be included as well as
reducing the percentage of work place cafeteria, lunch rooms and employee
lounges to be set aside for non-smoking from 50 percent to 25 percent. He
offered the foregoing as a motion. The motion died for lack of a second.
82
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar7 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from the representative of the Tobacco
Institute relative to how many places had a working voluntary smoking, no
smoking ordinance - any municipality or any place in the United States.
Mr. Ron Saldana, The Tobacco Institute, stated there were
several currently in operation and many more cities were
presently looking at such a program but he did not have a
number. Off-hand he would have to do some research to give the
specifics of where the voluntary concept was incorporated into
an ordinance and working. In California, there were many
Chambers of Commerce conducting voluntary programs at the
request of City Councils and County government that were
successful but it was a fairly new concept and he did not know
the time frames. In southern California, there was no plan such
as the one Councilwoman Kaywood was asking about that he could
point to today. He could research that and give an answer.
Mayor Roth stated he felt progress was made today. (1) The
restaurateurs agreed with the questions posed by Councilman
Overholt relative to signing and designating areas which
represented the provisions in the Santa Cruz ordinance submitted
by Mr. Marshall. (2) The area of his concern relative to the
Convention Center and Anaheim Stadium was addressed in the City
Manager's report and the City Attorney stated he felt the
conditions were workable and that the trade show principals were
in agreement. The last issue that still needed to be addressed
was smoking in the work place. He preferred to have the Chamber
of Commerce get involved in that aspect working with industry
and submitting a proposal to the Council in 30 to 60 days.
Allan Hughes stated that his understanding on what the Chamber
was being asked to do was to stay by their original
recommendation that business and industry have a volunteer
program patterned after the Orange County Program. From what he
heard today what the Council would like in addition was to have
business and industry institute a volunteer program that would
be initiated and supervised by the Chamber. The Chamber would
come back to the Council with recommendations the Chamber could
live with.
Councilman Overholt stated if Mr. Hughes was suggesting that the
Chamber come back with a volunteer program the same as the
County Chamber submitted to the Board of Supervisors, that was
not satisfactory to him. It was basically a volunteer program
and essentially unenforceable. He would be supportive of having
the Chamber assist in getting the kind of input supplied by the
restaurant industry which indicated they did not want the
Council to interfere but if that were the case, there were
certain things that must be considered.
After additional Council discussion relative to a course of action, Councilman
Overholt again offered his motion clarified as follows:
83
34
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
That the Council delay action on the existing first reading (Ordinance 4678)
for 30 days to give the Chamber of Commerce an opportunity to come back with
their proposal/program governing industry. During that period, the City
Attorney is to prepare an amended ordinance incorporating the amendments
proposed by the City Manager in his report of January 30, 1986 regarding City
facilities and incorporating the provisions in the Santa Cruz ordinance
relating to restaurants.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
RECESS: The Council recessed for five minutes. (4:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:41 p.m)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274 (READV.)--REVISED PLANS:
APPLICANT: Orange County Water District, (Walsh Engineering & Neff
Contracting)
10500 Alice Avenue
Fountain Valley, Ca.
92708
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To consider revised plans and conditions permitting
expansion of a truck and heavy equipment storage yard on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned
property located at 1124 North Richfield Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-16 recommended approval of
the revised plans. EIR Negative Declaration previously approved.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in An-heim Bulletin January 23, 1986.
Posting of property January 24, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 24,
1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
NO one was present to speak.
PUBLIC INPUT-
IN FAVOR~ None.
PUBLIC INPUT-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
84
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Pickler.
He is concerned about additional trucks using the road
especially during the peak hours of 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
This is a revision of the existing CUP adding on 800 feet and
the use remains unchanged. The truck storage is the specific
intent of the renewal. The applicant indicated his operation is
10 dump trucks and 4 bobtail trucks. The application was
discussed with the Traffic Engineer ahead of time and he had no
problem with it.
Councilman Bay.
It is implied that the intent is to use the levee road to move
the trucks from the storage area. He is concerned about the
corner of Richfield and La Palma and is looking forward to
signalization of that intersection and getting the medians
installed to make it a safer place for the Blair Paving trucks
to enter and exit. The subject application is a storage yard
where he assumed empty trucks leave for their destination in the
morning and return in the evening. It does not necessarily add
a great deal of traffic to Richfield and La Palma. He asked if
the conditions limited the storage yard to using the levee road.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Condition No. 5 of the original approval was that no vehicular
access shall be taken to or from Tustin and Lakeview Avenues
with the idea that La Palma be used rather than those two
streets.
She also confirmed that loads of gravel and dirt were not going
to increase. The use permit is for empty vehicles.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-53 for adoption approving revised
plans and conditions, permitting expansion of a truck and heavy equipment
storage yard on RSA-43,000 SC zoned property located at 1143 North Richfield
Road. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-$3: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING REVISED PLANS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
C0UNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-53 duly passed and adopted.
85
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE~ TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 10968:
APPLICANT: Boulevard Enterprises,
?77 So. Main Street
Orange, Ca. 92668
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: Requesting waiver of the requirement of the Hillside
Grading Ordinance as it relates to the location of manufactured slopes within
residential lots and within the tract boundary of Tract no. 10968 located
within the Anaheim Hills area, adjacent to Stagecoach Road and south of Nohl
Ranch Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A their meeting of January 6, 1986, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the subject request.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 23, 1986.
Posting of property January 24, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 24, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report from the City Engineer to the Planning Commission dated
December 24, 1985.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
No one was present to speak to the subject request.
PUBLIC INPUT-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC INPUT-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the request of Boulevard
Enterprises for waiver of the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance as
it relates to the location of manufactured slopes within residential lots and
within the Anaheim Hills area adjacent to Stage Coach Road and south of Nohl
Ranch Road, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
150/162: USE OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES - FREEDOM FIGHTERS INTERNATIONAL:
Request submitted by Dr. William Brashears, on behalf of Freedom Fighters
International-Nicaragua, 1211 W. Imperial Highway, Brea California 92621 for
use of Brookhurst Community Center and La Palma Park for events originally
scheduled for January 29 and 30, February 4, 5 and 9, 1986. This request was
referred to the City Council for decision inasmuch as the Parks and Recreation
Use Policy states as follows:
86
29
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
"Religious groups, labor and political organizations - it shall not be
permissible to hold religious, political or labor activities in the Brookhurst
Community Center unless otherwise approved by the City Council."
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City
Council reaffirmed the previously established policy namely that Parks and
Recreation facilities not be used for religious, political or labor activities.
Motion Carried.
103/148: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) REPRESENTATIVE: Mayor
Roth reminded the Council that because there was no decisive vote at the
January League of Cities meeting, voting for the LAFCO representative was
again going to take place at the Thursday night League meeting (February 6,
1986). When the vote was scheduled the last time, the Council directed him to
vote for Phil Schwartz and he wanted to know if the Council was still of the
same mind.
By general Council consensus, it was determined that Phil Schwartz again be
the choice of the Council for representative on LAFCO.
Mayor Roth announced that he would be unable to attend that meeting; Mayor Pro
Team Pickler confirmed he would be attending the meeting to cast the vote.
101/000: ORDINANCE NO. 4690: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4690
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4690: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
17.30.020 OF CHAPTER 17.30 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO INTERIM DEVELOPMENT FEES - ANAHEIM STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4690 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4691: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4691 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4691 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4691: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
87
3O
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 84-85-33, CL(SC), southeast corner Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard)
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4695: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4695 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4695: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRIATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 83-84-33, CL 2401 W. Lincoln Avenue)
144: FIRST MEETING - JOINT POWERS - FOOTHILLAND EASTERN CORRIDOR: Mayor
Roth congratulated Councilman Bay on his -nanimous election as Chairman of the
subject Authority. Councilman Bay then reported on what he termed the
historical first meeti~ of the Joint Powers Authority held January 30, 1986
in the City of Orange which was also attended by Supervisors Riley and
Nestande and many mayors of 0range County cities. Officers were elected and
other positions filled as well as appointments made to various comm{ttees.
One problem the Council should be thinking about was relative to
adm~nistrative costs and recommendations would be forthcoming from the finance
and administration committees. Their lawyers had already stated that not one
penny of fee money could be spent on administrative costs nor could they use
the interest from the fee money for those costs. There were other
alternatives, one~eing to affect changes in Sacramento that might allow the
use of the interest from the fee money and the other less palatable
alternative would be an assessment of the member cities involved in the JPA to
pay those costs or $25,000 to ~30,000 a year from each city on a pro-rated
basis. Council should be aware that the City was going to be faced w~th the
administrative costs of setting up the new bureaucracy.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:07 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
88