1986/11/18243
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986t 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth, Hunter, Pickler and Bay
PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
The Assistant City Clerk called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City
Council to order at 10:00 a.m. and adjourned due to lack of a qquorum to 11:00
a.m.
Adjourned: 10:01 a.m.
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
Assistant
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth, Hunter, Pickler and Bay
(Councilman Pickler entered the Chamber at 12:16 p.m.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR: John Roche
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II: Malcolm Slaughter
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Father John McAndrew, San Antonio Catholic Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
127: DECLARING THE RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS - GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD NOVEMBER 4~ 1986: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 86R-510 for adoption, declaring the result of the Canvass of
election returns from the General Municipal Election held on November 4,
1986. Refer to Resolution Book.
949
244
City Hall~ Anaheimw California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18w 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-510
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA~ DECLARING THE RESULT
OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS OF THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY
ON NOVEMBER 4, 1986.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim, California, does hereby
resolve, determine, and order as follows:
WHEREAS, a general municipal election was called and regularly held
and conducted in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1986, as required by the Charter of the
City of Anaheim.
WHEREAS, notice of said election was duly and regularly given in the
time, form, and manner as provided by law; voting precincts were properly
established; election officers were appointed; and in all respects said
election was held and conducted and the votes cast thereat, received and
canvassed and the returns made and declared by the Orange County Registrar of
Voters in the time, form, and manner as required by the provisions of the
Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in
cities; and
WHEREAS, the total votes cast at said election for the purpose of
electing officers of said City as required by the Charter of the City of
Anaheim are as shown on the Certificate of Registrar of Voters to Result of
the Canvass of the General Election Returns, attached hereto as "Exhibit A."
NOW~ THEREFORE~ THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA,
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That there were 245 voting precincts established for
the purpose of holding said election consisting of consolidation of the
regular election precincts in the City of Anaheim for the holding of state and
county elections.
SECTION 2. That said regular general municipal election was held
for the purpose of electing the following officers of said City as required by
the Charter of the City of Anaheim, and for presenting for vote the following
measure; to wit:
Three members of the City Council of said City for the full term of
four years; and
Mayor of said City for the full term of two years; and
Measure "A" - Shall Chapter 6.40 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be
amended to prohibit (ban) the retail sale of all fireworks within the City of
Anaheim and prohibit (ban) the possession or discharge of any fireworks within
95O
241
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18! 1986r 10:00 A.M.
the City of Anaheim except pursuant to a public display permit issued by the
Fire Chief?
SECTION 3. That the whole number of votes cast in said City
(except absent voter ballots) was 58,305.
That the whole number of absent voter ballots cast in said City was
3,928, making a total of 62,233 votes cast in said City.
SECTION 4. That the names of persons voted for at said election
for Member of the City Council of said City are as follows:
Melvin A. Aguilar
Gustave E. Bode
Jerry Cook
Loisalene M. Dunleavy
William D. Ehrle
Manny R. Hernandez
Fred Hunter
Miriam Kaywood
Charlene La Claire
Tony Mangiamelli
Frank Monnig, Jr.
E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr.
Irv Pickler
Louis Robert Pradetto
That the names of the persons voted for at said election for Mayor
are as follows:
Ben Bay
Irv Pickler
SECTION 5. That the number of votes given at each precinct and
the number of votes given in the City for and against Measure "A", and to each
of such persons above named for the respective offices for which said persons
were candidates are as shown in the Certificate of Registrar of Voters to
Result of the Canvass of the General Election Returns, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A".
SECTION 6. The City Council does declare and determine that:
Ben Bay was elected as Mayor of said City for the full term of two
years;
Irv Pickler was elected as Member of the City Council of said City
for the full term of four years;
Miriam Kaywood was elected as Member of the City Council of said City
for the full term of four years;
951
242
10:00 A.M.
Fred Hunter was elected as Member of the City Council of said City
for the full term of four years.
That Measure "A" received a majority of yes votes and Chapter 6.40 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code is declared amended as set forth in the "Notice of
Election"- (Ordinance No. 4779)
o Clt clerk shall enter on the records of the City
SECTION 7. The ' Y .... ~ .~a .lections, showing:
council of said City, a statement of the results
1. The whole number of the votes cast in the City;
2. The names of the persons voted for;
3. For what office each person was voted;
4. The number of votes given at each precinct to each person;
5. The number of votes given in the City to each person.
6. The number of votes for and against Measure "A".
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall i~mediately make and deliver
to each of such persons so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the
City clerk and duly authenticated; that the City clerk shall also administer
to each person elected, the Oath of office prescribed in the State
Constitution of the state of california and shall have them subscribe thereto
and file the same in the Office of the City Clerk. Whereupon, each and all of
said persons so elected shall be inducted into the respective office to which
they have been elected.
SECTION 9. That the City clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this resolution, shall enter the same in the book of original
Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption
thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in
the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Anaheim the 18th day of November, 1986
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: overholt and Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-510 duly passed and adopted.
114: OATHS OF OFFICE~ City clerk Leonora Sohl administered the Oath of
Allegiance for Public office to elected council Members Kaywood and Hunter and
elected Mayor Ben Bay. councilman Bay was elected to the office of Mayor for
two years, term ending November, 1988. councilwoman Kaywood was re-elected to
a four-year term ending November, 1990. councilman Hunter was newly elected
to a four-year term ending November, 1990.
952
239
Anaheim
Califormia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
C£RTIFICATE OF REGISTRAR OF VOT[R~ 70 RESULT
OF l~E CANVASS OF ltlE GENERAL £LZ~ION I~IURNS
SLATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) $":.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, A. £. Olson, RegistrAr of Voters of Orange County, Uo hereby
certify the following to be a full, true and correct Statement of the
Vote of the election listea below, con$oliamteU with the General
Election helU on November 4, 19B6.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL ELECTION
COUNCILMEMBER
MELVIN A. AGUILAR 6.17B
GUSTAVE [. BODE 4.176
JERRY COOK
LDISALENE ~. DUNLEAVY 4.355
WILLI~ D. EHRLE 22,009
~ANNY R. HERNANDC2 2,979
FRED HUNTER
MIRIAM KAYWDOD 2~.672
CHAPJ. ENE LA CLAIRE 10,4!5
TONY MANG1AM~I.LI 2,~33
FRANK MDNNIG, JR.
£. LLEWELLYN OVERHOLT, JR. 17,393
ZRV PZCKLER 2~,961'
LOUIS ROBERT pRADEi'TO 1,~22
MAYOR
BER BAY 26,9B2
IRV PICKLER 25,729
MEASURE "A"
YF~ 3!,26B
NO 2O,ggS
PRECINCT BALLOTS
ABSEI~TEE BALLOTS CAST:
7OlAL BALLOT.~ CASI:
5B,3D5
3,g2B
62,233
] hereby ce,~ttfy that t~e number of votes cast for each candioete
end for end against the measure is ~s set forth above.
240
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Later in the meeting, Councilman Pickler was administered the Oath of Office
by the City Clerk. Councilman Pickler was re-elected to a four-year term
ending November, 1990.
Mayor Bay congratulated Councilwoman Kaywood on her re-election and Councilman
Hunter on his election to the Council as well as Councilman Don Roth who was
elected Orange County Supervisor for the 4th District. He then introduced his
wife Eleanor and daughter Betsy who were present in the Chamber audience. He
also thanked the people of Anaheim for electing him Mayor and expressed his
thoughts relative to what he hopes to accomplish in his tenure as Mayor.
Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood thanked the people who voted for her and supported
her in every way. She stated she represents all the people of Anaheim whether
or not they voted for her. She also thanked City administration who went
through a difficult time during the Election Campaign and further, expressed
her appreciation to City Management and all City employees. She was looking
forward to the challenges and opportunities the next four years would bring.
Councilman Fred Hunter introduced his wife Jeanne and his four children, Fred
Jr., Natalie, Laura Michelle and Stephanie Ann. He thanked them for their
support not only in this campaign but his campaign two years ago. He also
thanked his Campaign Manager, Jim Randall and Lois Lundberg and her Assistant
Sharon Camp, his campaign consultants who were present in the Chamber audience
and all those who voted for him. He also expressed his thanks to Mr. Lew
Overholt who had given eight years at the sacrifice of his time, his family
and his law practice to serve on the City Council. He then expressed his
thoughts on the things that he would like to accomplish as a new City
Councilman.
129: ORDINANCE NO. 4779 - PROHIBITING THE SALEf POSSESSION AND DISCHARGE OF
FIREWORKS: Municipal Code relating to prohibition (ban) on the retail sale of
all fireworks within the City, and the possession or discharge of any
fireworks except pursuant to a public display permit issued by the Fire Chief.
City Clerk Sohl announced that the Canvass of Elections on the November 4,
1986 ballot as having been passed by the voters thereby adopting an ordinance
amending Chapter 6.40 of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code banning the
retail sale of all fireworks within the City of Anaheim and the possession or
discharge of any fireworks except pursuant to a public display permit issued
by the Fire Chief. The Ordinance is effective 10 days from this date.
ORDINANCE NO. 4779: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 6.40
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE RETAIL SALE OF ALL FIREWORKS
WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OR DISCHARGE OF ANY
FIREWORKS WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXCEPT PURSUANT TO A PUBLIC DISPLAY
PERMIT ISSUED BY THE FIRE CHIEF.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her pleasure that the measure had carried. It
took five years trying to get the fireworks issue placed on a ballot in order
to let the people decide. The vote turned out as she expected and what she
felt the people thought all along. Anaheim now finally had a ban on fireworks.
954
237
~AnaheimL California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 181__~__~_98610:00 A.M.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Lung Awareness Month in Anaheim, December 1986,
Family Week in Anaheim, November 23-29, 1986,
D-Day on Drugs Day in Anaheim, November 18, 1986,
Boy Scout Donor Awareness Months in Anaheim, October,
November and December, 1986.
Grant Hubbard accepted the Family Week proclamation and Police Chief Jimmie
Kennedy accepted the Boy Scout Donor Awareness Months 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 an~ 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. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~5,914,287.22, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (11:32 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (11:47 a.m.)
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 No. 86R-511 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were file~ against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Delores & David Tilstra for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 15, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by Robin Fallert for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 12, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by Alexander Nowak for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 13, 1986. 955
City Ha.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986f 10:00 A.M.
d. Claim submitted by Thomas Donoff for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 29, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Pamela Miller for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 22, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by Donna Stewart for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 28, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by Michael R. Sardone for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July or August, 1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of October 15, 1986.
3. 170/123: Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the assignment of special
facilities reimbursement agreement between The Prado Corporation and
Municicorp of California relating to Tract No. 12147 in Anaheim Hills to
correct the contract price.
4. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Report for the three
months ended September 30, 1986.
5. 175/123: Waiving Council Policy 401 and authorizing an Agreement for Dam
and Reservoir Safety Engineering Services with J. Barry Cooke Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $20,000 to provide consulting services for the Olive
Hills Reservoir Dam.
6. 154: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with J. W. M.
Engineering in the amount of $15,450.24 for additional paving in connection
with Willdan Road and Pleasant Place Sewer Project, Account No.
11-790-6325-E0550.
7. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, in the amount of $37,699.96 for one
loader backhoe, in accordance with Bid No. A-4390.
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 ~24,725.60 for the purchase of two patrol units.
9. 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 $20,789.78 for one gas power sweeper.
10. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-86R-511: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES~ RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
71R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86R-381.
(Amending .the rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of
electric energy as adopted by City Council Resolution No. 71R-478 and most
956
235
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 1St 1986t 10:00 A.M.
recently amended by Resolution No. 86R-381, to add Rule No. 22, Cogeneration
and Small Power Production Interconnection Standards)
152: Authorizing The Public Utilities General Manager to execute Letter
Agreements for interim operation of Cogeneration Projects.
11. 106: Appropriating ~1,955,128.75 in narcotics case forfeitures and
$24,942.83 in interest from a narcotics "flash fund" account and ratifying
previously expended funds in the amount of $72,686.15.
12. 175/123: Authorizing a Firm Power Sales Agreement with The Pacific Gas
and Electric Company to deliver 20 MW of firm capacity for a fourteen month
period beginning January 1, 1987 to March 1, 1988 with yearly renewal rights.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth, Hunter and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-511 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4780: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4780 for
first reading, amending Section 18.61.050.600 of the Code to permit churches
by conditional use permit in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area and repealing
Ordinance No. 4743, as recommended in memorandum dated November 4, 1986 from
the City Attorney. The ordinance will correct a clerical error in Ordinance
No. 4743.
ORDINANCE NO. 4780: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.61.050.600 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO
PERMIT CHURCHES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE ANAHEIM CANYON INDUSTRIAL
AREA AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 4743.
105: RESIGNATION FROM THE LIBRARY BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
accept the resignation of Elizabeth J. Schultz, Member of the Library Board,
effective January 1~ 1987 as tendered in her letter of October 15, 1986, and
authorizing the City Clerk to post an unscheduled vacancy. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked that a letter be sent
thanking Mrs. Schultz for her very long and very dedicated service to the
Library Board.
Mayor Bay asked that a Resolution be prepared to be presented to Mrs. Schultz.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, all Council Member expressing
regret relative to the resignation. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
957
236
Cit~ Hallf Anaheimf California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held October 27, 1986, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2029 (READV.) AND 2849 (READV.): Submitted by
Allen Lobel, Canex Investments, to amend conditions of approval PC79-218 for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2029, to delete a use specifically restricted from
subject site and to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2849, to permit
automobile repair in conjunction with an existing automobile sales agency on
CG zoned property located at 619-631 North Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-264, amended
Conditional Use Permit No. 2029 (ReadY.) for 6 months (to terminate April 27,
1987) and granted a negative declaration status. Conditional Use Permit
No. 2849 was withdrawn by the applicant.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3608: Submitted by Anaheim Land Limited Partnership, to
establish a 3-parcel subdivision on ML zoned property located at 2430 East
Katella Avenue, to establish a 3-parcel subdivision, with Code waiver of
required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-265, granted
Variance No. 3608, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3610: Submitted by Grady Hanshaw, to construct a 3900-square
foot commercial building in conjunction with an existing auto repair garage on
CL zoned property located at 519 South Brookhurst Street, with the following
Code waivers: (a) Minimum number of required parking spaces, (b) maximum
structural height, (c) minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-266, granted
Variance No. 3610, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2848: Submitted by Norbert A. Waters, Ruth M.
Waters and Dorothy R. Mezey, (Niberino's Pizza), to permit on-sale alcoholic
beverages in an existing restaurant, on CL zoned property located at 2503 East
Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-267, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2848, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2852: Submitted by Euclid-Ball A.S.C. Ltd.,
(Anaheim Surgical Center), to permit a three bed in-patient surgical center on
CO zoned property located at 1314 South Euclid Street, with Code waiver of
minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-268, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2852, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2854: Submitted by Marion C. and Elaine J.
Henry, to permit an automotive service facility on CL zoned property located
on the southwest corner of Ball Road and Gilbert Street. 958
233
City Hall{ Anaheimg California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18g 1986g 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-269, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2854, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3605: Submitted by Trider Corporation, to construct a 23-1ot
attached condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000(SC) zoned property
located on both sides of Camino Grande westerly of the intersection of Camino
Grande and Nohl Ranch Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum
structural setback, (b) required site screening.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-270, granted
Variance No. 3605. EIR No. 235 had been previously certified.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3613: Submitted by Tom and Connie Hawthorne, to retain an
existing patio cover on RS-5000 zoned property located at 1776 Partridge
Street, with Code waiver of minimum rear yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-271, granted
Variance No. 3613, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination, (Class 3).
9. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-42 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2702--EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by Fatima Stevens, requesting extensions
of time for Reclassification No. 84-85-42 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2702,
for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to permit a spiritual psychic
palmist in a residential structure located at 1570 West Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 84-85-42 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2702, to expire August 5, 1987.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1858--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Ottis E.
Pittman, requesting an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 1858,
to permit a private cat kennel and maintenance and storage yard for heavy
equipment on property located at 1401 North Jefferson Street.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1858 for 60 days, to expire December 27, 1986.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-9 AND VARIANCE NO. 3513--EXTENSIONS OF TIME:
Submitted by George E. Jones, requesting extensions of time for
Reclassification No. 85-86-9 and Variance No. 3513, proposed change in zone
from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 204 unit affordable apartment
complex with various Code waivers on property located at 801 East Orangewood
Avenue (formerly Orangewood Acres RV Park).
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 85-86-9'and Variance No. 3513, to expire October 28, 1987.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2724: Submitted by Albert G. Giegele,
requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2724, to permit
a 152-unit senior citizen congregate care facility on property located at 200
West Freedman Way.
959
234
City Hallw Anaheimw California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18w 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2724, to expire October 14, 1987.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted Page 18-D of staff report stating, "that the
tenancy of the subject facility shall be restricted to persons at least one
(1) of whom in each unit is (a) sixty-two (62), (b) fifty-five (55) years of
age or older." She assumed that something was missing, a line or a word or
two.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for zoning, stated she would verify the
Planning Commission Resolution. It appeared that something was missing.
Jack White, City Attorney, explained that State Law provides that the breaking
point for a project size is 150 units. The City is allowed to regulate at age
55 and up for less than 150 and at 62 and up for over 150 units. Councilwoman
Kaywood noted then that since the project was 152 units it meant that the age
limit would be 62.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2797 (READV.): Submitted by Luco D. and
Madeline D. Caliano, to expand a board and care facility for a maximum of 10
developmentally disabled persons on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1329
Jasmine Place, with Code waiver of maximum fence height in front yard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-263, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2797 for a maximum of 8 (per applicant request),
and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
14. VARIANCE NO. 3614: Submitted by United Suites of America, Inc., to
construct one freestanding changeable copy sign on ML zoned property located
at 3100 East Frontera Street, with Code waiver of maximum area of freestanding
signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-272, granted
Variance No. 3614, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination, (Class 11).
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items. Councilman Pickler was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12854 AND REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Submitted by
Goldie G. Montgomery and Clayburn Graves, to establish a 7-lot,
RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned single family residential subdivision on approximately
8.5 acres at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Lakeview Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 12854 and removal of
Specimen"Trees. There was no action taken by Council. MOTION CARRIED. 960
231
City Hallw Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18t 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
123: AGREEMENT WITH STANTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT PURSUANT TO COUNTY
REORGANIZATION NO. 82: Approving an agreement with Stanton County Water
District, pursuant to Orange County Reorganization No. 82, relating to
distribution of assets, as recommended in memorandum dated October 28, 1986
from the Director of Maintenance, John Roche. This matter was discussed at
and continued from the meetings of November 4 and 12, 1986, to this date (see
minutes those dates).
City Manager Talley referred to staff report dated November 12, 1986 from John
Roche, Director of Maintenance. The report lists three options (see report
dated November 12, 1986 - subject: Proposed Agreement between the City of
Anaheim and Stanton County Water District concerning distribution of assets
pursuant to Orange County District Reorganization No. 82 - Option 1, 2 and 3
reported on Page 1 of the report). Staff prefers Option 1 - "Adopt proposed
agreement with Stanton County Water District, where 60% of all funds
transferred to Anaheim are to be returned to the former fee payers of the
Stanton County Water District within Anaheim. Assets and reserves are
estimated to be approximately ~750,000. City will receive one-third." The
Council also received communication dated November 4, 1986 from the Stanton
County Water District (SCWD) urging the Council to make a decision today since
the District Board is meeting tonight. Also present in the Chamber audience
is Janet Morningstar, Counsel for the SCWD and City Manager James Buell of
Stanton who are prepared to answer any questions.
James Buell, City Manager, City of Stanton. He has discussed the need at
length with the Stanton City Council and they have asked that he convey their
concern since they are in the middle of negotiations with the SCWD. They are
requesting that the Council defer any action on the matter until the first
meeting in January. They have a hearing before LAFCO on December 3, 1986 and
it is their hope to have their negotiations with SCWD clarified at that time.
They are hoping that the Council will take no action which will cloud any
discussions or negotiations they might have with them.
Councilman Roth stated he appreciates Mr. Buell's comments but the issue is
one of returning the funds to the people who paid them. He understands
Stanton's position but he has to support the staff recommendation and return
the funds accordingly.
Mr. Buell stated they are not saying that should not be done but that the
action be deferred until they have had an opportunity to go through their
discussions.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve Option 1 as outlined in staff
report dated November 12, 1986, adopting the proposed agreement with SCWD
where 60% of all funds transferred to Anaheim are to be returned to the former
fee payers of the Stanton County Water District within Anaheim, which assets
and reserves are estimated to be approximately $750,000 and the City of
Anaheim will receive one-third. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked the time constraints in the
matter. .~
961
232
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 1~:00 A.M.
City Manager Talley stated he was going to defer to Mr. Roche to respond or
perhaps to Ms. Morningstar. There is a concern if the Council does not act
today on having to go through the process all over again.
John Roche, Director of Maintenance, explained that the time restraints were
becoming very critical. Unless something was done today, it was his
understanding the proposed agreement would be negated and something else would
have to be negotiated. The City would still abide by the adoption of the
LAFCO ruling which sets forth capacity rights and also a division of reserves
which would then be only $25,000. The City would get one-third of that amount
vs. $400,000. Timing was critical.
Janet Morningstar, Counsel, SCWD. Relative to time constraints, the District
Board of Directors meets only once a month. The longer the agreement is
delayed it may make it unfeasible at some point and would delay Anaheim
getting its allocation of the assets of the District. She would support the
Council making a decision on the matter today because of their meeting this
evening. They also have the agreement on their agenda to approve at that
meeting. The City of Stanton, in their letter indicated they agreed with the
allocation between the District and the City. Their only opposition is to the
return of the funds to the constituents.
Councilman Roth then briefed Councilman Hunter on the background of the
situation.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not see the problem Stanton was
anticipating. The fact that Anaheim has an existing maintenance program and
is able to absorb this area, is a different situation. It can be easily
explained to their citizens. If Anaheim charges less for services than other
cities in the surrounding area, it was not necessary to apologize for it.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Pickler was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108/149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4725 - VENDING FROM VEHICLES: Amending Section
14.32.310 of the Code relating to vending from vehicles and establishing
Permit Application and appeal fees pursuant to Section 14.32.310 of the Code.
This matter was discussed at and continued from the following meetings to this
date: June 17v July iv 8v 22v August 26v September 9, October 7, and 14,
November 4, 1986, Amended First Reading November 12, 1986.
Jack White, City Attorney, stated the ordinance was being resubmitted to the
Council today after an amendment last week and placing the amended version on
first reading. The change made last week was to Section .0216 on Page 3 that
previously had provided that in residential areas, non-amplified sound-making
devices could be used for purposes of attracting the attention of customers to
vending vehicles only while the vehicles were in a stationary position about
to vend their wares or services. The City Council revised that provision to
provide that sounds of a non-amplified nature can be made only while the
vehicle is in motion and shall not be made while the vehicle is stopped. The
two additional limitations, which were not changed, were that the sound must
only be by means of non-amplified sound-making devices and the distance for
which
962
229
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the sound is audible shall not exceed 200 feet. The change previously made by
the Council the week before related to increasing the maximum period of time
in any one stop from 20 to 30 minutes. That provision is also incorporated
into the revised version of the ordinance. The ordinance was given first
reading last week and it is now before the Council for consideration and
possible adoption today.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to the matter.
Pedro Vazquez, 627 South Shelton, Santa Ana, vendor. He explained that their
attorney, Salvador Sarmiento was not present because he was in Court today.
He then stated that the vendors were concerned relative to several points of
the proposed ordinance specifically Sections .0208, .0209, .0212, .0215, .0308
and .020
Councilman Pickler entered the Council Chamber. (12:16 p.m.)
Mr. Bay stated he thought all those issues were covered and that they had come
to a conclusion in the negotiation with the City Attorney and Mr. Sarmiento.
The time element was amended from 20 to 30 minutes. The provision relative to
sound devices was the issue amended last week.
City Attorney White stated he met with Mr. Vazquez and Mr. Sarmiento and the
City's Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Poole approximately four or five
weeks ago and again with Mr. Sarmiento and Poole approximately two weeks ago.
They attempted to negotiate various provisions and changes to the versions of
ordinances then in front of the Council. The ordinance went through several
amendments and first readings prior to the state it was in today. At the last
meeting with Mr. Sarmiento, he believed at that time they had reached an
agreement that was acceptable to Mr. Sarmiento that he had agreed to convey to
his clients with the recommendation that they approve the provisions of the
ordinance and not oppose the ordinance in its revised form. He was
subsequently advised by Mr. Sarmiento his clients were unwilling to approve
the agreement in its current form. Last week the Council made one additional
change relative to the way in which sound could be made in residential areas.
He (White) has always been under the impression that there was some
disagreement by the vendors themselves to that particular ordinance and the
various provisions placed in it. He is hearing a new set of concerns today
that to his knowledge were not raised at the meetings he attended. Mr.
vazquez then expressed some of the provisions in the ordinance of concern to
the vendors such as the hours, which they would like extended to 9:00 p.m.,
the provision on trash which will place the position of having to clean the
street, and the insurance requirement which will cost them too much money. He
also answered questions posed by Council Members Kaywood and Hunter revolving
around the concerns expressed.
Councilman Roth posed questions to staff on how the insurance requirement was
determined which were answered by City Attorney White and the City's Risk
Manager, Tom Vance. Mr. Vance referred to his report of July 21, 1986 which
contained the initial recommendation that the limit of insurance for a vehicle
operating in Orange County in light of the way the litigation was going in the
County sh6uld be $1 million. Because of concern expressed by the Council, he
963
City Hall~ Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18r 1986{ 10:00 A.M.
was directed to do more research. In summary, they found an avenue through
which whatever Council puts in the ordinance the people who had to comply
could get into an assigned risk pool with the State at a significantly lower
cost than going through the normal commercial approach. Also included in the
report was the name of an individual who writes through Allstate who has been
doing this for a number of vendors that are under the Santa Aha ordinance. He
can make this information available to anyone who wishes it. He also
explained the cost difference between $100 - $300 was only about $400 to go to
$1 million. The incremental cost to go to a higher level of insurance is
low. The City of Santa Aha was requiring $1 million on ice-cream vending, not
on other vending. He feels it is in the public interest for vehicles,
particularly in residential areas to carry a sufficient amount of insurance.
If a company is unable to pay insurance costs, how would they have the
financial assets to meet their obligations if they were to injure someone and
did not have the insurance.
Councilman Roth asked if Mr. Farano had anything further to add relative to
the insurance aspect.
Floyd Farano, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. He will only repeat
what is already in the record, that the Chamber's Committee study the matter
thoroughly after a great deal of discussion. Relative to insurance,
considering the fact that there is a possibility of City liability in the
event that the City would permit vendors to conduct their business without any
insurance at all, there should be some coverage. They found that the amount
most often obtained by small business people was the $250 - $500,000. They
also found that the difference between $125 - $150,000 and $250 - $500,000 was
not great. There was no significant increase in cost until coverage exceeded
$500,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether there was a provision in the ordinance
controlling what is sold by vendors.
City Attorney White stated the ordinance does not attempt to control the types
of merchandise or services being vended. It only requires in the event that
food substances are sold that they have the necessary County of Orange Health
Permits. Obviously the ordinance does not in any way allow the sale of any
merchandise or service that might be prohibited by any other ordinance or
State 5aw.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4725 for adoption as amended at the
previous meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 4725: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
14.32.310 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO VENDING FROM VEHICLES.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he has been troubled with the
proposed ordinance. The complaints from those who do not want vending to take
place in their neighborhoods has been basically due to noise and trash. His
philosophy is if people did not want the vendors they would not buy from
them. If'nobody purchased anything from the vendors they would go away. They
964
227
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18r 1986, 10:00 A.M.
are looking for government to solve the problems when they can do so
themselves by not patronizing the vendors. A concern he has, however, is
relative to the insurance aspect so that the City will not be liable should a
problem occur. Otherwise, he would vote no but, because of the insurance
requirement which he feels is necessary, he will reluctantly support the
ordinance.
Councilman Hunter stated he had already voted no. This was a 10 or 12 page
document to regulate vendors in the City. He has listened to the issue for 8
months and has read it in the papers. It is over-regulation and it is not
what people want in regards to regulations whether vendors or other people in
the City.
(It was here that Mayor Pro Tem Pickler was sworn into Office as Councilman
for the term ending November, 1990. City Attorney White had explained to
Councilman Pickler, even if the oath were not given, would continue to sit as
an extension of his previous term but to avoid any question, that it would be
appropriate to take a moment to swear him in).
Councilman Pickler stated he was in favor of the ordinance. At the outset,
because of the complaints received from citizens relative to the problems they
were experiencing with the vendors and the opposition to allowing them to
continue, the Council was ready to do almost nothing and instead enforce the
current long standing ordinance relating to vending. He has watched the
influx of vendors in the City of Santa Ana and the problems that resulted. It
was necessary to have some control. Although it would be ideal not to have
rules and regulations, the end result of that is chaos. The proposed
ordinance was a good compromise allowing the vendors to sell their wares while
at the same time showing them that they have to have consideration for the
people that they serve and those that they do not serve.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if there had been no problems, there would be no
need for the ordinance. The people who live in the City and pay their taxes
in the City have a right to enjoy their homes. She represents them and will
continue to do so. If people want to sell their wares they cannot create
noise and trash and clog traffic. The people who live in the affected areas
are imprisoned and cannot move either way. She has had photographs sent to
her where there had been three or four vendors back to back, double parked and
all over the place. They have worked long and hard on the ordinance to make
it an acceptable one, to comply with the State Law, to protect the residents
in their neighborhoods, and allow the vendors to ply their trade. The vendors
must comply and not cause problems in the neighborhoods which will allow
everyone to peacefully co-exist.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
965
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4725 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-512, for adoption, establishing
Permit Application and appeal fees pursuant to Section 14.32.310 of the Code.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-512: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING PERMIT APPLICATION AND APPEAL FEES PURSUANT TO SECTION
14.32.310 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-512 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth thanked Mr. Farano and the Chamber for the time and effort
they spent on the issue and suggested that a letter of thanks be sent to the
Chamber under the Mayor's signature; Mayor Bay asked that a letter be prepared
for his signature.
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) Regarding labor relations matters pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6.
(c) Regarding personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:45 p.m.)
134/179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 218 (READV.)~
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-3 (READV.)~ VARIANCE NO. 3588 (READY.) AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: D & D Development Company
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, and
redesignation from low density residential and low-medium density
residential/property located at 2900-2920 East Lincoln Avenue/to construct a
220-unit, o2-story apartment complex, with Code waivers of maximum structural
height and minimum structural setback and yard requirement.
966
225
City Hallw Anaheimw California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986{ 10:00 A.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-217, 218 and 219
the City Planning Commission approved General Plan Amendment No. 218, granted
Reclassification No. 86-87-03 for RM-2400 zoning and denied Variance No. 3588;
approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
This matter was discussed and continued from the meeting of September 23, 1986
to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 11, 1986.
Posting of property September 12, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 12, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 4, 1986.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated November 10, 1986 had been
received from Camille Courtney, Vice President D & D Development, to continue
the public hearing to either November 25 or December 2, 1986.
Mayor Bay asked for a show of hands of those present relative to the subject
public hearing; one person was present.
Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on the subject General
Plan Amendment, Reclassification and Variance to December 9, 1986 when a full
Council will be present. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay asked if anyone who was present on the
issue would like to give testimony at this time or return on December 9, 1986;
no one wished to speak.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC nEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2841 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
A & R Management Co., et al, (McDonald's)
6920 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite {340
Los Angeles Ca. 90028
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a drive-thru fast food restaurant on ML
zoned property located at 1810 South State College Boulevard and 2020 East
Katella Avenue, with the following code waivers: (a) Minimum dimension of
vehicle accessways (deleted), (b) maximum number of small car spaces, (c)
minimum number of parking spaces, (d) minimum structural setback and yard
requirements (deleted).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-246 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2841, in part; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
967
City Hall{ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Pickler at the Council meeting of October 14, 1986. This matter was continued
from the meeting of November 12, 1986, to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 31, 1986.
Posting of property October 31, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 31, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 29, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Frank Lowry, attorney for the applicant, Farano & Kieviet, 100
South Anaheim Boulevard.
He understands staff has a position that they would like to
state before he proceeds.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
She referred to staff report dated November 3, 1986 from the
Zoning Division, recommending that if Council approves the CUP,
staff recommends that the conditions adopted by the Planning
Commission be modified to amend Condition No. 11 and to add a
new Condition No. 16 as stated on Page 1 of the staff report.
The concern of staff is regarding signage in the Stadium
Business Center. She then briefed Provisions a), b) and c) of
proposed Condition No. 16 (see staff report dated November 3,
1986) and also narrated a brief slide presentation to show some
of the existing freestanding signs McDonald's has in Anaheim
which signs would be permissible unless restricted under a CUP.
The slides also showed signage in other cities that were
monument signs of the type staff believes would be advantageous
to some of the objectives that the City has expressed in the
Stadium Business Center to upgrade the area. The purpose of the
slides was to illustrate the kinds of signs staff preferred not
to see in the subject location. It would be more appropriate to
have signs parallel to the wall or below the wall where the sign
would not be quite so intrusive or the monument type signs as
depicted. The signs were approximately 6 feet and of a type
staff feels is quite visible and attractive. They are in
commercial locations in other cities that appear to be more
restrictive than Anaheim.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Pickler.
He requested the public hearing because of the signage more than
anything else. He is concerned over the signage on Harbor
Boulevard across from Disneyland and did not want to see that
happen in other parts of the City. The subject area is a vital
one and a high profile area.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Frank Lowry.
His firm represents a number of developers in the "platinum
968
223
City Hallw Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
triangle." The people building in the area are encountering
resistance from those wishing to locate in the area because the
City is not planning for all of their needs such as restaurants
like McDonald's where their employees can eat. Signage is
important because patrons would have to be able to find the
establishment. Staff indicates that a monument sign would be
appropriate but Miss Santalahti also pointed out the need for
increased setbacks, increased landscaping, trees on 20-foot
centers, a berm, etc. which would make it difficult to
accommodate and see such signs. The luminiscent lights used by
McDonald's are part of the roof line and a factor relative to
the visibility of McDonald's. The Planning Commission approved
the request and signage is way under Code. No big arches will
be used and none are requested. The facility will serve a basic
need of the people in the area and it is important that it can
be seen. The signage requested is on the building itself and
not roof signs. It is not 70 feet but a 30-foot sign, the
standard small McDonald's sign in the air and wall signs. This
type of advertising is essential to the success of the
business. It is within the limit of the Code as well as the
spirit of the Code in that area.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is also concerned with the parking shortage.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
A traffic study was conducted for the facility in view of the
parking waiver requested. Two locations were specifically
studied. One that most closely resembles the subject facility
is located on State College Boulevard, north of La Palma. That
facility has a far less parking ratio than the subject
facility. The traffic study indicates the parking requested
will be adequate for this facility. Since the intersection is a
proposed critical intersection, he has "juggled" the aisle width
to allow an additional foot to make the 12-foot dedication more
palatable. It is admittedly a busy intersection but he is
looking at some trade-offs, primarily the critical intersection
which will solve more impact than a parking variance might
make. The gain is the additional right-of-way the City will
have for the critical intersection.
Council Members then posed questions to Mr. Lowry and to staff relative to the
proposal, present conditions in the area with regard to signage, where
restaurant patrons park during events at the Stadium, etc.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the request for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2841; no one wished to speak.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
969
224
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18r 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler.
He has a problem with regard to signage. Even though it is a
$2 million investment, looking at the "platinum triangle" and
considering the millions of dollars being invested in the area,
this is only a small portion in the overall scheme. Signage is
of the utmost importance and he felt it was necessary to be more
restrictive relative to what is allowed. A monument sign in
this case would be more appropriate. If they did not start
doing something regarding the kind of signage they wanted to see
in the area, he was concerned they would experience another
Harbor Boulevard with a proliferation of signs such as between
Ball Road and Katella Avenue and he did not want that to happen.
Councilman Bay.
If the Council is leaning toward controlling more than the
standard Codes, he feels they should hurry to make this a
Redevelopment Project Area where they can control not only to
standard Codes, but also the aesthetics of buildings, the
signage and anything else they choose. The request is something
less than what could be allowed under the Code and nothing out
of line. They have agreed to a specific plan to the landscaping
and to full dedication of 12-feet along both Katella and State
College Boulevard for the eventual widening of that
intersection. He supports the CUP as it stands.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-513 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2841. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-513: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2841.
Before a vote was taken, Annika Santalahti explained for Councilman Pickler
that signage was not discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. If Council
does approve the permit, it would still be appropriate to add the new
condition, and stipulated to by Mr. Lowry, which would specify that the
freestanding sign will be limited to 30 feet in height with a surface display
area of no more than 100 feet on each side.
Frank Lowry.
He so stipulated to the foregoing relative to the freestanding
sign.
970
221
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 86R-513, including the stipulation
that the sign will be limited to 30-feet in height with a surface display area
of no more than 100 feet on each side.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth, Hunter and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-513 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-9~ VARIANCE NO. 3600 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Michael L. Valenti
751 North Zeyn
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from CG and PD-C to RM-1200 or
less intense zone, to construct a 6-unit, 3-story apartment building at 202
East Adele Street, with code waivers of: (a) Maximum number of small car
spaces, (b) maximum building height, (c) minimum structural setback and yard
requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-247 approved Reclassification
No. 86-87-9 and Resolution No. PC86-248 granted Variance No. 3600; approved
EIR Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of October 14, 1986.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 6, 1986.
Posting of property November 7, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 7, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 29, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Hadi Tabatabaee, 15935 San Miguel, La Mirada, Ca., agent for the
applicant was present to answer questions.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is concerned with all of the waivers requested. She
referred to and read from the Planning Commission minutes of
September 29, 1986 (previously made a part of the record)
specifically the statement by Commissioner Herbst that, "he
thinks this is just another small lot being overbuilt...," and
then giving additional reasons for his concern with the proposed
971
222
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18t 19861 10:00 A.M.
project. She, too, felt the lot was being overbuilt. It
contains one family now and, if approved, six families will be
living there and parking is already very bad in the neighborhood.
Hadi Tabatabaee.
By Code, they could build seven units but are only building
six. They are not asking for a density waiver. The size of the
unit is 850 square feet with 2 bedrooms and 2 baths. Relative
to recreational area, the site plan shows 50 X 24 feet which is
all green area besides the setback on the building. The compact
parking spaces allowed is .75 and they went to one. He does not
believe there will be a problem with parking. It will actually
solve the problem by keeping the tenants out of the street. The
area is rental now and a lot of cars park on the street. They
are providing the number of parking spaces required by the
Traffic Engineer. As far as being a 3-story structure, they are
6 inches below the height permitted for 2-story which is 30
feet. The property is a corner lot and both sides require a
setback frontage. If it was not a corner lot, only one setback
frontage would be required. They are losing an average of 20
feet in each direction. Relative to the tandem parking, each
space will be assigned to one unit, and, therefore, the tenants
will have control of their spaces.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He stated that tandem parking even by Code has to be assigned to
the same unit.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Mike Taleb, 3700 South Plaza Drive, Santa Aha.
He is the developer of the property. They purchased the
property to put six units on it. It is a good project for the
City. The area is running down and the project will help the
area and enhance it. To build less than six units is not
feasible considering the value of the land. In answer to
questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, he stated he does not
plan to have on-site management for the project because it is
only six unitst they will be signing leases with the people who
rent, they will not rent a unit to more than what the law says
or two different families. Fifteen parking spaces are being
provided.
Rena Springett, 1932 Park Skyline, Santa Aha.
She is the Real Estate Agent for Mike Valenti. When the builder
came in with the plan and went to the Planning Commission, he
did whatever he could to accommodate them. Most of the homes in
the area are very old. Mr. Valenti's property has been rented
out for a number of years. The property is in a run-down
condition. It will cost a great deal of money to bring the
property back to its original state. Considering the rest of
the area, what the builder is doing is quite an improvement.
Mr. Valenti is living in the area, he is excited about the
project and feels it will be an improvement to the area.
972
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986{ 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Gary Pike, 201 East Adele.
The Set Free Church which has no parking and is located on the
corner of Adele and Anaheim Boulevard meets on Sunday as well as
the Presbyterian Church at the corner of Cypress and Claudina
and the Salvation Army which is directly across from that.
There is a lack of parking. On Sundays there is no room to park
on the streets at all. It is possible to park two cars in the
garages but for convenience people will not do so. It is a
family oriented neighborhood and there are many children that
play in the area. The house on the property now is an historic
one having been built in the 1870's and it will be destroyed.
Hadi Tabatabaee.
He stated they are willing to dedicate the home to the City
since it is an historic building.
Robert C. Cramer, 423 North Emily Street (35 years).
He had a rental next to where he is living now. He relayed
problems that occur with rentals where two and three families
live together and also the fact that some people do not drive
compact cars and thereby overrun the compact car spaces.
Robert Garcia, 717 North Pauline (20 years).
Today is the first time he has seen the plans. The way it is
planned there will only be 5 feet all the way around the
project. There will be no place for children to play. He is
also concerned about the 3-stories. Across Claudina is
commercial zoning. There are going to be a lot of trucks.
There will be no parking. The neighborhood objects to the
project and wants to keep the area like it is.
Susan Pike, 201 East Adele, directly across the street from the
project. She appreciates Councilwoman Kaywood's concerns
regarding the requested waivers. Those are the same concerns
her family and neighbors also have. They live in an historical
section of the City and are upset that the historical structure
will be torn down. She hoped it would be moved. They are also
concerned with the number of car spaces. Next to their house is
an apartment building with four units, each with two bedrooms.
There are more than one family living in a unit. Even with four
units, she has counted a dozen cars. Cars are parked all over
the neighborhood just from the apartment building alone. When
returning from Church on Sundays, they cannot find parking
spaces anywhere. Neighborhood children, even now, are bussed to
Loara School. She does not know what impact more children
moving into the neighborhood will have. They are also concerned
about the size of the lot which is small. There are mostly
single-family dwellings in the area. An apartment house will
stick out like a "sore thumb" especially since it is going to be
3-stories.
973
220
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18r 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Hertha MacLacklin, 219 East North Street (26 years).
She is concerned about Central City and opposed to the change of
zoning to construct a 6-unit, 3-story apartment building. It is
not a good use of the neighborhood and it will be unlike any
structure in the immediate area. The project will add to the
already existing parking problem. There will be no recreation
space for the units. It is one of the last neighborhoods of Old
Anaheim. It will change the quality of life for all those who
live around it.
Darlene Harouff, 209 East Adele (20 years).
The apartments will not be right for the area. There is a
parking problem already existing. There is no room for anybody.
Agnes Erickson, 301 East North Street.
There are small bungalow type residences in Central City which
are very nice homes. Many are Spanish style. She submitted
photographs of the kinds of homes already existing in the
neighborhood. They have been working hard to keep Central City
small 1-story bungalows. Apartments will ruin the rest of the
buildings. Several of the residents signed a petition and
wanted the area rezoned to single-story because that is what it
is. Their whole block is zoned single-family and they are
trying to keep it that way.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Hadi Tabatabaee.
They all agree that there is a parking problem on Sundays due to
the churches in the area. The neighborhood is an older one.
Some structures are designated historical buildings. The
structure on the subject property is also an historical
building. They would like to preserve it and are talking to the
Redevelopment Agency in that regard. There are problems in the
whole area and it requires some improvement and the neighbors
all agree. The proposed project alone will not create the
problems. Projects such as this will enhance the area and solve
all the problems.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
There is one family living on the property now. The project
consists of 6 apartments and with 2-bedrooms and 2-baths it is
possible that there could be 12 families living there. It would
not be upgrading the area but will compound the problems in the
entire area. The structure would not look like anything else in
the area. Tandem spaces and small car spaces are being
proposed. Anyone with a family does not have a small car. To
say that it meets Code and that 7 units could be built but only
6 are proposed, 6 units could be built if the zoning were
approved and if enough space was available upon which to build.
974
217
City Hallw Anaheimw California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18r 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Neither are presently existing. She is concerned about making a
change of that large a nature which is so different and a great
change to the neighborhood. The project will not be an
improvement to the area but a step backwards. The area is run
down and it needs help. To multiply the number of people living
there is a move in the wrong direction.
Councilman Hunter.
They all realize the need for affordable housing. Whether or
not they have overbuilt, he does not believe so. The 6-plex
would probably be rented over a weekend. On the other hand,
there was the question of preserving the neighborhood integrity
in the downtown area. Being a member of the Historical Society,
he sees a lot of nice homes disappearing. He heard the
developer say each unit was approximately 858 square feet which
was not out of line. He (Hunter) is for preserving the
neighborhood integrity. Perhaps they need a change of some
people on the Planning Commission that certain things come
before the City Council where he can see the vote should have
occurred at the Planning Commission level rather than at the
Council level. It puts a great deal of pressure on the Council
where they then have to make monumental decisions.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the EIR finding on the basis that the
project will change the flavor of the Central City neighborhood and impact it
to a great degree. She believes an EIR would have to be prepared before a
change of that magnitude could take place. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler agreed that the
proposal was putting too much in that neighborhood. He favored
taking a look at the entire area as a whole. If they approve
this project, it will start a chain reaction. Spot zoning will
adversely affect the neighborhood.
City Attorney Jack White.
He explained for Councilman Bay if the motion on the floor
carries to deny approval of the negative declaration status and
finding that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, the Council would not be able to approve the
project without an EIR being prepared.
Councilman Bay stated he does not believe it is necessary to
deny an EIR finding just to deny the reclassification or
variance. He does not think that the impact of the development
would require an EIR.
A vote was then taken on the motion to deny approval of the negative
declaration status and failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
975
218
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood and Pickler
Roth, Hunter and Bay
None
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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. Council Members Kaywood and Pickler voted no.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-514 for adoption, denying
Reclassification No. 86-87-9, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-514: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-9.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Roth, Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-514 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-515 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3600, in accordance with the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-515: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3600.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Roth, Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-515 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:24 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 828: To consider termination or modification of Conditional Use Permit
No. 828 which permits the operation of a walk-up restaurant on CL zoned
property located at 221 North Beach Boulevard. This hearing was initiated by
the City Council upon action taken at their meeting of September 23, 1986.
976
21§
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 2, 1986.
Posting of property October 3, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 3, 1986.
The public hearing was continued from the meetings of October 14 and
November 12, 1986, to this date (see minutes those dates).
City Attorney, Jack White, stated that two members of the Council were present
this afternoon who were not present last week. He first asked Councilman Don
Roth if he had familiarized himself with the evidence and testimony taken last
week to an extent that he felt he could participate in today's hearing.
Councilman Roth answered that he did not feel he could participate. He had
been on vacation and yesterday was his first day back. He did not have an
opportunity to listen to the tape of the previous hearing and was going to
excuse himself from the hearing today.
Councilman Roth left the Council Chamber. (3:37 p.m.)
City Attorney White then asked Councilman Fred Hunter if he had familiarized
himself with the evidence and testimony taken so that he could participate in
today's hearing.
Councilman Hunter answered yes. He was present in the Chamber audience for
most of the hearing held on November 12, 1986 and watched the balance on Cable
Television the next evening.
Mr. White recommended that Councilman Hunter participate in today's hearing.
He also reported that the Council had received four additional letters that
were made a part of the record from the following people:
Mike Breashears, Dr. Bradley P. Smith, John C. Brunk and Kathryn Kern. Those
were before the Council and a part of the hearing process. He then
recommended that the hearing continue and that Attorney Reinglass call her
next witness.
Attorney Michelle Reinglass called Jim Brown.
City Attorney White asked Mr. Brown if he was present at the hearing last
week; Mr. Brown answered that he was present but that he had not been sworn in.
City Attorney White then asked anyone present in the Chamber audience who was
present to testify whether in favor of retaining the current permit or
terminating the permit to stand and be sworn in as a witness; there were
approximately 9 people. Each raised their right hand and were sworn in by the
City Attorney.
A verbatim transcript of the entire proceeding is on file in the City Clerk's
Office. The following is a synopsis of the proceeding:
977
City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18t 1986t !0:00 A.M.
Attorney for Angelo's, Michelle Reinglass, continuing from the public hearing
on November 12, 1986 then called upon the following people who testified on
behalf of Angelo's and in opposition to termination of Conditional Use Permit
No. 828:
Jim Brown, 587 North Sycamore, Fullerton, Ca.
Kathy Barlow, 6700 Villa Notre, Buena Park, Ca.
George Henderson, 6550 Navajo Drive, Buena Park, Ca.
Dorothy Zirtzman, 2437 Avenida De Los Ninos, Laguna Hills,
Rudy Camarillo, 613 South Western Avenue, Anaheim, Ca.
Kathy Cass, 4741 Avacado Avenue, Yorba Linda, Ca.
Deborah Flynn, Santa Ana, Ca.
Joe Moledo, 2770 West Lincoln, Space ~15, Anaheim, Ca.
Ca.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:34 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (4:44 p.m.)
City Attorney White then swore in others who were present to testify and who
had not been sworn in previously.
The following are additional people who testified on behalf of Angelo's:
Samuel Goldstein, 1796 West Glen Oaks, Anaheim, Ca. (submitted a
prepared statement which he also read into the record).
Harold Renzo, 615 Northwoods Avenue, Fullerton, Ca.
Nick Hart, Sales & Operations Manager, Canine Security,
Fullerton, Ca.
Angela Gardner, formerly employed by Angelo's as a car hop at
Beach Boulevard.
Eugene Hallett, 627 South Valare, Anaheim, Ca.
Scott Sherwood, 18499 Calvin Ridge Road, Victorville.
Johnny Negrette, 535 South Revere, Anaheim, Ca.
Deputy City Attorney, Malcom Slaughter, posed questions to all of the
foregoing witnesses with the exception of Mr. Goldstein and Mrs. Gardner.
Questions were also posed to some of the witnesses by Council Members a~ter
their testimony was given.
Attorney Reinglass then called on Dennis Williams.
Mr. Dennis Williams, President and Director of operations of Angelo's, 1919
Sycamore Street, Anaheim, then gave testimony on behalf of his business
specifically relative to the complaints and the measures that have been taken
to solve the problems.
Mr. William's testimony was followed by questions from Council Members and
Deputy City Attorney, Malcom Slaughter.
978
213
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
During the course of questioning, two additional Exhibits were entered into
the record by Mr. Slaughter, Exhibit F, copy of Business License application
dated March 11, 1986 for Angelo's Diner and Drive-In at 221 North Beach
Boulevard, and Exhibit G, copy of Business License application dated February
21, 1986 in the name of Douglas Burgers with the applicant being 221 North
Beach Boulevard, Inc.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (6:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (6:13 p.m.)
Attorney Reinglass called upon Jeff Barsness mainly to introduce evidence into
the record.
Mr. Jeff Barsness, 27561 Vista De Dons, Capistrano Beach, one of
the owners and managers of Angelo's Beach Boulevard, introduced
evidence into the record through Attorney Reinglass in the form
of a video tape which he took at Angelo's Beach Boulevard on the
first Friday of November, November 7, 1986 and the following
Sunday, November 9, 1986 between the hours of 8:30 and 11:30.
The video was screened for the Council. Also submitted were
copies of photographs, Exhibit H, along with the video,
Exhibit I.
Attorney Reinglass then submitted into the record the last piece
of evidence, a Los Angeles Times article dated Tuesday,
January 28, 1986, Exhibit J.
Deputy City Attorney Slaughter introduced the following into the record:
(1) Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 828 submitted by
Mr. and Mrs. Higdon and their agents for a walk-up restaurant;
(2) A certified copy of the legal advertising for Conditional
Use Permit No. 828 advertising the proposed Use as a walk-up
restaurant;
(3) A certified copy of Resolution No. 66R-329 granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 828 as a walk-up restaurant marked
Exhibit K, L and M respectively.
Mr. Slaughter posed questions to Mr. Barsness relative to the video tape.
During the questioning, Mr. Barsness stated there was no splicing or editing
done to the tape.
Councilman Bay closed the hearing on evidence and then moved to continue the
public hearing to Tuesday, December 9, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. where the oral
arguments would be heard with no more evidence to be accepted after closing
the hearing. The oral arguments from each side will be limited to 15 minutes
each and [ebuttals limited to five minutes each. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
979
214
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18r 1986r 10:00 A.M.
Deputy City Attorney Slaughter announced that witnesses would no longer be
required to be present.
123: CITY MANAGERS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT: Councilman Hunter first stated that
he appreciated staff and everyone for assisting him in his first day on the
City Council. Ne did have a motion to make and in the spirit of cooperation
he asked that his colleagues listen to his motion which was in regard %o the
City Manager's contract (employment agreement) which would be up for renewal
in January, 1987.
Councilman Hunter moved that the Council not vote on that contract either way,
pro or con, until after the Council either appoints a successor to Councilman
Don Roth or a Special Election is held.
Councilman Hunter continued that the Council should wait until after there is
a fifth Council person seated before they, as a Council, make any decision
with regard to renewing the City Manager's contract. The reason for bringing
the matter to a motion at his first meeting is if, in fact, the City Council
renews Mr. Talley's contract and at a later date when there is a fifth Council
person and then a vote is taken to remove Mr. Talley's contract, then the
taxpayers will possibly be saddled with Mr. Talley's contract for whatever
period of time it is renewed for and also paying for a new City Manager. He
is certain they are all aware of Section 606 of the City Charter which states
that the City Manager shall not be removed from Office during or within a
period of 90 days succeeding any Municipal Election. Therefore, for anyone to
make a motion to remove the City Manager is premature and prohibited by
Charter Section 606. If a motion were to be entertained on the removal of the
City Manager, that could not be made until at the very earliest February 4,
1987. His motion at this time is that they not do anything either way with
Mr. Talley's contract until after the fifth person is seated with the Council.
Councilman Pickler stated he feels the motion is out of order and a motion
like that is not even required; Mayor Bay interjected stating there is no
motion on the floor because there was no second to it and, therefore, no
reason for discussion.
114/144: FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FOOTHILL AND EASTERN CORRIDOR: Mayor
Bay reported that the first public hearing of the Joint Powers Authority on
the ~as~ern and Poo~h{ll Corridor wa~ held on Thursday, November 1~, 19~6.
Decisions were made on alternate routes on the Foothill Corridor to go on with
the Phase II studies. Those decisions were made after taking considerable
input at the hearing. It was also announced that they had agreed to the
Executive Director setting up a lease for offices for the JPA at the Fluor
Development.
114: CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL APPOINTEE: Mayor Bay stated that he was
leaving the City on a long planned vacation and would not be present for the
next two Council meetings (November 25 and December 2, 1986). He did not make
a long speech today about unity of the Council and operating as a team. He
knows that there are still some very key issues on the Council and that those
issues wil.t be there for some time. He has delayed discussing those issues in
any detail because he feels a cooling off period is needed after any Election
980
City Hall~ Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18r 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
or campaign. If they are to work together, then they will understand that
there are differences of opinion, respect those differences, and debate those
as they come up as issues. He believes that differences of opinion between
Council Members are healthy and eventually for the good of the City if they
are not destructive by the way they are handled. He asked that his colleagues
think about those differences of views they may have and expressed in the past
campaign in a positive way where perhaps they can modify them and come to a
conclusion of team-work acmoss the Council in the best interest of the City.
They have a great many opportunities facing them along with a number of
problems that have to be resolved. He would not like to think they are
polarized or split to the extent they cannot work out those problems
together. He believes there is no one sitting on the Council that does not
have the best interest of the City at heart. He feels they can work out the
difficulties and reach accord.
Mayor Bay continued the decision on appointment of the fifth member of the
Council will be an issue between now and January and a key issue at the time
Councilman Roth leaves for the Board of Supervisors. He would hope that the
City will not be forced to a Special Election to make that choice. He feels
very strongly, and Councilman Hunter has publicly announced that he supports
Bill Ehrle. He felt it was only fair to now make it clear that he also
supports Bill Ehrle very strongly for that position on the Council, on the
argument that he ran a close fourth with a very high vote count. He hopes
that Members of the Council who agree or disagree will give it some thought
while he is gone.
Councilman Pickler stated he also hopes the Council can appoint rather than go
to a Special Election. He, for one, will not consider Bill Ehrle and would
like to look to other alternatives with the possibility of appointing someone
that they all feel they can serve with.
Councilwoman Kaywood also expressed her opposition to havin9 Bill Ehrle
appointed as the 5th Council Member.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:55 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
981