1985/01/22Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norm J. Priest
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT: Lisa Sttpkovich
CIVIL ENGINEER DESIGN: Arthur Daw
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Don Dexter, First Presbyterian Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
"Captain Kid Week" in Anaheim, February 3-9, 1985.
"Youth Employer Recognition Day" in Anaheim, January 23, 1985
David F. Diamond and Captain Kid accepted the Captain Kid Week proclamation;
June Lowry accepted the Youth Employer Recognition Day proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Gene Murphy, Cal
State Fullerton Football Coach, upon the Titans' football team outstanding
1984 season,
also extending congratulations personally to Coach Murphy for bringing new
enthusiasm and excitement for major college football into the Orange County
area.
119: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A Resolution of Support was unanimously adopted
by the City Cou~c~-~-mmending the efforts of the Orange County African Relief
Fund to aid the famine victims in Africa.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held November 13, 1984 and June 26, 1984. Councilman Roth abstained
on the minutes of November 13, 1984 since he was not present at that meeting.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
42
City Ra~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,545,346.11, in
accordance wi'th the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 85R-33 through 85R-42, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Louis and Esperanza Gartno for personal injury
damages sustained purportedly due to an accident involving a bus and train at
or near the intersection of Harbor and Santa Ana Street, on or about
September 30, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Mark Hasselbrink for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to a collision of a bus with a train on Harbor and
Santa Ana, on or about September 30, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Donn R. Muckey for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to broken power line at backyard of 1746 Niobe
Avenue, on or about November 21, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of subcontractor at south side of Via
Burton - 250 feet east of State College, on or about November 1, 1984.
e. Claim submitted by Rose F. Prestigiacomo for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to condition of street at corner of La Palma and
Richfield near Unifex (4225 La Palma), on or about November 29, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Thermech Engineering Corporation for personal
property damages sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a
City-owned vehicle and City driver were involved at Lincoln Avenue and Rio
Vista, on or about October 22, 1984.
g. Claim submitted by Chris Jackson for personal injury damages sustained
purportedly due to failure of City crew to clean sand off street at the
intersection of Stoneman Place and Sumac, on or about September 15, 1984.
43
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
h. Claim submitted by Patrick Edward Frawley for personal property
damages sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City east
of Olive on Lincoln, on or about September 5, 1984.
J. Claim submitted by Steven Duaine Davey for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle and
City driver were involved on State College between Santa Ana and Broadway,
across from Ralph's Super Market, heading south, on or about December 23, 1984.
Application for leave to present a Late Claim - denied:
k. Application for leave to present a Late Claim for Indemnity based on
Superior Court Case No. 43-24-41, Josephine Thomas, et al vs. David G. Lucero,
et al.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 178: Orange County Water District Report for 1984.
b. 107: Planning Department, Building Division Reports--Month of
December 1984 and the yearly report for 1984.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of December 5, 1984.
d. 156: Police Department--Crime and Clearance Analysis for the month of
December 1984.
Mayor Roth asked staff to prepare a letter to the City's representative on the
Water District, Gus Lenatn, thanking him for his outstanding report.
3. 123: Authorizing an affordable development agreement with the Neumayer
Family Trust, developer, for a 30 unit rental apartment project at 2300
Westport as a part of the Orange County Revenue Bond Program.
123: Authorizing an affordable development agreement with Sharon Ann Barth
and Frank Raymond Addis, developer, for a 20 unit rental apartment project at
127 West Cypress Street as a part of the Orange County Revenue Bond Program.
123: Authorizing an affordable development agreement with Lincolnolia,
developer, for a 32 unit rental apartment project to be located at 2570 West
Lincoln Avenue as a part of the Orange County Revenue Bond Program.
123: Authorizing an affordable development agreement with Ohio Street
Apartments, Ltd., developer, for a 24 unit rental apartment project to be
located at 205, 207, and 211 South Ohio Street as a part of the Orange County
Revenue Bond Program.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the City of Buena Park, with 90
percent Federal Funding and 10 percent shared cost estimated at ~3,400 each,
for the Knott Street/Lincoln Avenue interconnectton and signal facility
upgrading, HES 000S-153.
44
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the City of Buena Park, with 90
percent Federal Funding and 10 percent shared cost estimated at ~2,050, for
the traffic signal, safety lighting and street striping modification at
Crescent Avenue and Dale Street, HES 000S-091.
6. 175/123: Authorizing the seventh amendment to an agreement with Emigdio
C. Vasquez, at a rate of ~11.15 per hour for art instructional services in the
Youth Mural Program, for the term January 8, 1985 to June 30, 1985 for a
maximum of ninety hours.
7. 160: Authorizing an increase in legal fees for the Law Firm of Spiegel &
McDiarmid to provide payment for Partners, ~ll0-130/hr.; Senior Associates,
$86-100/hr.; Associates, $57-85/hr.; Law Clerks, ~38/hr.; and Paralegals,
$35/hr, for certain proceedings effective January 1985.
8. 160: Accepting the low bid of General Electric Supply Company in an
amount not to exceed ~16,095 for 5,000 feet of 15 KV U.R.D. cable, in
accordance with Bid No. 4170.
9. 160: Accepting the bid of McGraw-Edison in the amount of ~25,267.22 for
one each 2500 KVA three phase fused padmount transformer, in accordance with
Bid No. 4173.
10. 169: Accepting the low bid of Paramount Equipment Sales in the amount of
$61,288.07 for one bus, prisoner type, in accordance with Bid No. 4176.
11. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
EUCLID STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, FAU PROJECT M-M077(5) LA PALMA AVENUE TO
BROADWAY, DBE 10% W-BE 1%, PROJECT ACCOUNT NOS. 12-793-6325-E3610 AND
51-484-6993-00713. (Disadvantaged Minority Enterprise 10% Goal - (WBE)
Women's Business Enterprise 1% Goal, Account Nos. 12; and opening of bids on
February 21, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
12. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DIAMOND
STREET/CARLETON STREET ALLEYS; ILLINOIS STREET/CHESTNUT STREET ALLEYS ALLEY
CONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 26-793-6325-E3740 AND
26-793-6325-E3750. (Dyno Construction, Inc., contractor, and authorizing
filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
13. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-35: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
~FANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 9, 1985. (At 425 South Harbor Boulevard, and
in the event of inclement weather, conduct said auction on February 16, 1985.
45
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jan.uary 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
160: Directing the City Clerk to publish a legal notice of said auction and
of the City's intent to transfer certain unclaimed property to the Purchasing
Division for City use.
14. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 23 TO THE MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE
FEDERAL-AID PROGRAM. (Authorizing Supplement No. 23 to Local Agency-State
Agreement No. 07-5055, Project No. M-3041(218) at a cost of ~1,535,300 in
Federal Funds with City match of 5211,565 to modify and install traffic
signals at various locations in the West Anaheim Circulation Improvement Plan
area)
15. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM &
THE ANAHEIM FIREFIGHTER'S ASSOCIATION. (Dated December 19, 1984 to provide
for a ten hour work day and a fifty hour work week and a thirty hour work week
on an alternating basis, effective January 25, 1985)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM & THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (Dated December 19, 1984 to provide
for a ten hour work day and a fifty hour work week and a thirty hour work week
on an alternating basis for the Fire Inspectors, effective January 25, 1985)
16. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-242 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY. (To include pay differential for assignees to
the Fire Battalion Chief/Operations Division Chief position, effective January
25, 1985)
17. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
18. 152: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND/OR THE RISK MANAGER TO ALLOW,
COMPROMISE AND/OR SETTLE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IF THE AMOUNT TO
BE PAID IS ~15,000 OR LESS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGE£AND/0R THE RISK
MANAGER TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF THE CITY ANY ALLOWANCE, COMPROMISE OR SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS OR DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. (Rescinding Resolution No. 81R-268
and authorizing the City Manager and/or the Risk Manager to allow, compromise
and/or settle claims against the City in amounts not to exceed 515,000 and to
sign on behalf of the City any allowance, compromise or settlement agreements
or documents relating thereto)
19. 152: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO CERTAIN AGREEMENTS FOR
AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEN THE AMOUNTS DO NOT EXCEED ~10,000.00.
(Rescinding Resolution No. 75R-485 and authorizing the City Manager to enter
into certain agreements for and on behalf of the City in an amount not to
exceed 510,000 per agreement)
46
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
152: Revising Council Policy No. 401 to permit the City Manager to contract
on behalf of department heads for professional consulting services, at a
maximum cost of-~10,O00 per agreement.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-33 through 85R-42:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-33 through 85R-42, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
MOTIONS CARRIED. End of Consent Calendar.
152: INCREASE IN CITY ATTORNEY'S AUTHORITY FOR SETTLEMENTS: Councilman Roth
offered Resolution No. 85R243 for adoption amending Resolution No. 81R-266
authorizing the City Attorney to execute and sign releases and/or settlement
agreements involving claims or rights of the City in amounts not to exceed
~15,000 as recommended in memorandum from the City Attorney. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-266 TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT TO $15,000.00
OR LESS FOR ANY RELEASE AND/OR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS INVOLVING CLAIMS OR
RIGHTS BY THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-43 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4567 - SENIOR CITIZENS' APARTMENT PROJECTS: Amended first
reading - Amending Chapter 18.94 to, and amending and repealing various
subsections and sections of Title 18 of the Code pertaining to the development
of Senior Citizens' apartment projects. This matter was continued from the
meetings of January 8 and 15, 1985, - see minutes those dates.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, briefed the detailed four
page staff report dated January 18, 1985 which recommended the following: (a)
a parking requirement of 0.8 spaces for each efficiency unit or one-bedroom
unit, and 1.6 spaces for each 2-bedroom unit regardless of project size; and
(b) the restriction that all the required parking spaces shall be
standard-sized and none shall be designed for small cars (on file in the City
Clerk's Office). This was followed by a line of questioning posed by Council
Members Kaywood and Bay wherein opinions were requested of the City Attorney
relative to the legality and enforceability of imposing certain age
requirements for residents of senior citizen projects.
47
Ctt~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer, stated, although he did not see the final report
from Planning, it was discussed with his office and the parking requirement
shown in the proposed ordinance he felt reflected realistic numbers.
INPUT WAS THEN GIVEN BY THE FOLLOWING: Mr. Neil Singer, Project Manager,
Calmark Development, 2121 Clover field, Santa Monica. He clarified relative
to Councilwoman Kaywood's concerns that Senate Bill 1553 required the
secondary tenant to be 45 years of age except in the case of a spouse or
primary income support with no minimum age requirement.
Mr. Hardy Storzier, 3151 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, Planning Consultant.
Commended the staff report but pointed out that it is based on theory. In his
report that Calmark commissioned two years ago to answer similar concerns
about Ontario's Senior Ordinance, he surveyed approximately 30 communities in
southern California. The theory did not take into account income levels which
was a decisive factor. When applying income levels, parking requirements
greatly decreased because of the affordability of autos, sharing of autos, and
the access to transportation systems, etc. Average parking ratios for one and
two-bedroom senior apartments is between .60 and .75 spaces, actual
application in the field. His professional prediction if the Council adopted
the parking ratio suggested by staff which worked out to about .90 overall -
there would be an excess of some 30 to 50 parking spaces that will forever be
in asphalt. The net result of the ordinance will be to increase the cost of
the senior project from $162,000 to 5200,000 or raise rents about 325 to 530 a
month. He agreed that auto spaces should be oversized with no small car
parking and that tandem spaces should be restricted. His recommendation was
that the Council identify a parking standard of approximately .76 which would
allow for adequate overflow parking. Mr. Herb Eggett, 904 So. Bruce, urged
the Council to approve the project proposed by Calmark since the need for
senior housing in the City was so great.
Discussion and questioning took place between Council Members and staff at the
conclusion of which Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue Ordinance No. 4567
for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked for confirmation that the
continuance also included that an amended ordinance be prepared setting
parking requirements at .8 spaces for each bachelor unit and 1.6 spaces for
each two-bedroom unit in senior citizen projects, regardless of size, and that
relative to the four persons permitted in any two-bedroom unit that at least
two must be senior citizens.
City Attorney Hopkins noted, referring to Page 8, Section .012 of the proposed
ordinance that it stated that not more than four persons at least one of whom
must be a senior citizen shall reside in or be permitted to reside in any
two-bedroom unit. The State Law Civil Code Section would not be consistent
with changing that from one to two. It must remain at one although the number
permitted could be reduced from four to three but not that two of the persons
had to be seniors.
48
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt asked what had been done to indicate their criticism of
the law as had been broached by Councilwoman Kaywood not only at this meeting,
but several past meetings.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he discussed the matter with Mike Arnold, the
City's Legislative Consultant in Sacramento who indicated he would like to
look into the matter.
Councilman Bay then asked relative to the motion if four was then going to be
changed to three; Councilman Pickler did not feel that change was necessary
since senior housing was so needed and preferred that it remain at four.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion including decreasing from four
to three the number of persons permitted in any two-bedroom unit at least one
of whom must be a senior citizen. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that staff contact the State Senator who
proposed SB1553 to advise him of the difficulties caused by that bill in
trying to provide senior housing. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
127/129: BALLOT ISSUE - FIREWORKS: Councilwoman Kaywood, referring to the
results of the survey pertaining to Councilman Bay's questionnaire sent out
during the recent campaign, noted that 70 percent of the people who answered
indicated that they wanted to have the fireworks issue placed on the ballot.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Council go on record as having a June 1986
ballot question on whether the residents of Anaheim wanted fireworks or not.
Councilman Bay asked, before giving a second to the motion, if there was a
normal election to be held in June of 1986; City Clerk Sohl answered "yes."
It was not a City election, but one in which the City could consolidate.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification if the motion was that the Council go
on record at this time to support putting a measure on the June, 1986 ballot
banning the use and sale of safe and sane fireworks.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered that it would be a ballot measure asking simply
- If you want ftraworks vota Yag - If you do not want ftraworkg vota No.
Councilman Overholt stated he could not support that; Councilman Pickler
stated he would first rather have a Council discussion and then put an
initiative on the ballot; Councilman Bay did not agree with pre-determining
ballot wording at this time; Councilman Roth did not see the cause for rushing
into something that would occur one-and-a-half years from now.
Councilman Overholt then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that during the
last campaign, he said he saw himself as a potential third vote to put the
question on the ballot, but it did not constitute a commitment. If there was
a second to the motion, he would then move to continue that motion for two
months and give the people in the community an opportunity to approach all
five Council Members on the matter. He felt it was an issue of interest as
49
City Hall.~ Anaheim, CHlifornia - CgUNCIL MINUTES - Januar.y 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
was evidenced during his recent Mayoral campaign, but he would not support a
motion to put the issue on the ballot which was, "off the wall."
Councilman Bay stated he was interested in putting the issue on the ballot and
as soon as practical. If June of 1986 was the first feasible time, he would
second the motion and he would also second the motion to continue as well.
Councilman Bay seconded Councilwoman Kaywood's motion.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the matter to a date certain in
approximately two months. He confirmed it was not a substitute motion.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay stated the Council was saying on a given date they were going
to vote on the motion Just made by Councilwoman Kaywood and that was the
motion he seconded.
A vote was then taken on the motion of continuance to March 19, 1985. MOTION
CARRIED.
144: DESIGNATE TO THE WATER ADVSIORY COMMITTEE: Councilwoman Kaywood stated,
after having considered her being designated the representative on the Water
Advisory Committee of Orange County at the previous meeting, she determined
with her present schedule that there was no way she could take on any
additional responsibilities at this time.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon designated Councilman Pickler as the
City's representative to the Water Advisory Committee of Orange County.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE: Councilman Pickler referred to a letter from a
citizen relative to Code Enforcement suggesting that a brochure be inserted in
utility bills informing the citizenry of the Code Enforcement Procedure in
Anaheim. He was broaching the subject for Council consideration. (No Council
action was taken at this time).
148: ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES COMMITTEE ON "JOINT/SEVERAL" LIABILITY:
Councilman Pickler referred to memorandum dated January 16, 1985 from the
Intergovenmental Relations Office noting that the League was interested in
having someone from Anaheim serve on the subject Committee. He stated he
would be happy to do so.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to designate Councilman Pickler to serve on the
subject Committee. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
173: OCEANSIDE RESOLUTION ON AMTRAK: Councilman Pickler referred to report
dated January 4, 1985 from Pam Lucado, Associate Planner, which was generated
as a result of a Council inquiry at the meeting of December 18, 1984 (see
minutes that date). He asked if the situation was being monitored or if a
Council Member should be attending any meetings.
City Manager William Talley explained that the City was kept advised of the
matter to the extent that it was notified of meetings or when information was
5O
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
sent out. A committee or group was being created designed to work with Amtrak
but as stated in the report Amtrak was also creating an advisory group. They
were trying to get the cities all through the entire Los Angeles and San Diego
Corridor regarding the right-of-way to form together to be an advisory group
to Amtrak. The situation could eventually affect Anaheim.
Councilman Pickler suggested that the matter be monitored and when staff felt
the time was right for City representation, the Council could be so informed;
City Manager Talley stated he would give that direction to staff.
000/150: REVIEW OF PARK IN-LIEU FEES: Councilman Pickler stated he felt the
subject fees should be reviewed. He ~elt they were too low, they had been in
effect since 1976, and it was time to review them. The Parks and Recreation
Commission had reviewed the matter and not forwarded it but he felt it should
be revived and brought to Council for discussion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believed Councilman Pickler was referring to a
report that the Parks and Recreation Department submitted to the Planning
Commission and then withdrew. She would be happy to bring up the issue at the
Parks and Recreation Commission meeting tomorrow night.
Mayor Roth emphasized as the report came forth, it needed to reflect complete
data including how much park space per capita the City had vs. the 26 cities
in Orange County. There was also a tremendous amount of property being
dedicated for parks in the growth area of the City. He felt to raise such
fees would be penalizing someone trying to buy a house. In fairness the
report should include how much money since 1976 had filtered down from Federal
and State grants into the parks along with how many parks were developed and
not yet developed per capita in Anaheim. The issue should be one of need to
change the fee structure, not because fees had not been raised for so many
years.
Councilman Overholt inquired relative to the business tax study since after 27
years it was time to take a look at that as well.
City Manager Talley stated relative to the business license, staff was
negotiating a contract to present to the Council on initiating such a study.
Councilman Bay stated in looking at facts and figures, it was necessary to
note that they had continually raised park fees in the recraati0n and activity
area and there were additional income sources coming into Parks and
Recreation. It should show all the new and increased sources of revenue;
Councilman Overholt asked in that regard that a differentiation be shown
between program and park development since he was not aware that in-lieu fees
went to programs.
107: CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE LYNN-JEFFERY AREA: Councilman
Overholt referred to recent Code Enforcement activities that had taken place
in the subject area as reported in a recent newspaper article. It was his
impression that the City was still on a reactive type enforcement program.
What concerned him was the fact that the door-to-door enforcement in the
Lynn-Jeffery area (west of the Disneyland Convention Center) was something
staff decided to do and according to the Code Enforcement Supervisor, it was
51
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTE~ T January 22, .1985, 10:00 A.M.
the most effective, efficient and productive method of solving the problem.
If that type of enforcement was to take place in a particular neighborhood, it
should be brought before the Council before it was done since the Council had
to answer to the residents and serious consideration given to the impact such
action might have on the City.
Mayor Roth stated he did not object to what was done but felt it was
imperative that some effort be made to inform elected officials so that they
would not be surprised as he was when approached by the media on a situation
he knew nothing about.
Councilman Pickler reported that he received calls thanking the City for what
was being done and he felt perhaps the City should change its policies to
proactive enforcement; Councilman Overholt recounted the long debates between
Council Members in the past on the difference between proactive and reactive
enforcement which Councilman Pickler did not have the privilege of sitting
through. He saw the Code Enforcement program becoming proactive and if the
Council wanted it that way, it could be done with three votes. He felt the
policy of the Council was against door-to-door enforcement in given areas
unless the Council made that decision.
City Manager Talley, clarifying the administrative policy, stated reactive to
him, was defined as answering or responding to a complaint, and proactive was
inspecting absent a complaint. He agreed that the Council should have been
notified in this instance. He then elaborated upon what had occurred when the
City virtually had received complaints from almost an entire neighborhood and
it was decided that the whole area be checked. He did not consider that
proactive but reactive.
After further discussion, Councilman Overholt suggested that a discussion be
held to define the City's policy based upon the further experience gained in
the Code Enforcement area.
Councilman Overholt moved that the matter of the City's Code Enforcement be
discussed at the Council meeting of February 5, 1985. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
.REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
di~eus~ labor' ~'elation~ with no action anticipated: th~ City Attorney
requested a Closed Session to discuss pending litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.A with action anticipated.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held with the City's
Attorney to discuss labor relations and pending litigation.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Close Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:18 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:40 p.m.)
52
Cit? Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
183: PUBLIC HEARING - ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS: To consider
issuance of Industrial Development bonds for the Industrial Development
Authority of Anaheim, in the principal amount not to exceed 32,500,000, to
provide financing to Russ Berrie for the construction of a warehouse facility
located on a 2 1/4 acre site near Industrial Avenue and Hancock Street.
Submitted was report dated January 14, 1985 from the Community Development
Department recommending approval of the issuance of Industrial Development
Bonds of the Industrial Development Authority of Anaheim for Russ Berrie.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 3, 1985.
PUBLIC INPUT: None
COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-44 for adoption, approving the
issuance of Industrial Development Bonds for the Industrial Development
Authority of Anaheim in the principle amount not to exceed 32,500,000 t6
provide financing to Russ Berrie. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GIVING PUBLIC APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF ANAHEIM INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
FINANCING TO RUSS BERRIE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-44 duly passed and adopted.
130: PUBLIC HEARING - STORER CABLE TV~ INC.: Request Storer Cable TV, Inc.,
to modify'and rest'ructure the basic cable television services provided to
Anaheim subscribers.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin December 27, 1984.
STAFF INPUT:
See Joint Staff Report dated January 17, 1985 from Cynthia King, Assistant to
the City Manager and William P. Hopkins, City Attorney.
Mayor Roth noted that representatives from Storer Cable TV were present in the
Chamber audience who indicated they had no additional information they wished
to give.
PUBLIC INPUT: None
COUNCIL ACTION:
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
53
.~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4572 for first reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4572: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE RATES TO BE CHARGED BY STORER CABLE TV, INC.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-11~ VARIANCE NO.
3436 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Calmark Development Corporation,
2121 Cloverfield Blvd., Santa Montca, CA. 90406
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: Change from RM-1200 to RM-3000, property located on
the southeast corner of Broadway and Citron Street, (former Fremont Junior
High School playfield), to construct a 72-unit affordable condominium complex
under the authority of State Government Code Section No. 65915 with Code
waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC84-220 and PC84-221 approved
Reclassification and Variance and approved EIR - negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of November 20, 1984, review requested by Mayor Roth. Public
Hearing held December 18, 1984 and continued to this date (see minutes of
December 18, 1984).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin December 6, 1984.
Posting of property December 7, 1984.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 7, 1984.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated October 29, 1984.
Since the two projects are closely related, the following continued public
hearing was held in conjunction with the foregoing public hearing.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2631:
APPLICANT:
Calmark Development Corporation,
2121 C10verfleld Blvd., Santa M0nica, CA. 90406
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: RM-1200 zoned, property located on the northeast
corner of Santa Ana Street and Citron Street (portion of former Fremont Junior
High School Playfield), with Code waiver of required type of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC84-233 granted Conditional Use
Permit, approved EIR - negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of December 4, 1984, review requested by Councilman Pickler.
Public hearing held December 18, 1984 and continued to this date (see minutes
dated December 18, 1984).
54
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin December 7, 1984.
Posting of property December 7, 1984.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 7, 1984.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated October 29, 1984.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. Hardy Strozier, Planning Consultant 3151 Airway Avenue,
Costa Mesa.
He first spoke to Conditional Use Permit No. 2631, the senior
citizen project. He was prepared to ask for a continuance if
there were still outstanding issues not resolved. There were
people in the audience prepared to speak in favor of the
project. He was also present to respond to questions and to
accept a continuance if it was in order.
As a result of Council questions, Mr. Strozier reported that
Neil Singer contacted Senator Boatwright's Office twice relative
to his authorship of Senate Bill 1553 and was informed that the
law would not prohibit an age restriction relative to senior
housing. When the City Attorney contacted the State Office, he
received a different opinion. It was Calmark's continued
position to stand on its eight-year record of providing senior
housing. They do not rent or lease to younger people. He
submitted a list of 412 seniors, mostly Anaheim residents, who
desired to live in the project being built by them on Gilbert
Street in Anaheim consisting of 94-units. The age limit that
was set upon approval of the Gilbert site was 60 years of age
and all proposed tenants were aware of that criteria and met the
age requirement.
PUBLIC INPUT - IN FAVOR:
Dan Walker, 2516 Taylor Street, Corona.
Calmark is providing a place for senior citizens to live and it
was very necessary to supply such housing.
Joe White, 809 West Broadway,
the senior citizens project looked better than when first
presented (see minutes of December 18, 1984). His concern is
that it was not proposed for the other part of the property
since location wise it would be more convenient for seniors to
walk to the downtown area.
PUBLIC INPUT OPPOSED:
None
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
List of 412 applicants for the Gilbert Street project.
55
City Hall, Anaheimp California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Councilman Pickler had unresolved questions and preferred a
continuance on both public hearings.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to see the amended ordinance
(Ordinance No. 4567) relative to senior citizen projects which
was going to be submitted to the Council next week before acting
on the foregoing applications.
Councilman Bay stated the two hearings were continued to this
date to get answers on some questions. That was now done and it
was not clear to him the real reasons behind the request for
another continuance. He did not understand why the Council was
holding up approval on the two developments.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on Reclassification
No. 84-85-11, Variance No. 3436 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2631 and
negative declaration to Tuesday, February 5, 1985 at 1:30 p.m. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3444:
APPLICANT: British Motor Car Distributors, Ltd., (Anaheim Toyota),
1601 So. Anaheim Boulevard.
LOCATION REQUEST: CL zoned property located at 1601 South Anaheim Boulevard,
to construct an electronic freestanding sign with the following Code waivers
of: (a) maximum height of a flashing sign and (b) maximum area of a
freestanding sign.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC84-253 granted the Conditional
Use Permit, approved EIR - negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood following the Council meeting of
December 18, 1984.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 10, 1985.
Posting of property January 11, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 11, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated November 26, 1984.
It was determined that the applicant was not present at this time. The matter
was trailed until later in the meeting (2:55 p.m.) at which time the applicant
was present.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Jim Crowly, Anaheim Toyota, 1601 So. Anaheim Boulevard,
Answered Council questions as follows: Relative to electrical
service being provided above or underground, he agreed to do
56
CitT. Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:0.0 A.M.
whatever the City required of them. The sign was not going to
be flashing but an electric reader board with messages allowing
the business to develop a personality of its own. The Anaheim
Toyota portion will always be illuminated but the message board
would display whatever it was programmed to display. Caltrans
had approved the sign which is designed to all their rules and
regulations. They were asking to enjoy the same benefits as
enjoyed by General Motors Corporation (GMC) signing which is the
same height. The safety of the sign will be greatly enhanced by
the fact that the size of the Anaheim Toyota portion is reduced
almost one half thus mitigating being blown out by winds as they
have experienced.
PUBLIC INPUT - OPPOSED OR IN FAVOR:
None
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
None
CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION/COUNCIL CONCERNS:
None
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 85R-46 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3444, subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-46: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3444.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood and Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-46 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-26:
APPLICANT:
Federated Department Stores, Inc. (Arthur P. Garcia),
1400 Riverside Drive, Sherman Oaks, CA. 91423.
LOCATION/REQUEST: Reclassification No. 74-75-26 was originally submitted and
approved for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL on property located on
the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street. The hearing is to
consider amendment to conditions of approval of Council Resolution No.
75R-134, in particular Condition No. 12 which reads: "that subject property
shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibits Nos. 1 through 5;" and
Condition No. 15 which reads: "that deliveries shall be between the hours of
57
C.it~ Nail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and delivery truck access shall be from Lincoln
Avenue only, and the hours of operation shall be from 9:30 a.m. to midnight;"
and Condition No 8 of Ordinance No. 3435, relating to deliveries and hours of
operation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the proposed amendment.
HEARING SET ON:
Required due to requested change of original conditions of approval of the
reclassification.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 10, 1985.
Posting of property January 10, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 10, 1984.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated December 10, 1984.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT INCLUDING ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Mr. Art Garcia, Divisional Real Estate Manager, Federated
Department Stores, parent company of Ralph's Markets.
The request is to allow the property to be used for general
office use. The hours of delivery can be deleted. The tenant
wanted to clarify that he could operate business between the
hours of 9:30 a.m. to midnight. The resolution presently states
hours of operation and delivery and office use must still have
some deliveries. The application could be amended to state that
the use will be for general office. He was 99 percent certain
the tenant will be a major insurance company who will occupy the
entire building and if not an insurance company, that it w~ll be
general office use. There is more than adequate parking for
such use. (Traffic Engineer Paul Singer confirmed there is
approximately twice as much parking as required for office
use). The tenant did not want the hours of operation or
delivery hours deleted if it in any way restricted the use of
the property for office use. Hours of operation should be from
6:30 a.m. to midnight although activity will be generally from
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Those hours would allow certain employees to
come in earlier although regular working hours will be from
8 a.m to 6 p.m. five days a week but there might be a small
number of employees working on Saturday and maybe a few working
on Sunday. He later confirmed from Councilman Bay that 7 a.m.
instead of 6:30 a.m. will be acceptable as stated in his letter
of November 27, 1984. They will utilize the existing parking
that adjoins the landscaped area on the southerly side of the
property and the landscaped area between the parking area and
the single family homes will remain the same. Federated is
selling the property to an investor.
58
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, ~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 22} 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, confirmed for
Councilman Overholt that the City does not normally restrict
hours of operation on office use; Councilman Overholt suggested
the use of the word regular so as not to preclude employees from
working during off hours.
QUESTIONS/CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Councilman Bay, noting that the underlying zoning is CL, if left
at CL there is no guarantee there will be an insurance company
as a tenant but will be whatever is allowed under that zoning.
He did not understand why there was no action to rezone the
property or why that was not questioned that the time it came
through the Planning Commission. The intended use will be an
improvement over having a supermarket on the property as far as
impact on the neighborhood but there should be some assurance to
what it was going to be limited to.
Miss Santalahti stated that the Council could add a condition
requiring that a deed restriction be recorded by the current
property owner limiting uses to general office uses; Mr. Garcia
stated he could not place a deed restriction on the property
limiting it to office use because that would be in violation of
Federal Trade Commission Regulations but if imposed as a
condition they possibly could; Councilman Bay stated the
conditions could specify the use but leave the property zoned
CL. Mr. Garcia stated he had no objection to imposing a
condition for general office use.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Mr. C.T. Maxwell, 2443 E. Lincoln, was a looking for some
assurance from whoever owns the property that they will take
steps to stop unauthorized trucks from parking on the lot at
night since that was the big problem, and that the sweepers
doing lot clean-up not be allowed on the lot after 10 p.m. or
before 7 a.m. He also preferred that the zoning of the property
be CO rather than CL.
IN FAVOR:
Fredrick Newcomb, 2421 E. Lincoln. He was very pleased that
there was going to be an office use on the property because the
residents would not have to put up w~th Ralphts trucks any
more. He thanked the Council for their attitude in approaching
the situation.
Russell Morgan, 2437 Powhatan Avenue on the south side of the
property. The overgrowth of trees and shrubbery separating the
properties has been a problem for the last several years. He
spoke to Mr. Garcia about the matter and he wanted assurance
that trimming would take place on a regular basis.
FINAL SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Mr. Garcia - The use will definitely be general office. He
agreed to accept the responsibility that the shrubbery will be
trimmed within 30 days.
59
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS BY STAFF:
Annika Santalahti - The action will be changing Condition No. 12
of the resolution, Condition No. 8 of the ordinance which
pertains to development of the property to be in accordance now
with Revision No. 3 of Exhibit 1 and Exhibits 2 through 5, and
Condition No. 15 of the resolution and No. 9 of the ordinance
which pertain to the regular hours of the operation being
restricted to 7 a.m. to midnight. Adding a new condition to the
resolution that a covenant limiting the use of the subject
property, general office uses, shall be recorded in the office
of Orange County Recorder, proof of said recordation shall be
furnished to the Planning Department within a period of 30 days,
by February 22, 1985.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-45 for adoption, approving
amendments to condition of Resolution No. 75R-134 and amendments to condition
of Ordinance No. 3535 as articulated by staff. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-45: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION
NO. 75R-134 RELATING TO ZONING RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 74-75-26.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-45 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4573 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4573: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE NO. 3435
RELATING TO ZONING RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 74-75-26.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss pending litigation and labor relations as previously stated.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:19 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:40 p.m.)
112: SMITH VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City
Attorney to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 35-98-69, Smith vs.
City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $35,000. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
6O
C.i.t~ Hall~ An~hetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, !985, 10:00 A.M.
112: SANDOVAL VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the
City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs to settle Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 42-40-00, Sandoval vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed
~25,000. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. for a public hearing.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:42 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:35 p.m.)
174: PUBLIC HEARING - ELEVENTH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM: To consider the Eleventh Year (1985-86) Community Development Block
Grant Program Application in an estimated amount of ~2.8 million, to be
submitted to the State for A-95 Review.
Submitted was report dated January 14, 1985 from the Community Development
Department containing the following recommendation of the community wide CDBG
Participation Committee (CDBG Committee); that the Council approve by motion:
(1) The boundaries of the CDBG target areas as recommended by the CDBG
Committee as identified on Attachment #3; (2) The 1985-86 CDBG Program and
Budget as recommended by the CDBG Committee for a total budget of
approximately ~2.8 million dollars; (3) The reprogramming of FY 84/85 funds of
~45,000 and reprogramming of Jobs Bill Funds of $46,000 as recommended by the
CDBG Committee.
The report also included eight attachments (see Page 3) which were the
pertinent and backup documentation pertaining to the final recommendation of
the Committee.
Mayor Roth opened the public hearing to determine the budget and program
activities for the 1985/86, llth year CDBG program.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefly reviewed
the process followed in developing the recommendations presented to the
Council and also briefed the recommendations of the CDBG Committee. After
tonight's hearing his Department would return to the Council in April for
their approval of a draft application and again in May for approval of the
final application for submission to HUD.
Gladys Wallace, Committee Report Chairperson, CDBG Committee, briefed the work
of the Committee which started with their first meeting on November 14, 1984.
She referred to Attachment #4 which listed all of the requests received of the
Committee totaling $7,210,000. From that total, the Committee had to pare
down the request to a funding total of ~2.8 million dollars, the amount they
were advised would be available for the 1985/86 program. She then briefed the
breakdown of the Committee budget recommendation as reported on Page 2 of the
Community Development Department's report and then read Attachment #1, CDBG
Project/Activity listing and the amounts recommended for each project which
included four backup priority projects totaling ~266,000 should additional
monies become available which would bring the total to $3,066,000.
61
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Spokesmen from the four Neighborhood Councils:
Bob McCorckle, Central City Neighborhood Council, 607 North
Zeyn. His Council is pleased and concurs with staff
recommendations and the recommendations of the CDBG Committee.
Michael Shanahan, Citron Neighborhood Council, 716 South
Indiana. A great deal of work went into the budget
recommendation of the Committee and to alter it at this time
would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood areas.
Each year there were a number of worthwhile organizations
looking for a fair share of funds. The four Neighborhood
Councils do not feel it should be their responsibility to be
putting up Anaheim's fair share but those funds should be
allocated out of General Revenue Funds represented by the entire
City. They were asking that those requests which would
undoubtedly be addressed by representatives of certain agencies
not be considered at this forum.
Bob Hudson, South Anaheim Neighborhood Council, 2127 South
Spinnaker Street. His Council totally supports the efforts of
Code Enforcement. They also totally support the City Council's
actions and John Poole's efforts with his Code Enforcement
program being done in the south Anaheim area in the
Audrey-Hempstead apartments. It is their hope that the activity
continues to a successful completion not only in their area, but
also in other needed areas of the City. They are totally
supportive of the CDBG Committee recommendations. Their
priority of the Haster storm drain was very important to them in
order to complete what was granted to them last year.
Marge Conway, Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council, 1310 Tikt
Place. Her Council was totally supportive of the CDBG Committee
recommendations. The Council also urged that the monies be kept
in the target areas only. She commended the C~ty Council for
their activities of Code Enforcement in the Lynn-Jeffery area
and would l~ke to see that activity expanded ~nto other areas.
The Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council was also against the
expansion of boundaries of the target areas.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT:
Joe Caux, Vice Chairman, Apartment Improvement Program (AIP),
10405 Fern, Stanton. He referred to his letter dated
January 14, 1985 which he briefed, the thrust of which was the
AIP's request to secure funding for the Director's position from
the CDBG Contingency Fund to cover the period of March 1, 1985
through June 30, 1985 and to secure funding for that position
from the CDBG program to cover the period July 1, 1985 through
June 30, 1986. The amount requested to cover the four month
period is $11,333. The 334,000 to cover the latter part was
already a part of the CDBG Committee recommendation.
62
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
After Mr. Caux's presentation, a line of questioning was posed
by Councilman Bay as to the need for the Director, the
Director's duties, where policy direction came from and
guidelines/policies directing that person's actions; Norm Priest
explained that the concept of the AIP was a partnership project
with the City as one of four partners. The City's role was not
to be one of "Godfather" but to sit as a member by design. The
function of the Director is to serve the Board which in turn
should be serving that partnership. The whole philosophy was to
try to help a neighborhood lift itself.
Joe Gatlin, Executive Director, Orange County Sickle Cell
Program, 2215 West McFadden, Santa And. He was present to
request that Anaheim participate in funding a Sickle Cell
screening and testing program in the amount of 5101,895. (See
13 Page summary information on the request - made a part of the
record).
Before closing the public hearing, the Mayor asked for any
additional input on anything the the public might wish to be
aired.
Mike Shanahan referred to the current inspection program going
on in the City with recent inspections going from a complaint
basis to self initiated activities. He understood there had
been feedback from the City and citizens were negative.
Mayor Roth stated in two weeks there was going to be a public
discussion on the issue; Mr. Shanahan stated his comments were
of a positive nature relative to the program and he would save
them for that hearing.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mr. Priest explained for Councilman Bay that the City had an
expectation of receiving 52.8 million and built in over and
above that amount were four back up projects so that if
additional funds became available, those projects were
prioritized up to 53,066,000.
Before concluding, questions were posed to the Engineering staff
by Council Members Kaywood and Bay answered by Mr. Art Daw,
Civil Engineering - Design. One of the concerns answered by Mr.
Daw was relative to allegations Councilman Bay heard expressed
that the Engineering Department tried to have monies allocated
out of block grant funds when general funds should be used for
various projects in target areas.
Mr. Daw stated he felt in general that most City Departments
will attempt to obtain funding from any and all sources that may
be available. With the available funds for street maintenance
split as thin as they were there may well be a tendency to do
63
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 22~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
that. He would say if a project was budgeted with CDBG money
targeted for the specific areas, the projects generally proposed
were more thorough whereas if left for the Street Maintenance
Department to resolve, they would probably only do the street
work necessary. If CDBG money, it was felt the specific streets
or projects deserved more of an ultimate type of improvement.
Councilwoman Kaywood again broached the ~10,000,000 Storm Drain
Bond Issue voted for in 1980 which was subsequently unable to be
implemented. She asked the City Attorney if there was any way
the City could still implement that bond; The City Attorney
answered "no." It would require another vote of the people.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the boundaries of the CDBG target areas.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was opposed to enlarging the
boundaries until he saw more accomplishments in the existing target areas. He
did not think that the precedent of starting to do so would do anything but
weaken the action taken throughout the rest of the area. It should be looked
at each year. He got the feeling that primarily this was a staff initiated
function and did not see a wave of support for enlargement of those boundaries
coming from the people most involved in the Neighborhood Councils or the
programs.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no."
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the 1985/86 CDBG Program and
Budget and authorizing reprogramming of the FY 84/85 funds of $45,000 to
expand Little Peoples Park and Jobs Bill Funds of ~46,000 to do work in the
Palm/Winston Street area, Ponderosa Activity Center, and the Manzanita Park
Activity Center. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated relative to Mr. Caux's
presentation he (Overholt) suggested that the new corporation (AIP) take a
look at their new policies as outlined by Mr. Caux and be more precise in the
definition of those policies particularly with respect to the Director and to
put in writing what was expected of that Director in carrying out the policies
of the new entity. He also clarified that funding for AIP from February
through July was not included as part of the funding but it was included for
FY 85/86. Relative to the Sickle Cell program, he suggested that that
organization inquire as to how to apply for funds that were available through
the Community Services Budget.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:15 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
64