1984/06/26Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTE..~ - Jqne 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahtf
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE: Shirley Land
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II: Malcolm Slaughter
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 E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be mailed to Noel Sweeney, Baseball
Coach - Katella High School, upon his retiring after 33 years of service with
the Anaheim Union High School District.
119: PRESENTATION: Mr. Richard A. Peters, Vice-President, and Bob Maples,
Manager of CAL COMP presented the Council and staff with a copy of the
publication, "Olympic Viewers Guide", a historic guide presenting
comprehensive and extensive data on the forthcoming 1984 Olympics to be held
in Los Angeles and surrounding communities.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,862,771.73, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
646
City Hall, Ana.hefm,. Cal.i.f.o~.nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 84R-231 through 84R-239, both inclusive, for adoption and
Ordinance No. 4515 for First Reading. 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 Toby Lee Anglin for indemnity based on Superior
Court Case No. 41-76-63, Nicki Russell Nicks, plaintiff, vs. Toby Lee Anglin,
et al., on or about February 27, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Stephen Velarde, Insured, for damages sustained
purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City at Brookhurst Street and
Katella Avenue, on or about March 19, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Heidi Y., Hannah G. and Paul W. Hann for personal
injury and personal property damages sustained purportedly due to an accident
caused by a malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of Ball Road and
Gilbert Street, on or about February 5, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by Franklin Opp, Insured, for property damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle and
City driver were involved eastbound on Nutwood approaching the intersection of
the 57 freeway off-ramp, on or about March 27, 1984.
e. Claim submitted by Theodore A. Mathisen for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City at the
intersection of Broadway Street and Anaheim Boulevard, on or about April 19,
1984.
f. Claim submitted by Rene Vizcarra for personal property damages
purportedly due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle and City driver
were involved on Anaheim Boulevard, on or about April 27, 1984.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of May 22, 1984.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes (approved) of May 17 and
(unapproved) June 17, 1984.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of May 23, 1984.
3. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by
Manuel Gomez, for Anaheim Dance Promotions, to hold a dance at the Anaheim
Convention Center on June 30, 1984, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in accordance
with the recommendation of the Chief of Police.
4. 123: Authorizing client service agreements with R. P. Martin and Glenn A.
Catherwood, at a rate of ~3,061 per month and not to exceed ~36,732
647
C.i~7 Hall, Anaheim~ C{ltfornia -.COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
respectively, to work as Housing Repair Instructor/Trainers for the period
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985.
5. 123/152: Authorizing a First Amendment to a Lease Agreement with the
Anaheim Municipal Employees Association (AMEA) for office space within the
Civic Center at a rate of ~1,517 for July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985 and
authorizing the Maintenance Department to execute future lease rental changes
with AMEA and Southwest Innovation Group.
6. 185: Receiving and filing the Annual Report to Development Agreement No.
83-02 dated May 1, 1984 as submitted by SAVI Ranch Associates and finding that
SAVI has complied in good faith with the terms of this Agreement.
7. 123: Authorizing an increase of ~10,000 (bringing the total amount not to
exceed ~95,000) to the Letter Agreement with Sanderson/J. Ray Development
Company for funding the water main construction to serve the Anaheim Auto
Center.
8. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to S & C
Electric in the amount of ~6,954.66 for one additional padmounted
sectionalizing switch, in accordance with Bid No. 4102.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Eastman Kodak in an amount not to exceed ~108,000 for rental and copy costs
for two Duplicator Copiers for Reprographics and the Convention Center, for a
period of 24 months.
10. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-231: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
C'ITY OF'ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
PELANCONI PARK STREAMBED EROSION IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NOS. 16-8og-7103-09SEWAND 16-809-7103--09080. (opening of bids on July 19,
1984, 2:00 p.m.)
11. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-232: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE SANTA ANA STREET STORM DRAIN AND
WATER IMPROVEMENTS, OLIVE STREET TO HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NOS. 01-793-6325-E3650, 26-791-6325-E1350AND
51-606-6329-17240-34350. (lowest and best responsible bidder, Richardson and
LeBouef Company in the amount of $818,773.55)
12. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-233: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LINCOLN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT,
WEST OF SUNKIST STREET TO EAST OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 12-792-6325-E2970 AND 51-606-6329-17530-34340. (lowest
and best responsible bidder, Fecit Strata in the amount of ~107,136.50)
13. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-234: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STREET AND
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
01-793-6325-E3810 AND 24-791-6325-E1340. (lowest and best responsible bidder,
Griffith Company in the amount of ~182,049.72)
648
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
14. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-235: 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: NORTH STREET STREET AND WATER IMPROVEMENT, LOARA STREET TO WEST STREET,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 26-793-6325-E3640AND
51-606-6329-17320-34340. (Ruiz Construction Company, contractor)
15. 131: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-236: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM INFORMING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
OF NO CHANGES IN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ON
THE GENERAL PLAN. (for fiscal year 1983-84)
16. 144: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-237: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE A
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES CLAIM APPLICATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1984/85
WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL NO.
821.
17. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-238: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR POLICE RESERVE
CORPS MEMBERS. (Police Reservist, 1043E)
18. 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4515: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 1.13 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 1.13 IN ITS PLACE PERTAINING TO POLICE RESERVE
CORPS.
19. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-239: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 84R-231 through 84R-239:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-231 through 84R-239 duly passed and
adopted. MOTION CARRIED.
109/150: CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY - DRAFT BOLSA CHICA HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN: Councilman Overholt noted that the Council had gone on
record, ~y resolution first on March 24, 1981, and again on April 13, 1982, in
support of the subject plan that involved the development of a recreational
boating area. After 10 years of hard work, it seemed the time had come for a
decision to be made with respect to development of the area.
Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that by resolution the Council once again
reaffirm support of the Bolsa Chica Plan involving a public boating
recreational area. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
649
City ~all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was again going to
abstain since she felt the matter had nothing to do with Anaheim and the City
should not be involved.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay stated he abstained because he also felt it was not an Anaheim
issue.
Mayor Roth directed the City Clerk to prepare a support letter for his
signature indicating a majority of the Council supported the June 14, 1984
Draft Bolsa Chica Habitat Conservation Plan.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to receive and file the subject report.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT WITH SIBSON AND COMPANY FOR CONSULTING SERVICES -
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT: Waiving Council ~olic~ No.''401 and authorizing an
agreement with Sibson & Co., for professional consulting services, in an
amount not to exceed ~20,000. Submitted was a report dated June 19, 1984 from
the City Manager explaining the reason for the proposed recommendation.
Councilman Bay stated he wanted to voice his objection and also try to
convince the Council that he was not opposed to a study. Mis problem was
two-fold, his own feeling about Sibson and their findings on the salaries that
had been approved by the Council, affecting 80 percent of the total budget in
the City, and the lack of objectivity in recommending Sibson to perform the
study. He wanted to see the study done but the Council should select the
consultant after evaluating numerous consultants, and the objectivity of those
consultants, and that the reporting and detail of the discovery within the
study should then be submitted back to the Council as was done on the study of
the City Attorney's Office.
City Manager William Talley pointed out that the study being recommended was
one initiated by the City Manager's Office and not the City Council as in the
case of the City Attorney's Office and that was the basic difference.
Inasmuch as he (Talley) had agreed to remain with the City another three
years, he felt it was timely to review the functions of his office with
respect to its relationship with the City Council~ other Departments and the
City organization in general. He wanted that study of his office to make it
function better. Sibson and Company, hired by the Council, had spent a great
deal of time in the City organization and was uniquely qualified at this point
in time to reflect what the organization was about and to make suggestions for
improvements. If another consultant was brought in, they would have to be
made familiar with the City organization. He believed the study was necessary
and it was not something that the Council ever suggested should be made until
this day.
Councilman Roth stated he was opposed because, in his personal opinion, he did
not think the City could afford the recommendations coming from Sibson; Mr.
Talley emphasized that nothing was going to be done with salaries. It was
650
Ctt~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
merely an organizational study, but it could end up with some reorganization
and could result in a reduction.
Councilman Overholt asked the cost-effective reason for such a study.
Mr. Talley then explained for Councilman Overholt what he felt were cost
effective reasons for such a study.
Councilman Pickler moved to waive Council Policy No. 401 and authorize an
agreement with Sibson & Co., Inc., in an amount not to exceed 320,000 to
provide professional consulting services in connection with the Administration
Department, with completion by September 1, 1984. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Councilman Bay and Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood asked the status of the report that
was suppose to be submitted on the City Attorney's Office; Councilman Overholt
stated that it was not yet finished an it was anticipated the report would be
made available to the Council on or before July 5, 1984. Further, based upon
reading the draft final, there was nothing contained therein that would impact
the budget for this year. It was a long range report and recommendation.
153: RATIFICATION OF BILL GRIFFITH, ACTING CITY MANAGER: Councilman Roth
moved to ratify the City Manager's appointment of Bill ~riffith, City
Librarian, Acting City Manager during the period of the City Manager's
vacation. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Appointments to fill terms
expiring June 30, 1984 on all City Boards and Commissions.
Councilman Pickler moved to continue appointments to Boards and Commissions to
July 3, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - BUDGET: To consider the proposed 1984/85
Resource Allocation Plan. The public hearing was continued from the meetings
of June 12 and June 19, 1984 (see minutes those date for Department
presentations and public input). City Manager William Talley first announced
that the Chamber of Commerce had prepared some information they wanted to
present to the Council.
The Mayor explained this was a continued public hearing and gave the Chamber
an opportunity to speak first.
Mr. Mel Miller, Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) of the Chamber of
Commerce wanted to present to the Council the analysis and study done by the
Committee covering the City's 1984/85 Resource Allocation Plan. He thereupon
submitted copies of the report accompanied by covering letter dated June 26,
1984, signed by him. The report was dated June 25, 1984 entitled, Blue Ribbon
Committee Interim Report. Mr. Miller then read the entire four-page report,
(on file in the City Clerk's Office) which contained the Committee's
651
79
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
recommendation and rationale for those recommendations both relative to the
budget itself and recommendations for budget analysis by the Council.
At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Miller, in answer to Councilman
Pickler, reported that he met with City Manager Talley and Assistant City
Manager James Ruth that morning to acquaint them with the contents of the
report but did not release the report at that time. He added that the City
Manager's Office had been extremely cooperative with the BRC and excellent
presentations had been made by the City in the past.
Council Members then questioned Mr. Miller or gave their input relative to the
information and recommendations contained in the report. During this period,
Mr. Herb Leo, a member of the Committee, stated to his knowledge the Chamber
had not made any study of the business license procedure but if they had a
recommendation from the Council they would consider that. He also stated he
felt it was necessary to report to the Council that a thorough analysis of the
budget by the Committee would not have been possible without the excellent
cooperation of City Manager Talley and his staff. Later in the meeting, Mr.
Leo also reported that the Chamber was not opposed to a study of possible
changes in the business license structure but to any public funds being spent
to make such a study. The report did not say that the Chamber would not fund
such a study.
City Manager Talley then gave his input and comments relative to the BRC
report noting first that staff had not had the time to look at the numbers in
the report to ascertain whether or not what the Committee had done and the
conclusions they reached followed. The Committee had taken a look at the
budget and arrived at their decision without the benefit of going in to see
whether the numbers reflected exactly what they thought they reflected.
Following Mr. Talley's response to the report, additional comments and input
were given by Council Members as well as additional questions posed to Mr.
Miller and Leo. Mr. Talley also pointed out that the adopted budget including
adjustments in 1983/84 totaled 1,899 full-time positions. 1,901 positions
were being requested in the current budget or an increase of two. Without the
addition of 18 positions in the Fire Department, the City would be reducing 16
positions overall. He then submitted report dated May 29, 1984 relative to
management positions in the City (on file in the City Clerk's off~ce).
Mayor Roth then a~ked to hear from anyone who wished to speak on the matter on
the 1984/85 Resource Allocation Plan.
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 North Street, asked the status of his previous request
for one additional Code Enforcement Officer as well as the status of the Lemon
Street storm drain project which he had discussed with former City Engineer
Bill Devitt for the past three years.
City Manager Talley reported relative to the Code Enforcement Officer, after
the Council had taken all public input, he was going to pose six policy issues
and Code Enforcement was one of them. Relative to the storm drain, if it was
not funded by EDA (Economic Development Authority) funds, the Council would
652
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
have to hold it in "limbo" or reprtoritize it but staff was optimistic that it
would be funded.
Mr. Erickson then asked if anything had been allocated for the needy to pay
their utilities, a subject he had broached several times in the past.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt stated the answer was "no".
Nothing was directed towards the needy other than electric lifeline rates.
Mr. Nick Warner, Project TLC Feedback Foundation - Anaheim site No. 1 (St.
Paul's Church) then explained for the Mayor that relative to the increase in
fees at the site, as previously reported, it was 5300 a month. At the present
time, they were paying ~125 a month for utilities and the $300 would be over
and above that. In the last three or four years, those costs were being
subsidized by a legacy left to the Church by one of the TLC participants but
they no longer had that legacy.
Councilman Overholt asked if the request contemplated the 537,362 figure; Mr.
Warner answered "yes". In answer to questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood,
Kathleen Benson, Project TLC, Washington Community Center, stated they were
also talking about an increase in the Homebound Meal Program to serve 70 meals
in areas not covered by meals on wheels as well as a three-day a week
breakfast program.
Councilman 0verholt surmised that the utilities issue would be resolved if an
additional allocation were made of 53,600 for a total of 531,900; Mr. Warner
answered that was correct.
Helen Haynes, Program Director, R.S.V.P. of North Orange County explained that
she was not able to be present at the previous meeting when a representative
spoke on her behalf. She then briefed the Council on the program explaining
the reason for an increase of $1,300 in their request for funds this year.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing on the 1984/85 Resource Allocation Plan.
City Manager Talley stated that James C. Wilson, Vice-President Finance and
Administration of the California Angels was present and wished to address the
Council regarding parking fees proposed to be inst~tuted at Anaheim ~tad~um ~n
January, 1985.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Wilson was present in the Chamber audience and wished
to speak; Mr. Wilson was not present.
City Manager Talley presented the six items requiring policy decisions for
Council action. (These items were discussed in previous budget hearings and
presented for final action today).
106/150: MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appropriate ~46,267 for
funding of the West Anaheim Senior Citizen Center (Trident). Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
653
Cit~ Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
106/140: MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to appropriate 574,434 for the
1984/85 Bookmobile Outreach Program using 561,000 in State library funds and
the 54,000 generated from volunteer organizations in the community with the
remainder to be allocated from other funds. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council discussion followed relative to possible
approaches to be taken to fund the program in future years as well as the
method of funding proposed for 1984/84.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she was voting "yes" because she agreed
with the program, but not in diverting the 561,000 in State funds that would
have been used for the Theft Detection System in branch libraries.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106/153/107: MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve one additional Code
Enforcement Officer at an approximate cost of 550,000 for first year funding
(approximately 543,135 annually thereafter). Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114/116/139: CITY SUPPORT OF HOURS USED BY PERS BOARD MEMBER: (See minutes
of June 12, 1984 where the issue was previously discussed). City Manager
Talley referred to his recommendation sent to the Council last week
recommending 160 hours or four-weeks time off paid by the City with a
reduction to 100 hours the following year, 50 hours the year after that and no
hours after 1987/88.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber (12:19 p.m).
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes (12:20 p.m.).
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present (12:24 p.m.).
City Manager Talley then continued relative to the PERS issue. He had asked
PERS to provide him with a copy of all meetings held in 1983 for both the
committee Mr. Petrosino served and general meetings. He was now more firm
than ever in his recommendation that the work performed was not necessarily a
benefit to the City and the hours taken, in his view, were far in excess of
what was necessary. Although he felt that was none of his business, he was
steadfast in his position that the Anaheim taxpayers should not subsidize that
activity, which in 1983 amounted to 32 days off the Job. As a compromise, he
was willing to recommend 20 days off the job next year and during that time
ask PERS to work on the issue. If PERS felt it appropriate to subsidize their
officers as they did some of them, they could do so. Some of the Board
Members were compensated and the Board could, if they chose, make such
provision. By the City giving Mr. Petrosino 160 hours, PERS would have the
better part of a year to make those provisions if they wanted to. He did not
know if they could do that without legislative action.
654
Ci.t~ Hall~ Anahgtm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Discussion and questioning followed between Council Members and Mr. Talley.
In concluding commentary on the issue, Councilman Bay stated he was in support
of the Council starting lobbying action with the City's representatives in
Sacramento to introduce legislation that PERS fund the costs of their
representatives. Councilman Overholt stated he was intent on having a
$24 billion organization reimburse the employer for any PERS member hours
rather than having the taxpayer pay for those hours. His inclination also was
to proceed vigorously as Councilman Bay had indicated or whatever it would
take for the PERS organization to reimburse Anaheim for lost time by reason of
a City employee serving on that Board.
Mr. Talley suggested that he write a letter to PERS asking them to introduce
legislation to resolve the problem and he would subsequently report back to
the Council and in the meantime not impinge on what Mr. Petrosino wanted to do
as frequently as he wanted to do it.
Councilman Bay maintained that would not solve the problem because PERS had
already stated they would not initiate that legislation. He recommended that
the City initiate legislation through its representatives in Sacramento.
114: UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS: City Manager Talley referred to
memorandum dated June 26, 1984 from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer
reporting on the time commitment necessary to devote to the subject
organization. He also confirmed that the membership fee was $3,750.
Mayor Roth explained that he had not had an opportunity to make an analysis of
the matter. He suggested that it be held in abeyance until he could analyze
the time requirement and subsequently report to the Council.
179: JUTTING-OUT PARCELS ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS: City Manager Talley stated
relative to the subject, he presumed that the Council would not choose to
implement any policy into the budget at this time but would like a report from
staff. (No action was taken by the Council at this time).
106/150: MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to appropriate an additional
$3,600 for Project TLC Feedback Foundation Inc. (Anaheim Site No. 1 -
St. Paul's Church) to cover monthly utility costs raising the allocation to
~31,907. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken~ Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was in favor of the
program as it started but had a problem in expanding it and knowing that more
and more money would be requested each year. If it was going to expand into
breakfast, she questioned if it would then expand into dinners. It had
expanded into Saturday lunch and a Sunday dinner without ever asking the City
if it would fund such programs. The Council never saw a budget or a complete
breakdown and how much was contributed at the daily lunches. She was also
concerned with what she considered a conflict with the Meals on Wheels Program.
Councilman Overholt stated that was the reason why his motion only
contemplated for the increase in utilities at the Anaheim No. TLC site at
St. Paul's Church.
655
City Hall~, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106/153/155: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Councilman Bay broached the
subject because of his concern with regard to traffic signals in the City.
The Traffic Engineer felt the City needed another technician to oversee the
consultant's work on traffic lights. In order to alleviate the inconsistency
of signals which was a constant irritant to many citizens, he felt the Council
could work another ~46,000 into the budget to do so.
Paul Singer Traffic Engineer, explained that the City had 230 intersections
where the traffic signal system was scheduled to be computerized. His
Department had requested and been granted a traffic signal technician to
assist the existing technician to operate the traffic signals and to see that
the contractor carried out his duties. In addition, he was asking for a
Traffic Engineering Assistant to perform a number of functions dealing with
placing the system into operation. The Assistant would also be very much
involved in the day-to-day operation and capital project construction.
Without the position, the ongoing daily operation and long range planning
could not be efficiently carried out because he did not see how he could
allocate any more man hours to computerization. With the new position, he was
hoping that computerization would take place much sooner and some of the
problems experienced at the Convention Center/Disneyland area would be
alleviated. The Assistant would also be involved in transportation plan
activities.
Shirley Land, Associate Traffic Engineer, then explained that one of the
things the Department wanted to participate in, but had not had the staff to
do so was relative to the California Energy Commission's Program which dealt
with the coordination of signals. With that program, it was necessary to make
a commitment up front of staff, equipment, etc., before being able to qualify
for funding. It was going to be the Department's goal next year to try to
receive such funds and that was the primary goal for the subject position.
City Manager Talley stated he included the addition of the Traffic Assistant
as a policy issue because not only did Mr. Singer feel strongly about it but
also it seemed to be one of the areas they heard most recently from the
Council and citizens. The City's maintenance contractor was low bid and in
his opinion, required a great deal of supervision.
Mr. ginger emphasized that the Council should not expect "miracles" but hid
Department would do the utmost within their limitations. The primary duty of
the Assistant would be to coordinate signals City-wide and place them on the
computer thereby achieving the synchronization that had long been discussed.
It was more complex than it appeared on the surface and it would not be
accomplished next year but within the next two or three years.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the addition of a Traffic
Engineering Assistant at an approximate cost of 346,000 with funding to be
determined at the time the Council discussed funding sources for this and
other approved projects. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
656
Ci.t~ Hall.~ Aha. helm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
169: WEST STREET - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: Councilman Bay then broached an
issue for consideration, that being the approximate 5500,000 allocated for
Capital Improvements of West Street, from Ball Road to the south City limits.
The prime work to be done being between Ball Road and Katella Avenue in the
heart of the commercial-recreation area with that cost to be split half and
half. The City, instead of paying the whole amount, would pay one-half or
~250,000 and that 5250,000 "matching funds" come out of the ~500,000 allocated
for that area.
City Manager Talley stated he would think, if the Council did that, without at
least some dialogue with the group, they may be accused of breaking faith. If
the Council wanted to suggest that and take the money out of the City's
5500,000 until they bought it off, that group would at least have considered
that they had been consulted even if it was done afterwards; Councilman Bay
felt that was a good suggestion.
153: MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN: City Manager Talley referred to the four proposed
resolutions establishing management pay plans (Executive Management,
Administrative Management, Middle Management, Supervisory, Professional and
Technical Management). The four resolutions adjusted the ranges 11 percent,
changed no salaries except those falling below the minimum, and established a
six percent management pool to be disbursed at a later date during the fiscal
year.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 84R-240 through 84R-243, both
inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-240: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN BY ADJUSTING THE MANAGEMENT
SALARY STRUCTURE, ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY
POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT AND
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-386 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-241: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN BY ADJUSTING THE MANAGEMENT
SALARY STRUCTURE, ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY
POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT AND
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-385 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-242: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN BY ADJUSTING THE MANAGEMENT
SALARY STRUCTURE, ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY
POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY AND
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-387 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-243: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN BY ADJUSTING THE MANAGEMENT
SALARY STRUCTURE, ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY
POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-387 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
657
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated establishing the six percent as
the bench mark for Pay for Performance was a surprise to him at this time
because he felt that would have been discussed between now and when it was
necessary to establish it. He was adamantly opposed to raising the ranges 11
percent across the Board as recommended by Sibson as he stated many times
before. As reported, 80 percent of the budget was labor oriented and costs
continue to escalate because of seemingly a lack of control. Stepping the
ranges up 11 percent would be Just the first step to making it easier to give
bigger and better raises in the coming year and year after that. He
reiterated he was opposed to raising the range and very opposed to the six
percent general across the Board for Pay for Performance next year.
Mayor Roth stated it was no secret that he had shown his concern about the
situation and that was why he had lost confidence in the Sibson plan and thus
would abstain from voting on this issue.
Councilman Overholt stated they had discussed the matter to where everybody
was aware that Council Members had a difference of opinion on their
consultant. The recommendation before them was based on data collected by
Sibson and Company, a National Consulting Firm, and he found no reason why
those recommendations should not be implemented.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions by the following vote.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 84R-240 through 84R-243:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-240 through 84R-243, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 84R-244 and 84R-245 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-244: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED TO THE
GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY T~E ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-245: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED TO THE
CLERICAL EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 84R-244 and 84R-245:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
658
City Hall~ Anaheim~ C~l~.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-244 and 84R-245, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
175: AMENDING RATES~ RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 84R-246 for adoption,
amending rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of water
as adopted by Resolution No. 72R-600 and amended by Resolution Nos. 73R-255,
73R-387, 73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 75R-479, 76R-378, 78R-418,
78R-419, 78R-459, 79R-643, 80R-304, 81R-124, 81R-402, 82R-355 and 83R-331.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-246: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS.
73R-255, 73R-387, 73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 75R-479, 76R-378,
78R-418, 78R-419, 78R-459, 79R-643, 80R-304, 81R-124, 81R-402, 82R-355 and
83R-331.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay noted that at their last meeting he
had questions of Mr. Hoyt relative to water rates and as he sat down at the
meeting today, he received the answers but did not have time to read those.
He thereupon asked his questions again.
Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, then gave a brief
presentation supplemented by slides which followed the text of the information
contained in his report dated June 26, 1984, (on file in the City Clerk's
Office and submitted to the Council at the meeting). The report listed the
questions posed by Councilman Bay relative to water rates for residential
customers and why those rates were near the high end, while
commercial/industrial customers were near the low end. The first page of the
report immediately following the two questions stated, "the answer to both
questions lies in the fact that the proposed water rates are based upon cost
of service." The remainder of the five-page report elaborated on that answer
in detail.
After Mr. Hoyt's presentation, Councilwoman Kaywood commented that at the time
the issue was placed on the ballot to charge customers on a cost-of-service
basis, she cautioned at that time that they did not know what it was going to
mean and in the case of water, it did give residential customers a somewhat
higher rate.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-246 duly passed and adopted.
659
City Hall.~ Anaheim.~ .Ca.lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June.. 26.,..1..9~4, 10:00 A.M.
000/101/124/: PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING FEES: City Manager Talley
submitted the proposed resolutions to establish the various fees recommended
by Departments in their budgets. Relative to the proposed increase in parking
fees at the Anaheim Convention Center and Stadium he commented that he had
received a communication from Mr. Wilson of the California Angels and asked if
Mr. Wilson or any other member of the Angels organization were present to
address this issue that they be recognized by the Mayor.
Mayor Roth asked if Mr. Wilson or anyone from the California Angels were
present and wished to speak to this issue. There was no response.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, explained that to the extent the City had
contractual commitments for either higher or lower fees with the Rams, or the
Angels, or any other third party, those would not be covered specifically by
the particular fee increase being proposed.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-247 for adoption establishing a
$3.00 fee for parking at Anaheim Convention Center and Anaheim Stadium
effective January 1, 1985. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-247: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEES FOR PARKING AT ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER AND ANAHEIM
STADIUM TO BE EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 1985.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-247 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-248 for adoption, establishing
green fees and cart rental fees to be charged at the H. G. "Dad" Miller
Anaheim Municipal Golf Course and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, effective
July 1, 1984. Refer to Resolution Book.
000/135: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-248: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING THE GREEN FEES AND CART RENTAL FEES TO BE CHARGED
AT T~IE ~. C. "DAD" MILLER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL C0LF COURgE AND THE ANAHEIM HILLg
GOLF COURSE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-248 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-249 for adoption, amending
Resolution Nos. 80R-185, 81R-174, 82R-354 and 83R-266, relating to fees for
660
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
city-wide Park and Recreation programs and services in the City. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-249: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. 80R-185, 81R-174, 82R-354 and 83R-266
RELATING TO FEES FOR CITY-WIDE PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES IN
THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-249 duly passed and adopted.
142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4516: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4516
for First Reading. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4516: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER
16.08 OF TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTIONS
16.08.091, 16.08.092, 16.08.093, 16.08.094 AND 16.08.095 PERTAINING TO PERMIT
FEES.
116/000/108/111: MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that a staff report be
prepared by Program Development and Audit regarding a proposed Revenue
Decision Package concerning paramedic fees (see memorandum, subject: Revenue
Decision Package for FY-1984/84 Budget). Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler moved that a staff report be prepared by Program
Development and Audit regarding the retention of a consultant to review the
inequities, if any, or efficiencies relative to the business license
ordinance. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated he was going to vote against the
motion because the Council had a volunteer to perhaps pick up the cost, that
being the Chamber of Commerce. He wanted to explore that before taking any
action.
City Manager Talley stated as part of the motion he would intend to come back
to the Council with a recommendation including asking the Chamber if they
would fund the study. He anticipated it would be approximately two months.
Councilman Roth stated he did not have any objection to that but he wanted the
option when the Council voted on the issue to know if the Chamber was going to
pick up the tab rather than the taxpayers.
Councilman Pickler thereupon amended his motion to include that the report to
be submitted would also include a recommendation asking the Chamber of
Commerce to fund the study.
661
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26} 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay stated he was going to vote against the motion because he did
not need a study to tell him, if the Council started to change the business
license upward, it was a tax increase.
Mayor Roth stated the reason he was going to support the motion was to give
the Chamber an opportunity to take a look at the matter and give their input.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
106: 1984/85 R.A.P. APPROVAL: City Manager Talley then summarized if the
budget were adopted as presently amended, it would require 552,860 from either
the Council Contingency Fund or the special reserve for future
appropriations. The reason why that amount was lower than anticipated was due
to the fact that the Council did appropriate the 565,000 for the Library
Bookmobile. The Council had a request earlier today from RSVP for 51,300 that
was not included in any figures.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to include the 51,300 in the budget for the RSVP
Program. The motion died for lack of a second.
106: MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to adopt the Fiscal Year 1984/85 Resource
Allocation Plan. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated that Mr. Talley and his staff did a
remarkable job on the budget. He also commended the Chamber for their input,
the Community Services Board on their usual fine Job in working with the
Community Service Agencies and all Boards and Commissions as well as citizens
who were present for the hearings.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented on the parks maintenance budget which was not
typical but extraordinary. Over a ten-year period from 1975 to 1984, the City
had an additional 146.8 developed acres, an additional 20 park sites and that
area was being maintained with 23 fewer personnel with each person caring for
2.29 acres more in maintenance than they were ten years ago.
Councilman Bay'stated he wanted to explain his "no" vote on the plan. He was
primarily in concurrence with the Blue Ribbon Committee report that was
submitted. His chief disagreement with policy direction that was coming from
at least three Members of the Council and differences of opinion was relative
to the salary policies in the City and the percentages and spending along
those lines which made up the bulk of the budget. He was very pleased with
part of the budget this year, the part that showed more money being spent on
capital improvement projects which he hoped would result in fixing the City's
streets and things that citizens in the City complained about to him. He did
not want his "no" vote to reflect having anything to do with those items along
with some other direct services voted on today.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
662
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 19.84, 10:00 A.M.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss pending and potential litigation with action anticipated.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the
City Attorney concerning pending or potential litigation.
Councilman Overholt moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:50 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:25 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2564 (READVERTISED) AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Steven D. and Lea Anne
Heinrich, to permit a day-care center for a maximum of 12 children on RS-7200
zoned property located at 613 South Bruce Street, with Code waiver of required
vehicle loading and unloading area for children.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-87, 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, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 2564, subject to the following conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of June 5, 1984 and public hearing scheduled this date.
City Clerk Sohl announced that five telephone calls had been received in
opposition to granting the subject Conditional Use Permit (CUP), four from
residents of Bruce Street and one from Random Drive.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mrs. Lea Hetnrich, 613 South Bruce Street was present to answer questions.
Councilman Pickler stated one of the first questions he had asked Mrs.
Heinrich in speaking to her over the phone was relative to opposition from the
neighbors and he was informed that there was no opposition. As just reported,
five people were opposed and he asked if circumstances had changed.
Mrs. Heinrich answered that she had not heard from anyone and the announcement
of the opposition was new to her.
Mayor Roth asked for background information and what Mrs. Heinrich wanted to
accomplish.
Mrs. Heinrich reported that she had been in the preschool field for the last
five years with a degree in early childhood education. She had run several
schools over that period as well as several classes dealing with children.
The main intent was to open a school of her own. She wanted a CUP to
663
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
establish a good name with the City and in order to do everything 100 percent
legally. She understood the State did not press the conditional use permit
and unless operators were actually aware that they needed a CUP, many would
operate with the maximum of 12 children that the State allowed. She delved
further and found out that a CUP was necessary. More than likely she would
not have the maximum number of children in her home. She was mainly trying to
get the CUP to be in good standing with the City so that when she opened her
school it would be known that they did things by following the rules.
Councilman Bay asked relative to her long range plans, where the school would
be located.
Mrs. Heinrich answered somewhere in Anaheim. She then clarified upon Council
questioning that she did not plan to have the school at her present location
and it was not her intent to build a second-story addition on her home at any
time.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Doris Geagen, 2421 West Random Drive, stated she was not concerned with the
children but the traffic. There was a lot of traffic and only so many exits
for the large area involved. The area of South Bruce and West Random Drive
was already very busy traffic-wise and cars traveled fast. She felt the use
was going to create more traffic and the times when children were to be
dropped off in the morning, (6:30/9:00 a.m.) and picked up in the afternoon,
(2:00/6:60 p.m.) were the busiest times for traffic.
City Clerk Sohl announced the following people were those who had called in
opposition; Mrs. Dale E. Lindsey, Mrs. Cowan, Mrs. Lola Belmonte, Mrs. Maureen
Priest, Mrs. Donna Purkey.
In making her s,--mation, Mrs. Heinrich stated relative to traffic, the City
Traffic Engineer had requested a waiver of loading and unloading that they
would have put in front of their house. The children attending Walt Disney
School that would be going to her home were all within walking distance she
would watch them cross the street. At present, she had one child in day care
and he was within walking distance. The traffic would be the few that might
arrive by car from around the corner but the majority were within walking
distance plus the loading and unloading zone they had agreed to provide.
Mrs. Heinrich then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that according to State
Law she was allowed to have 12 children but in the City she was only allowed
up to six. She had one child at present plus she had two children of her
own. She had not yet operated with up to six children even though she could
do so at this time.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, 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
664
Cit~ Hall~-Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
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 offered a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2564 for one year in accordance with the findings of the City Planning
Commission.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was going to vote
against approval, considering the telephone calls from people in the immediate
area in opposition and because the neighborhood generally had no experience
relative to the impact of having even one-half of the children being
requested, since Mrs. Heinrtch only had one child at the present time.
Further, Mrs. Heinrich could have up to six children without a CUP and that
was enough for citizens to contend with in residential areas throughout the
City.
If the Council started to approve CUP's for up to 12, it would establish a
pattern. In his opinion, it was a commercial operation in a residential area
and people who lived in residential areas needed protection from that impact.
He made the assumption that the petitioner was already operating with five or
six children and wanted to enrich it to make it more economically feasible.
He had no argument with the need, but with the resultant impact on residential
neighborhoods if CUP's allowing up to 12 children were casually approved by
the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to oppose the CUP for some of the
same reasons along with the fact that six were permitted in any case without a
CUP. If Mrs. Heinrich operated with six children with no impact and then
wanted to go to 12 and the neighbors did not object, that would be another
time for the Council to look at the use.
Mayor Roth stated he was going to support the request because he did not think
it would set a precedent and a CUP could be revoked for cause.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose. Where a neighborhood was
objecting to a new use, it was the Council's obligation to take that
seriously. The petitioners could have up to six children and the fmpact of
six would not be as great as 12.
A vote was then taken on the resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No.
2564 and failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler and Roth
Kaywood, Overholt and Bay
None
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-250 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2564, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
665
Cit~ Hall} Anaheim} California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26,} 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-250: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2564.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-250 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2570 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Glenn F. and Joan M. Lukenbill, to
expand a day-care center to permit a maximum of 12 children on RS-7200(SC)
zoned property located at 4307 East Alderdale Avenue, with Code waiver of
required vehicle loading and unloading area for children.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-88, 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, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 2570, subject to the following conditions:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 through 3.
2. That a designation, clearly identified, on-street passenger loading
and unloading area shall be provided on Alderdale Avenue adjacent to subject
property in a manner satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer and subject to
the approval and adoption of a City Ordinance establishing an area restricted
to passenger loading and unloading between the hours of 6:00 a.m and 6:00 p.m,
Monday through Friday.
3. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned,
shall be complied with.
4. That the request as authorized by this resolution shall be limited to
a total maximum of twelve (12) children.
5. That the use is hereby granted for a period of one (1) year to expire
June 26, 1985.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of June 5, 1984 and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
666
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mrs. Joan Lukenbill, 4307 East Alderdale, explained that she was currently
licensed for six children and had been operating to her maximum capacity for
the past 11 years at her current address. She had been involved in day care
since 1960 and there was a tremendous need in her area for more day care. She
was constantly having to turn people away so as not to operate over capacity
and that was her main reason for wanting to expand to 12 children. The State
and County had given their approval and she was now asking the City for its
approval. To her knowledge, her neighbors had not objected.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there was no response.
Council Members Kaywood and Bay then posed questions to Mrs. Lukenbill to
clarify certain aspects of her present day care operation as well as questions
about her future operation if 12 children were approved.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, 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 Overholt asked for clarification that no registered opposition had
been received; it was determined that no letters or telephone calls had been
received objecting to the proposed use.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-251 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2570, in accordance with the Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-251: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2570.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-251 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2566 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by M/ller Street Limited Partnership, to
permit a non-ferrous recycling facility on ML zoned property located at 1401
North Miller Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-79, approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
667
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
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, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 2566, subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, primary water main fees
shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office
of the Utilities General Manager.
2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for new industrial buildings.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
4. That the existing southerly 16-foot wide driveway approach shall be
relocated ten (10) feet northerly to accommodate 10-foot radius curb returns.
In addition, the northerly driveway shall also be reconstructed to a 24-foot
minimum width with 10-foot radius curb return.
5. That signage prohibiting vehicular ingress into the southerly driveway
shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the City Traffic
Engineer.
6. That a "nox box" device shall be installed at the vehicular access
gates to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall.
7. That the traffic circulation pattern for vehicles delivering.
salvageable materials shall be clearly indicated on the site.
8. That no trucks, containers or other vehicles that deliver, haul, or
store materials shall be permitted to be parked outside the perimeter of the
fenced yard.
9. That all metal separation and storage shall take place within the
fenced yard.
10. That the operation shall not be open to the general public.
11. That the recycling yard and operation shall be effectively visually
screened from adjoining streets and properties.
12. That no storage shall be permitted above the height of the enclosure
fencing.
13. That subject facility be limited to the delivery, separation,
temporary storage, and distribution of non-ferrous metals.
668
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
14. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the ML
Zone, unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
15. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
16. That the vehicle access gates shall remain open during regular
business hours.
17. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution or final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of May 22, 1984 and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Manual Chavez, 182 San Diego Lane, Placentia, was present to answer
questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the opposition letter dated May 1, 1984 from
Theodore and Gloria Baraglia and signed by 7 or 8 people pointed to the fact
that the existing chain link fence on the northerly side of the property
belonged to the neighbors. She wanted to know if that was accurate.
Mr. Chavez answered that as a result of having the property surveyed, it was
determined that the first 100 feet of the fence was on their side of the
property and the last 140 feet on the adjacent property. They had not
anticipated any problem with the fence but now they were going to install a
block wall fence on the north side of the property. Mr. Chavez then submitted
a folder containing three photographs, one showing customers' trucks backed up
to the unloading dock, another showing 1401 North Miller Street as seen from
Anaheim Lake and the last showing the entrance to Benner's Recycling Center on
Miraloma Avenue. Mr. Chavez then gave the background history of his company
which had been in the recycling business for 25 years. He referred to the
letter of opposition received and addressed the concerns contained therein.
The following improvements were going to be made:
An 8-foot block wall would be constructed on the north, south and west side of
the property. The existing chain link gates in front were going to be
replaced with solid metal gates. Their plot plan showed a loading dock which
could service six trucks at one time. An additional area was designated where
an additional six trucks could park in a fenced area while waiting to be
serviced. They never had more than nine trucks at a time at the facility.
There would be no need to park on the street. The entire yard was to be
surfaced with concrete and a concrete block warehouse would be constructed.
The property was in an ML Zone which currently had other industrial businesses
operating such as metal plating, metal spring companies, truck freight lines,
669
C..it~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
etc. a non-ferrous metal recycling center was compatible with the present
environment and a necessary part of the economy. They were willing to abide
by all conditions stipulated by the Planning Commission and were asking they
be given the opportunity to prove themselves.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition.
Gloria Baraglia, 4018 Temescal, Norco, owner of the property at 1501, 1503 and
1505 North Miller Street, reported that the subject property which was only
one acre was fenced off and at present a portion used for parking of diesel
trucks and for repair. There was only one entrance to the property and it was
not large enough for a recycling center. She also resubmitted a copy of a
petition in opposition. The other owners in the area did not feel the
property was adequate to accommodate the type of business proposed and Miller
Street was not a "junk yard" street. She reiterated her concern that the
property was not large enough for the proposed operation. It had a fence
through the center and at present there was another business on that one acre.
Donald E. Perottf, 501 St. John Way, Placentia, and owner of two acres at 1601
North Miller Street stated his objection was to the possible traffic
congestion that would be caused by the use.
Theodore Baraglia, 4018 Temascal, Norco, questioned what he considered a lack
of drainage on the property. The property was 18 inches lower than the
properties to the side and rear. They were also in the metal business and
they took their metal to recycling. Chemicals were used on metal and all the
metal was going to be stored outside. He questioned where the applicant would
store 30 loads of aluminum on an acre of land and what was going to happen to
the chemicals. He assumed they would drain into the ground and into the
water. He was in favor of recycling if there was sufficient land for the
operation.
Mr. Chavez explained that they did not own the property at this time but once
they were granted a CUP, the present tenants on the property would vacate and
they would take over the 1.1 acres. They would store loads outside but within
the fenced area. There would be no contamination from any chemicals on the
metals because the entire yard would be paved in concrete.
Mr. David Freeman, 4562 Denita Lane, Yorba Linda, explained that relative to
the drainage, the City of Anaheim granted Viking Truck Lines a CUP, owners of
the property directly to the north of the subject property. In doing so, they
leased the area and installed a sophisticated storm drain system. In
constructing that drain, it was necessary to bring a leg into their property
which was located in the southwest corner, a 10 inch Johns-Mansville drain
which was more than adequate to service the load. Further, the metals were in
containers and the plans posted on the Chamber wall showed a specific area for
parking and a specific area for all containers.
Councilman Bay asked if the CUP were to be limited to one-year, would that
pose a problem; Mr. Freeman answered that the applicant was going to put a
670
City Ha.ll} Anaheim} California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
great deal of money into the property in excess of $100,000 and those were not
resalable improvements to another business. One year would be high risk money.
Councilman Bay then asked relative to the drainage, when storing various scrap
metals in an area in the open subject to rain was Mr. Freeman saying drainage
from the property was going to go into the storm drain system. The storm
drain system in that area flowed into the Santa Aha River bed and there were
settling basins grated in the river basin every year where water was
percolated back into the City's water table.
Mr. Chavez explained that all the material they handled was containerized,
nothing would be on the floor, and would be there no longer than 7 days.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Public Health or any other agencies checked on
the subject businesses.
Mr. Chavez answered that they were checked to see that they did not use any
chemicals in their procedure. The Health Department checked once a year. He
also clarified that pick up and delivery was made in either drums or bins.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated since Mr. Chavez was aware that the CUP was
subject to revocation, that a one-year limit would not be any more of an
advantage than knowing the permit could be revoked at any time.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-252 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2566, upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission and subject to all Planning Commission conditions including
stipulations made by Mr. Chavez relative to improvements. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-252: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2566.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor emphasized to Mr. Chavez that no
improvements were to be made until proof was submitted to the City Attorney
that the existing tenants would be vacating the property prior to operation;
Mr. White also asked if the resolution would contain a condition that the
storage of all materials shall be in covered containers.
Councilwoman Kaywood added that stipulation in her offering of the
resolution. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
671
City Hall~ Anaheim} California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-252 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2567 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Apollo Inn, to permit the on-sale of
alcoholic beverages in an existing motel on C-R zoned property located at 1741
South West Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-77, 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, and further~ granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 2567, subject to the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 through 3.
3. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
4. That the proposed stand-up bar shall not be converted to a sit-down
"bar" or "cocktail lounge".
5. That no signs advertising a "bar" or "cocktail" lounge or similar
sales of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted on the premises for purpose of
advertising on-sale alcohol to the general public.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of May 22, 1984 and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Bill O'Connell, 1431 James Way, representing the Stovall family regarding
the Apollo Inn, was present to answer questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the reason for the request in the first place; Mr.
O'Connell answered that they owned the building next door which had been
Sambo's Restaurant. When Sambo's was having financial problems, they leased
to Godfather's Pizza. The Apollo wanted a small coffee shop to serve their
guests and at the same time decided to incorporate a small cocktail lounge,
672
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
designed without seating. It was merely a lounge to service the hotel
guests. It would not generate any money and, in fact, it would lose money but
they needed to have it as a service.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. O'Connell indicated they were going to put
in a coffee shop but that was not included. Her concern was that it was a bar
without any food; Mr. O'Connell clarified that the coffee shop was only for
guests to be set up in a buffet line to serve breakfast only since Godfather's
did not serve breakfast. The room was approximately 1500 square feet.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
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.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-253 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2567, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-523: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2567.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-253 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(3:30 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (3:40 p.m.)
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2029 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application
submitted by Allan Lobel, Canex Investments, requesting an extension of time
to Conditional Use Permit No. 2029, to permit an automobile sales agency on CG
zoned property located at 619-631 North Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 14, 1984, approved an
extension of time for one-year only.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
public hearing scheduled this date.
673
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained for the Mayor that
the reason the applicant appealed the decision was due to the fact that the
original resolution was approved for a period of five years and the property
was in the process of being sold. When the applicant applied for a further
extension of time, the Planning Commission granted only a one-year extension
instead of the five years requested.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Allan Lobel, General Partner, Canex Investments, explained that the
property became available in April and at that time, they became aware of the
fact that the permit was going to expire in November of 1984. Prior to
proceeding with acquisition, a letter was written to the Council on May 3,
1984, requesting a five-year extension of time. He referred and quoted from a
staff report to the Planning Commission recommending that the Planning
Commission grant a five-year extension. That was May 14, 1984, and on May 15,
1984 he went ahead and closed on the purchase of the property and when he came
to get the permit, found it had been changed to one year. He believed that
some of the Planning Commissioners felt the previous owner had not kept some
of his commitments. Canex then filed an objection to the ruling and actually
asked for a permanent permit. He thought the hearing was about that request
but now he understood it was to grant another five-year extension and they
would proceed on that basis. Since they had purchased the property they had
invested approximately 37,000 in it. He had photographs showing the property
in its current state which looked better than before. He was present to ask
that a five-year extension be granted.
Mayor Roth asked why the Planning Commission felt that one year was
appropriate; Miss Santalahti reported that some of the Commissioners recalled
that the previous owner had implied that this was going to be an interim use
of property, an automobiles sales lot, and that in the future it would be
permanently developed with an office building or something of that type. The
Commission was concerned about the types of use being established up and down
Anaheim Boulevard. The one year was due to the feeling that something might
happen sooner than five years which might make the use an undesirable one for
the location.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Lobel if it was his intent to operate a
used-car lot for the full time or was he planning a switch of use; Mr. Lobel
answered at this time they were planning to continue the used car lot.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there being no response, he
closed the public hearing.
Mayor Roth stated it could not be denied that in certain areas Anaheim
Boulevard was called automobile row. He did not know why they could not
support a five-year extension of time with the understanding that the CUP
could be revoked for due cause.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve an extension of time on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2029 for five years. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
674
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked, relative to the widening of
Anaheim Boulevard in that area which was in the study process at present, were
the setbacks committed on change of use under a CUP or not.
Miss Santalahti answered that the CUP was subject to what the General Plan
currently stated was the width of that particular street.
Assistant City Attorney Jack White stated as a condition, the Council could
require dedications to ultimate rights-of-way as shown on the General Plan.
He did not know if there was additional right-of-way to be acquired. It could
be required of a property owner even where lease was involved. On an
extension, the Council could condition it on the dedication of that
right-of-way.
Councilman Bay stated his concern if another five-year extension were given,
they would be giving away the taxpayer position on ultimate dedication of
North Anaheim Boulevard. He would have to know if the acquisition of
additional right-of-way was involved in the subject situation before granting
a five-year extension.
Councilman Roth thereupon withdrew his motion recommending that the ~tem be
trailed until that information could be provided to the Council.
By a general consensus of the Council, the item was trailed until later in the
meeting.
Later in the meeting, (5:00 p.m.) Miss Santalahti reported that the Planning
Department staff spoke with Bob Jones, Civil Engineering Associate, who
indicated that one-half width dedication of 47 feet would be required
eventually on the property. The City was currently beginning acquisition on
Anaheim Boulevard and estimated construction would begin in 1989 to 1990. The
subject property had dedicated to one-half width of 40 feet but the street
widening project indicated a 47-foot half width and thus an additional 7 feet
would be sought on the property.
Mayor Roth asked Mr. Lobel if he would stipulate to dedication of an
additional 7 feet on a five-year extension; Mr. Lobel answered he did not feel
he would like to dedicate the 7 feet. Six weeks ago he paid $260,000 for the
property, invested ~55,000 in operating capital and ~7,000 in improvement.
They were not asking for a variance or change of zone hut s~mply asking for a
right to operate a business that was existing.
After further Council discussion with Mr. Lobel, Councilman Roth offered a
compromise of a three-year extension of time which, in finality, was agreeable
to Mr. Lobel.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve a three-year extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2029, to permit an automobile sales agency on CG
Zoned property located at 619-631 North Anaheim Boulevard. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". Councilman Pickler
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
675
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
179: RECONSIDERATION - PROPOSED CODE AHENDHENT: To reconsider adding a new
Section 18.61.050 to the Code, pertaining to private clubs, lodges,
fraternities and sororities. (See minutes of May 15, 1984 and June 5, 1984
where the matter was previously discussed).
The City Clerk announced that she had forwarded a copy of the proposed
ordinance to the Project Area Committee (PAC), Redevelopment Commission,
Industrial Development Board and also the Industrial Energy Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce. Previously submitted to the Council were copies of
correspondence from the Chamber in opposition, from PAC indicating no
opposition, from the Community Redevelopment Commission recommending approval
and also from a commercial development, "O0" Service, 1305 Dynamic Street
urging a decision in favor; Councilman Bay also noted the information received
from the Industrial Development Board reconfirming their opposition.
The Mayor asked to hear from a spokesman from the Elks Lodge.
Mr. James Espy, Member of the Anaheim Elks Lodge, stated they were pleased
with the reports from PAC and the Redevelopment Commission stating a reversal
of their previous action in opposition. They had also discussed the matter
with the Industrial Development Board and made a presentation to them. He
then presented the Elks case as to why their occupancy of the property would
be consistent with the Industrial Community and respectfully asked the Council
to Join the two favorable responses and adopt the proposed Code Amendment.
Councilman Bay reiterated the premise behind the resistance to changing the
ordinance which was established as a protective ordinance for that particular
industrial area because of incursions that had occurred, thereby diminishing
the City's industrial base in the northeast industrial area. The ordinance
was written in a specific way so as to preclude the items contained therein
from being changed by a CUP as a threat to using up the City's basic
industrial land~ which the City is so dependent on to provide Jobs for the
economy of the area. He had nothing against the Elks Lodge but against
changing the ordinance. If a Council majority decided because the Elks were
involved that they were going to override the basic intent of the ordinance,
he requested that they limit the use to lodge only and not change other
statements protective of that industrial area.
Mayor Roth noted that the Elks Lodge were operating in the industrial area
when they were located on Clementine Street. He wanted to know why moving to
another industrial area would require a change in the ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Jack White explained that within the industrial zone,
there was an area called the Canyon Industrial Area carved out from all other
industrial zoning in the City and a special set of zoning regulations applied
to that area as designated on a map which limited the type of uses permitted.
Further, as suggested by Councilman Bay, a Council majority could limit a
change to the ordinance to anything they wanted to, such as lodges only.
Mr. Stan Pawlowski, 1458 James Way, Financial Consultant to the Elks and a
Member of the organization, emphasized that the Lodge needed a building to
house its 800 members. They were now located in an industrial zone but had to
676
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
move and the lodge felt the subject area would give them a place where they
could conduct their business. They could provide a restaurant that would be a
definite asset to the industrial area with adequate parking. The proposal had
now been approved by PAC, the Redevelopment Commission and also the Planning
Commission. They were going to remodel and renovate the present building and
they did not feel it would disturb the integrity of the industrial area but
enhance it. He asked that the Council reconsider their previous action.
Mr. Rod Wallace, member of the Anaheim Elks Lodge, 1241 North East Street
explained that prior to the establishment of the Canyon Industrial Zone, the
Lodge had looked at the subject building. When the matter came up
approximately two months ago, they were not aware of the new zone and had they
proceeded with a CUP at the time the Elks moved to South Clementine, they were
an allowable use on Miraloma. They did not deliberately look to circumvent
the rules.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. White explained that it was a
question of degree. There was an existing CUP to operate as a restaurant.
Under that permit, the Elks could operate like any other restaurant in the
City which would include the right at special times to have Lodge activities.
In principle, there was nothing wrong with the statement that they could
operate as a restaurant and serve lunches under their existing CUP and to have
their Lodge activities in the evenings.
Councilman Bay surmised then that a CUP would not be required since the
existing use permit on the property allowed them to operate as a restaurant.
Mr. White confirmed that was true as long as the Lodge complied with all the
conditions of the existing permit and they would not have to come back to the
City at all.
Mr. Espy stated he was extremely reluctant to allude to the matter of "degree"
but recognized the possibility of a need for a license permit or something to
change the existing sign in front of the building to Anaheim Elks Lodge No.
1345.
Discussion then followed relative to the identifying signage wherein Mr. Espy
stated that they would want to be known as the Anaheim Elks Lodge. They would
have a restaurant opened to the public for lunches but did not anticipate
putting a sign out front that said that.
Mayor Roth suggested that they form a small committee and discuss the matter
with the City Attorney and Planning Department to work out the slgnage.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from Norm Priest relative to the issue.
Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, representing the
view of the Industrial Development Board, stated the Board simply wanted to
preserve the nature of the zone. The Redevelopment Commission changed its
point of view when it heard, as the Council had been discussing today, that
the use could be a restaurant. As far as staff was concerned, they recognized
the need for upgrading of the property. Staff did not have specific
677
City Hal!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
recommendation because they felt there were enough citizen advisory bodies to
the Council and therefore staff did not need to add anything further.
Mayor Roth stated he believed that staff had a feeling of the majority of the
Council with the emphasis that the use was basically a restaurant and one of
the biggest drawbacks was with regard to the signing.
Councilman Overholt stated if the matter could not be worked out, it could be
reheard. He asked to know how the matter was eventually resolved.
108: RECONSIDERATION - ENTERTAINMENT APPLICATION~ HOLLYWOOD A-GO-GO:
Application submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland, requesting reconsideration of
the denial of an Entertainment Permit Application for Hollywood A Go-Go, 508
South Knott Street, for girls dancing, seven days a week, from 3:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m. (See minutes of May 15, 22 and June 5, 1984 where the matter was
previously discussed).
The Mayor asked to hear from Mr. Copeland or his agent.
Ms. Marilyn W. Mirano, Law Offices of Elaine K. Bunzel, stated that earlier
during the break she submitted a brochure for each Council Member to read.
She asked if there was any Council Member who had not read the material (see
brochure entitled, Wayne Copeland, dba, Hollywood A-Go-Go - Law Offices of
Elaine K. Bunzel by: Marilyn W. Mirano, Attorney at Law, June 26, 1984).
Council Members Kaywood and Bay questioned how the Council would have had the
opportunity to read the extensive document and, further, that it was not
possible to take the time to read it now; Councilman Overholt stated he
skimmed the document and one part of it had to do with a fight with the City
Attorney as to whether Counsel was entitled to certain documents. The rest
essentially seemed to be declarations of individuals who signed petitions who
were connected with the Beauty Salon in the vicinity. He asked if that was
about a summary of the materials.
Ms. Mirano answered "yes". She was present to speak on behalf of Mr.
Copeland, a resident of the community and a businessman who was applying for
an entertainment permit. The new evidence presented was not available to the
Council at the time the decision was made denying the permit application.
Assistant City Attorney Jack White stated since it had been indicated by at
least one member of the Council that he had not had the time to review the
material, he (White) was wondering if Ms. Mirano wanted to proceed knowing
that the Council had not reviewed the complete material submitted, or whether
she would want to have a continuance until it was reviewed and studied by the
Council.
Ms. Mirano stated that she wanted to continue with the hearing today since her
client was being irreparably harmed by the delay.
Councilman Overholt asked if the material presented was preliminary to
presenting evidence that, "there was collusion by several people;" Ms. Mirano
answered that she would like to present the material and then give an answer.
678
Ci.t7 Ha~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that all it deserved was a simple answer. He again
asked if that was the evidence she was going to present.
Ms. Mirano answered that they had conducted as thorough an investigation as
they could under the circumstances. Certain information presented them with
questions that were not answered. However, her client would withdraw any
allegation of collusion at this time.
Councilman Overholt surmised then that there was no collusion; Ms. Mirano
repeated that her client was withdrawing that allegation.
Councilman Overholt asked what other allegations were there for a new hearing;
Ms. Mirano answered the basis for the original denial was a recommendation by
the Anaheim Police Department and the reason was based upon the alleged
results of an investigation conducted between December 1983 and March of
1984. It was initiated because the Anaheim Police Department reportedly
received complaints and signed petitions from local businessmen and
residents. She requested to see those petitions but the request was denied by
the Anaheim City Attorney and the Anaheim Police Department. She referred to
a letter in the packet of information submitted. (See letter dated June 20,
1984).
Mr. White stated in reviewing Ms. Mirano's letter and in discussions with
representatives from the Police Department, they were unable and still unable
to know with going through all of the reports that Ms. Mirano was asking to
see, whether or not, and to what extent any of the information Ms. Mirano was
requesting was required to be made available to her under the Public Records
Act. During the phone call to her yesterday it was indicated that she could
request a continuance of today's hearing in order to determine what
information could legally be made available.
Ms. Mirano responded relative to the offer of continuance. None was offered,
nor was rejected or accepted.
Mr. White asked if she would like a continuance; Ms. Mirano answered "no".
Councilman Overholt asked if Ms. Mlrano was offered a continuance yesterday
when she spoke with Deputy City Attorney Mac Slaughter; Mr. White answered
that he would have to find out.
Ms. Mirano then gave her presentation on behalf of Mr. Copeland. In
concluding her extensive presentation, she stated that the intensive Anaheim
Police Department investigation resulted in nothing extraordinary or anything
that could serve as a genuine basis for a recommendation of denial.
She asked why the Anaheim Police Department persisted in its recommendation of
denial and if it was because of the many petitions submitted. The petitions
did not occur randomly. The organization was obvious and appeared to have one
source and they did not know why. For that reason, Mr. Copeland withdrew his
allegation of collusion. However, they did wonder why the Anaheim Police
Department attached such credence to the petitions without further
investigation. Mr. Copeland had suffered a irreparable damage as a result of
679
City Hall.~ Anahei~.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
the denial of his application. The Police Department recommendation made no
adverse remarks as to his (Copeland's) personal character which was one of the
criteria to be considered according to the City ordinance. She was appalled
that Anaheim Municipal Code No. 4.18.040, which set forth the criteria upon
which a recommendation of this type may be granted or denied, placed such
unbridled discretion in the hands of a single public agency with so few
guidelines for exercising that discretion. Such discretion could lead to
abuse. Her client appeared to have been the innocent victim of that abuse.
Councilman Overholt, noting that Deputy City Attorney Mac Slaughter was now
present, stated that the Council had been advised that he (Slaughter)
discussed with Ms. Mirano yesterday and. offered a continuance of the hearing
so that she could examine certain documents he might be willing to produce.
He asked Mr. Slaughter to comment.
Mr. Mac Slaughter reported that he had talked with Ms. Mirano but he did not
believe he offered her a continuance since he did not have the authority to do
so. He made it clear, however, that according to Sgt. Brantley, the Police
Department could not gather the records she was requesting in a timely fashion
so as to enable the Attorney's Office to review those records and render an
opinion as to whether or not they were releasable under the Public Records
Act. He indicated they could not have those available or perform that review
by today's hearing.
Councilman Bay asked Ms. Mirano if the Council was ready to grant a
continuance today to afford time to answer her request to the City Attorney
for certain facts she felt she would like to have for the hearing, did she
wish to press that request.
Ms. Mirano stated she would accept a continuance on the basis that her client
be granted an interim license to have his girls dance. He had restructured
the interior of the premises so as to make the dancers unavailable in any way
to the patrons.
Councilman Bay presumed the answer to his offer of a continuance was "no"; Ms.
Mirano reiterated her statement relative to the condition under which they
would accept a continuance. She further explained that she had requested the
material three weeks ago and she had documentation in her notes of her oral
request and her £~nal letter was written ~n frustration at the obstruction
being placed before her.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those present in support of the application
for an entertainment permit for Hollywood A-Go-Go. The following people spoke
to the issue: Angela Andrus, Registered Nurse and P.h.D. in Psychology, James
Oliver, 328 No. Bristol Street, Santa Aha, Charles Thompson, 3433 Orange
Avenue, Michael Patterson, 1521 Portilla, Santa Aha. (See booklet submitted
by Ms. Mirano containing a declaration of the foregoing speakers which they
read into the record. Declarations were also submitted from Paul Lagsden and
Loren Andrus as well as Marilyn W. Mirauo). Mr. Mike Wagner, Manager of
Hollywood A-Go-Go also spoke emphasizing that he did not allow anything to go
on in the establishment in his presence that was not in accordance with law.
68O
City Hall, Anaheim, Ca~ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES .- June 26, 1984, 10:.00 A.M.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak in opposition to
granting an entertainment permit to Hollywood A-Go-Go. The following people
spoke to the issue, in some cases refuting the testimony previously given, and
also elaborating on the reasons why the permit should not be granted as
outlined:
Diane Lentzner, 504 Knott Avenue, owner, Danleys Hair Event (adjacent to
Hollywood A-Go-Go). About two months after the Hollywood A-Go-Go (HAGG)
opened over a year ago, there were no parking spaces for her clients and the
clientele of the bar (HAGG) changed in comparison to the two previous bars
that were in that same location which caused no problems. Now, a lot of
people were getting drunk very early in the day. The girls from HAGG would
come into her salon with hardly anything on. She lost over 50 percent of her
business because of the girls walking into her salon scantily clad. There
were drunks in the parking lot, use of bad language by bar patrons and some of
those people went into her salon and insulted her clientele. Since the
dancing girls started at the bar, everything had changed. There were fights
all the time. After calling the police for a couple of months, one of the
officers suggested she get a petition to try to stop the entertainment and
that was what she did. Since there had been no dancing, it had helped a lot.
She had complained to Mr. Copeland and Mr. Wagner relative to the noise, then
the music started being too loud too often. She was told the wall would be
reinforced, but there was a false ceiling between her establishment and the
HAGG so the sound was still a problem. It reached a point where they could
not get together any longer. There would have been more people present today
except they were scared of the people running the HAGG.
Annie Lim, 542 So. Knott Avenue, owner of the Sandwich Shop in the subject
center, stated there was no parking for patrons of her business. One of the
patrons of the HAGG and a former customer of her business had said dirty words
to her because she had signed the petition and her husband subsequently called
the police.
Carol Morris, Hairdresser at Danley's, stated her clientele were mostly senior
citizens who had patronized the salon for five years and there was never any
problem until the HAGG opened. The seniors were afraid to walk through the
lot or to park on Knott Avenue. Men were talking to them in the lot and
asking them questions. There was no reason for them to have to leave the shop
because of a bar.
Patty Fennell, Hairdresser at Danley's, stated she lost about 20 percent of
her clientele due to the noise factor and having to lose time with her
customers by having to call HAGG to ask them to turn the music down
repeatedly. Her concerns were relative to the loud noise, parking and
harassment. A customer of the bar had gone into the salon and propositioned
her. As a neighborhood bar, there was no problem until the HAGG opened with
dancing girls. It was no longer a bar per se. It was now 99 percent male
with no female clientele.
Mayor Roth asked Ms. Mirano to make her summation.
Ms. Mirano called upon Mr. Patterson to rebut some of the testimony given in
opposition. In concluding, Ms. Mirano stated they were seeking an
681
City Hall~ Anahe.im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
entertainment permit and the objections she heard voiced by the ladies from
the hairdressing establishment and Mrs. Lim indicated their grievances had
little to do with granting or denying an entertainment permit. She then spoke
to those complaints which she maintained did not bare any relationship to the
subject application. She also cited court cases wherein she subsequently
submitted to the Council that the rights of the dancing girls fell within the
orbit of the First Amendment and protected Freedom of Speech. The City's
ordinance should not impose any greater restriction than that essential to
further governmental interest.
Mayor Roth asked the City Attorney if the Council had the authority to approve
or deny the proposed entertainment permit.
Mr. White answered "yes". His office was quite familiar with the Morris case
as cited by Ms. Mirano and the City's ordinances were rewritten and patterned
after the decision in that case to be certain they were in compliance. He was
confident the Council had the authority, based within the parameters of the
ordinance upon making the factual finding to either approve or deny the
application for dancing girls. Mr. White also noted that this had not been a
hearing but a reconsideration of the request for an entertainment permit.
Councilman Overholt asked Ms. Mirano if she had anything further to add.
Ms. Mirano stated she would like to reflect upon the constitutional aspects of
the particular behavior being passed updn by the Council at this point. The
First Amendment protected that kind of expression and it would be accurate to
say that it was unconstitutional to enable a public official to determine
which expressions of view would be permitted and which would not. She
submitted the criteria by which the selection process was done, i.e. the City
Police Department, appeared to have been conducted in such a way as to be
selective and when comparing HAGG with other establishments of like sort the
kinds of complaints presented differed very little from those who had been
granted entertainment permits.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the application of Robert W. Copeland
dated May 1, 1984 for an entertainment permit for the Hollywood A-Go-Go be
denied on the grounds that the proposed entertainment would be detrimental to
the general public. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated this was the second time
that they had considered the matter and today the hearing was most complete.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Pickler was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4517: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4517 for
First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4517: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
682
Cit~ Hall~, Anahefm~ California -,C.OUNCIL.MI. NUTES - June 26~ 1984~ 1,0:00 A.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:45 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL~ CITY CLERK
683