1984/08/07City Rall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August ?~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
C0UNCILMEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert Franks
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
SGT. VICE DETAIL: James Brantley
GENERAL MANAGER CONVENTION CENTER/STADIUM: Tom Liegler
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend O. L. Underwood, Foursquare Gospel Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY OF RAY CAMPBELL: Mayor Roth on behalf of the
Council and the City extended sincere and heartfelt condolences to the family
of Ray Campbell on his passing. He expressed the deep loss felt on both the
death of Ray and the recent passing of his wife Mickey, Mrs. Campbell having
served her community as a charter and longstanding member of the Community
Services Board along with her involvement in numerous other community
activities.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. Ross Davis upon
his retirement as Director of the Anaheim Community Band for over 17 years.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
"Science Fiction Week" in Anaheim, August 30 - September 3, 1984.
MINUTES: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held May 29, 1984. Councilman Roth abstained since he was not present
at that meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
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
786
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~3,776,624.76, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-301 through 84R-303, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims submitted and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Donald S. Garrett for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to fire caused by downed electrical wire in the back
yard at 1856 Tedmar Avenue, on or about April 1, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Homer and Joyce Lassley for personal property
damages sustained purportedly due to an accident in which power lines were
downed at 503 Westgate Drive, on or about June 17, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Industrial Indemnity, Orange County Food Service,
Insured, for property damages sustained purportedly due to an accident caused
by a malfunctioning traffic signal at the corner of Kraemer Street and La
Ps/ma Avenue, on or about May 11, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by John Cox for personal injury damages sustained
purportedly due to an accident caused obstructions on highway at Houston
Avenue and Devonshire Road, on or about March 25, 1984.
e. Claim submitted by Sharon L. Merchant for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City at Anaheim
Stadium, on or about April 2, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Mary Stein for personal injury damages sustained
purportedly due to an accident caused by a malfunctioning traffic signal at
the intersection of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Via Cortez, on or about
April 11, 1984.
g. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance Company, Robert Waldenberger,
Insured, for property damages sustained purportedly due to an accident caused
by a malfunctioning traffic signal at Kraemer and 0rangethorpe, Placentia, on
or about April 27, 1984.
h. Claim submitted by Gene A. Viano for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Department at the
Anaheim Jail, on or about May 19, 1984.
787
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
i. Claim submitted by David John Roper for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City at the
Stadium, on or about April 11, 1984.
J. Claim submitted by Golden West Baseball Company for breach of contract
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City, on or about March 27, 1984.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of June 27, 1984.
3. Approving the following application in accordance with the recommendation
of the Chief of Police:
a. 108: Public Dance Permit, Gary Allen Nelson, E1 Torito's Who-Song &
Larry's Cantina, 2020 East Ball Road, August 8, 1984, from 8:00 p.m. to
1:00 a.m.
4. 177: Authorizing a Tool Equipment Rental Assistance Program in an amount
not to exceed 510,000, funding up to 5100 for each home improvement, with a
maximum of 5500 per property.
5. 175: Authorizing the cut-off date of December 31, 1984 as last date for
Anaheim electric customers to apply for receipt of Southern California Edison
Company refund monies.
6. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-301: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THAT CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT
BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM 9A -LAREINA STREET AT SHADOW LANE; GREEN-LEAF AVENUE AT
NANCITA STREET; MAGNOLIA AVENUE, 229 FEET SOUT OF GREENLEAF AVENUE:
STONYBROOK DRIVE-DALE AVENUE TO BADEN POWELL SCHOOL; BRONWYN DRIVE-ORANGE
AVENUE TO STONYBROOK DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
24-793-6325-E3830 AND 24-793-6325-E3870. (opening of bids on September 6,
1984, 2:00 p.m.)
7. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-302: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PELANCONI PARK STREAMBED EROSION
IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 16-809-7103-09SEWAND
16-809-7103-09080. (McMaster Construction Company, Inc., contractor)
8. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-303: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
9. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4527: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 BY ADDING
THERETO SUBSECTION 14.32.190.2110 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
PARKING.
10. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4528: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.153 BY ADDING
SUBSECTION 14.32.153.040 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING.
788
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
11. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4529: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32 SECTIONS 14.32.040,
14.32.060 AND 14.32.070 AND ADDING SECTION 14.32.040 TO THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING-LOADING ZONES.
12. 142/175/137: ORDINANCE NO. 4530: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO.
4415 OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-301 through 84R-303 duly passed and
adopted.
123: ARGREEMENT OF SALE WITH SANTA ANITA REALTY ENTERPRISES - ANAHEIM HILLS
GOLF COURSE: Authorizing the second amendment to an agreement of sale with
Santa Anita Realty Enterprises, Inc., (Anaheim Hills Golf Course).
Mayor Roth stated he was in complete accord with the recommendation contained
in memorandum dated July 26, 1984 from the Director of Maintenance and the
General Manager of the Family Foresome. Since Mr. Liegler was present, he
recommended to him that the Golf Course Commission hold an informational
hearing to quiet some of the fears he heard expressed by residents that they
would be losing their views or that a high density development was being
planned.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the second amendment to an
agreement of sale with Santa Anita Realty Enterprises, Inc., (Anaheim Hills
Golf Course) increasing the interest payable on the note from 6 percent to 8
percent upon rezoning of surplus course property or on date of final action by
Council on development, whichever is first to occur, and authorizing staff to
solicit proposals for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report on said
proposed surplus properties. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the balance remaining on the unpaid debt; City
Manager Talley stated he believed the City owed slightly more than one million
dollars but he would get the specific amount and inform the Council.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss potential litigation with action anticipated later in the meeting.
Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Overholt
Seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:18 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (10:58 a.m.)
789
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
153: APPOINTMENTS TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL: Councilman Roth moved to
appoint Mel Miller and Fred Bercher to the Private Industry Council, for the
terms ending August 1, 1985 and August 1, 1986, respectively as recommended in
memorandum dated July 31, 1984 from the H,,,~u Resources Director. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
At the suggestion of Councilman Pickler, the Mayor directed staff to prepare a
letter to be sent to Mr. Miller commending him for his outstanding service to
the community as Past Chairman of the Private Industry Council and noting that
the Council was looking forward to his continued activity on that Council.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue appointment of a member to the
Private Industry Council for the term ending August 1, 1987 for one week.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO THE POWER COST
ADJUSTMENT BILLING FACTORS (PCABF): Authorizing delaying the planned increase
in the Power Cost Adjustment Billing Factors due to be effective August 1,
1984, until after the Public Utilities Board (PUB) first meeting in October
1984.
Mayor Roth stated after reading the minutes of the PUB meeting as well as
other documentation provided, he was more surprised than ever concerning the
issue. The PCABF was now up to 59 million when it was originally thought that
it should not be more than 53 million. He wanted to know why.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt explained that he and the PUB had
a difference of opinion, that difference being how conservatively his
Department should be looking at the Power Cost Adjustment Billing Factor. If
Utilities did nothing right now to that Factor, the Department would probably
be in a negative position by February of 1985. If the Council approved his
recommended action, at the end of January, the balancing account would be
within its range or about $1,738,000. If no action was taken and there were
quick tura-arounds in fuel cost, Utilities could be driven into a negative
position. The overall cash position could fall into an undesirably low
position and action would then have to be taken to increase the PCABF which
would bring rates up substantially over Southern California Edison (SCE). The
action he proposed, plus the rate increase proposed to the PUB which was to be
heard by the Board on August 30, 1984, would bring rates overall about 8%
above gCE and rate would be above that for the rest of the calendar year. If
they did nothing, rates in the short term would be more favorable, but in
order to recover the position, rates would increase substantially over
Edison's. That was the difference in view between the Department and the
Board. (also see the following documentation giving the background in
detailed explanation on the issue - memorandum dated August 31, 1984 from the
PUB, subject: Power Cost Adjustment Billing Factor: Minutes (unapproved) of
the PUB meeting of July 19, 1984; memorandum dated July 31, 1984 from the
Public Utilities General Manager, subject: Electric rates; memorandum dated
July 19, 1984 (revised July 31, 1984) from the Public Utilities General
Manager, subject: (1) status of the Power Cost Balancing Account as of
June 30, 1984, (2) increase of Power Cost Adjustment Billing Factors effective
August 8, 1984).
790
City Hall} Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated he wanted the City's rates to be below Edison's and he
wanted to do exactly what Mr. Hoyt suggested, but he felt it was premature.
Councilman Bay stated what he did not like in the recommendation from the PUB
was that nothing be done until their first meeting in October. That would
limit action the Council might wish to take sooner, but he also could not go
along with the staff recommendation to increase the PCABF in August. If he
were going to make a recommendation, it would be that the Council delay the
planned increase in the PCABF due to be effective August 1, 1984 and review it
on a monthly basis. If there was a trend one way or the other away from the
projections the Council could take appropriate action any Tuesday.
Mr. Hoyt stated he did not have any problem with that at all.
Councilman Overholt asked, as far as the rate increase in order to avoid a
dramatic increase, was Mr. Hoyt's recommendation still the same; Mr. Hoyt
answered "yes', but he could live with either of the situations.
Councilwoman Kaywood, in reading Mr. Hoyt's thorough report, stated that
prudent business practices meant that he was more conservative in his
practices. She felt if there was a choice of a 4~ increase now or a 9~
increase in October, she favored Mr. Hoyt's recommendation. If it was found
that it was going the other way, it could be adjusted; Mr. Hoyt stated that
was true, but it could also be none now or none later. He felt a 4~ increase
now would carry the Utilities through the current fiscal year, but that could
be wrong.
Councilman Overholt asked for confirmation if it was still Mr. Hoyt's
recommendation and the recommendation of his staff that the 4% go forward now
to avoid the possibility of a dramatic increase at the end of the year; Mr.
Hoyt answered "yes".
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the recommendation of the Public
btilities General Manager as stated in memorandum dated July 31, 1984, "no
action is required by the City Council if the Council concurs with the Public
Utilities Department's planned increase in the Power Cost Adjustment Billing
Factors which will increase retail electric rates by about 4% overall
effective August 8, 1984.# Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked for clarification relative to
recommended projections. He heard they might be in a negative position by
February of 1985 if Utilities did nothing, or at the end of January they may
have $1.7 million if they did nothing.
Mr. Hoyt confirmed that the $1.7 million figure was if they took the action as
recommended, i.e., if the PCABF was increased tomorrow as recommended by him.
In January, using the current information as to what fuel adjustments would be
from Edison, he was projecting the balancing account would stand at
$1.7 million at the end of January and in April it would be down to
approximately $200,000.
791
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Bay and Roth
voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CONTRACT TO PROVIDE LEGAL ADVERTISING - ANAHEIM BULLETIN: Councilman
Roth moved to authorize a contract with the Anaheim Bulletin to provide legal
advertising at a rate of $5.00 per column inch for first publication of a
notice and $4.00 per cold,mn inch for each subsequent notice, commencing
August 1, 1984 and ending July 31, 1985 as recommended in memorandum dated
July 30, 1984 from the City Clerk Leonora Sohl. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMITS - ANAHEIM RECREATION CENTER:
Applications for Public Dance Permits submitted by Larry Milo Bingham, for
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to hold public dances at the
Anaheim Recreation Center, 1041 North Shepard, on August 11 and 18, and
September 8 and 15, 1984, from 8:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. were considered.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to deny the subject applications in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if the applicant was present.
Mr. Dyke Huish, 33208 Paseo Cerveza, San Juan Capistrano, asked the reasons
for the denial and what they needed to do to get the dances approved by the
City because he felt they were beneficial for the church, the people and for
their business. He clarified that he did not have a copy of the applications
which contained comments by the Police Department as well as conceding that
they had, in fact, held dances without permits previously. (A copy of the
applications were supplied to Mr. Huish giving the recommendations of the
Chief of Police on Page 2). Mr. Huish continued that relative to parking, for
the past two months they had been counting the stalls so as to present the
Council with the exact numbers. They also had a lot about one acre in size
next to the proposed site for the dance and it was being prepared to be used
as a parking lot. Pending the subject matter, they would go forward and put
in the parking necessary.
Councilman Bay noted the report from the Police Department stated dances were
previously held with0ut a permit. He asked Mr. Huish if he was aware of the
need for a permit; Mr. Hulsh answered, "no'.
Mayor Roth asked a representative from the Police Department if from the
testimony he heard there would be any changes to the recommendation previously
made to the Council by the Police Department.
Sergeant Jim Brantley answered that the primary concern was the documentation
from Code Enforcement which he (Brantley) had not seen and he had asked that
Code Enforcement be present today regarding complaints from businessmen in the
area, i.e. the amounts of vehicles at the dances. He did not feel that the
Police Department at this time heard any testimony that would reverse the
recommendation to deny.
The Mayor recommended that action be continued for one week.
792
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of the subject
applications for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the request of the
applicant was to hold a dance on August llth as well as on other dates; Mayor
Roth stated that no dance could be held on August llth because of the
continuance, the purpose of which was to give Mr. Huish an opportunity to meet
with City staff including the Police Department and Code Enforcement to see
what might be worked out.
Before concluding, Mr. Huish also clarified that he was the Assistant Director
of Operations for Huish Recreation Centers and that Mr. Bingham also worked
for Huish Family Fun Centers but at this time was representing the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Huish was simply providing the area and
were involved financially since they were paid for the use of the facilities
but there was no employee involvement.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
118: REJECTING CLAIMS FILED AGAINST THE CITY - GOLDEN WEST BASEBALL COMPANY:
Rejecting a claim filed against the City by Golden West Baseball Co. -
continued from the meeting of July 31, 1984. (see minutes that date)
Mr. Donald Daucher representing the Golden West Baseball Company, partner in
the Law Firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker asked that the Council
delay a vote to deny the subject claim for one to two weeks. He also
clarified that contrary to what was reported in the Anaheim Bulletin, the
Golden West Baseball Company had not sued the City for 35 million and the last
thing the City and Golden West needed between them at this time was an
additional lawsuit. He believed there was a way to resolve each of the eleven
items referenced in the March 27, 1984 letter sent by Mr. Turner to Golden
West Baseball Company. Six of the eleven items as follows could be resolved
by reference to two things, the standards set forth in the lease between the
City and Golden West Baseball Company and what other major league Baseball
teams did in their stadium relative to the six items: a police officer in the
dugouts; clubhouse security; security at player's entrance and parking area;
special gate control for the press; the standby ambulance, and food service
area personnel. Two other items, advance ticket sale windows and box office
security, could be resolved by sitting down and examining them carefully since
neither was the responsibility of the parties paying for them at the present
time. The ninth item, electrical hook-up for T.V. crews was possible. The
tenth item, extra staff for promotional events was "eliminattble" because
Golden West was already paying for the major items among those under extra
staffing for promotions. The eleventh item, extra outfield gate openings for
crowds below 43,500, two reasonable people sitting down could make a
determination regarding some objective standards for when those gates would or
would not have to be opened and the matter could be resolved simply.
In concluding, Mr. Daucher stated there may be some feeling that what the
parties to the major dispute involving the surface parking ought to do in
connection with that dispute was to build a bunch of 'chips" that could be
traded at the time the whole case was resolved. He was relatively new to the
793
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 7~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
case and did not want to pursue the litigation in that fashion. He was
present to tell the Council that they were offering not to pursue the
litigation in that way, i.e. the building of "chips" on both sides of the
table that would be exchanged at the time the major case was resolved.
Mayor Roth clarified that the action the Council was considering today would
do nothing more than reject the Golden West claim against the City which was
on administrative action. Such claims were rejected as a matter of course on
almost every Tuesday. Doing so would not prevent continued negotiations with
the City. It would open a legal door for Golden West to file a lawsuit
against the City in the next six months. The Council wanted Mr. Daucher to
sit down and negotiate with the City M-nager and staff.
Mr. Franks confirmed what the Mayor explained was correct, that the claim and
its rejection was merely a procedural step before a lawsuit may be filed
against the City. After notice by the City there would be six months in which
to file a lawsuit but that would not affect any discussions.
Mayor Roth expressed the hope that both parties would eventually be in a
position where those items could be discussed. The Angels were the City's
number one tenant and were appreciated and the City wanted to sit down and
negotiate.
Mr. Daucher stated there was a difference of opinion between City Manager
Talley and himself which grew out of or did not grow out of the bigger
lawsuit. If one believed that they did grow out of the "chip" theory, then
the overall strategy of both sides had to be geared to that.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from the City Manager.
City Manager Talley stated that each week at Mr. Daucher's behest, this
subject is placed in the public arena. On March 27, 1984 a City
representative told the Angels the City proposed to discontinue services it
did not feel obligated to provide by the lease between the City and the Angels
unless the Angels were willing to pay for them. After over a month of hearing
nothing, he (Talley) contacted the negotiator for the Angels. The City
observed the amenities of dealing with the Angel's negotiator whereas the
Angels did not deal with the City's negotiator in turn. The City did deal
with that person in early May and asked if they wished to maintain those
services. No request was made by the Angels at that time to sit down and
discuss the matter and now, three months later, Mr. Daucher was saying he
wanted to talk about the matter. He (Talley) would sit down tomorrow. There
was no doubt the services were being rendered, the only question, and the
primary issue, was who was to pay for the services. The City's attorneys said
it was not the City's obligation or the taxpayers' to render those services
without receiving compensation. Mr. Talley then addressed some of the items
of contention and in concluding stated that the only thing he would constantly
take exception to was that the City was using protecting the taxpayers'
dollars as bargaining "chips" in litigation. The City was not doing so. The
City's attorneys were saying the costs were ones which the City was not
obligated to incur without receiving reimbursement. Therefore, if there was a
way to sit down and provide those services without a subsidy from the
taxpayers or where
794
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
a compromise could be reached, the City would do it. The Council had
appointed the City Manager and retained private Counsel and the City
Attorney's Office to deal with the issues which were not the subject of a
weekly television debate. If the City did not act on the matter today, it was
going to be prejudiced. He reiterated the issue was to determine who was
going to pay for the services and that had always been the issue. Should the
City render services it was not legally obligated to render, without
recovering costs from the person receiving the benefits of the services, or
should the City continue to subsidize Angel Operations, not whether the City
could build "chips".
Councilman Overholt stated he requested the one week continuance last week
because he had not seen the claim. He had asked the City Attorney at that
time if the citizens of Anaheim would be prejudiced in any way if the matter
was delayed for one week. He asked Mr. Franks to repeat his answer.
Assistant City Attorney Franks stated the legal position of the City would not
be prejudiced other than instead of six months to file a lawsuit, Golden West
would have six months and seven days.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to reject the claim filed against the City by
Golden West Baseball Company for breach of contract sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about March 27, 1984. Councilman 0verholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
173: CHARTER LIMOUSINE~ INC. - ONE-YEAR REVIEW: Councilman Roth moved to
approve the permit for Charter Limousine Service submitted by Ronald L. Cordi
as recommended in memorandum dated August 2, 1984 from the Chief of Police.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP--TRACT NO. 12156: Developer, Warmington Homes; tract is
located on the west side of Willowbrook Lane, north of Chapman Avenue and
contains a 6-lot, 95-unit RM-3000 zoned condominium subdivision.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final
Hap Tract No. 12156, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated July 27, 1984. MOTION CARRIED.
142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4524: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING SECTON 1.01.391 TO TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.01 OF THE ANAKEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. (Permits Fire Department field
inspectors to issue citations on vehicles parked in fire lanes).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4524 duly passed and adopted.
795
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4525 PERTAINING TO FAST-FOODAND DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS IN
THE CR ZONE: Amending Subsection .200 of Section 18.48.050 of Chapter 18.48
of Title 18 of the Code pertaining to fast-food and drive-through restaurants
in the CR zone.
City Clerk Sohl announced that Mr. J. Randolph Huston Attorney, Walker Wright,
Tyler and Ward, 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles wished to speak.
Mr. Huston representing Gordon Grey an Anaheim businessman, who operated two
McDonald's Restaurants in the City for over 20 years, stated he was
recommending adoption of the subject ordinance. The ordinance change would be
one additional use to the nineteen which were presently permitted subject to a
conditional use permit in the City's recreational-commercial zone. After
months of work between Mr. Grey's representatives and representatives of
McDonald's and City staff, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a
conditional use permit for a McDonald's restaurant to be located at 1500 So.
Harbor Boulevard subject to the passage of the ordinance. The Commission
imposed no less than 20 conditions upon the proposed use. He believed by
adding the additional form of use to those uses which may be permitted only
after the scrutiny, review and work between the applicants and the City staff
members required of a CUP, that this was the type of use appropriate to that
scrutinizing review. A drive-thru use was presently allowed subject to a
conditional use permit in the two other forms of commercial zones in the
City. It was only when the 19 uses were listed in the CR Zone a drive-thru
was not listed. There was an extensive list of limitations upon the project
that would be imposed if the ordinance was passed. He briefed several of
those limitations. The passage would not open a Pandora's box in his
opinion. Rent costs were extremely high and only certain applicants could
come fgrward. He urged passage of the ordinance.
Councilman Bay questioned the Planning Commission's action approving a CUP not
permitted under the ordinance prior to the amendment of the ordinance. He
wanted to know what basis they used to do so.
Miss Santalahti explained since there was a proposed Code Section No., the CUP
had a condition requiring that the Code Amendment be completed prior to
issuance of Building Permits. If Council were to deny the Code Amendment,
that CUP would have no force and effect.
Councilman Bay stated the reason he was questioning the procedure, while an
ordinance amendment was pending and a decision had not been made by the
Council, he did not appreciate the pressure created by an approval by the
Planning Comm~ssion of a CUP based on the need to amend the ordinance.
Miss Santalahti explained that the applicant was aware of the potential risk
involved.
Councilman Pickler agreed with Councilman Bay that changing the Code should be
first, with the CUP to be acted on after that.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that she concurred with her colleagues. If a
public hearing was held at the Planning Commission level, it was misleading
796
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
and confusing with members of the public present either pro or con, and if a
project was approved, they went away assuming it was approved. To
subsequently find out that the Code did not allow the use in the first place
would make the City look foolish in her opinion.
Councilman Overholt commented that it was the applicant's prerogative to take
the risk and the procedure did not bother him very much; Councilman Pickler
stated he wanted a staff report and opinion if the proposal was something they
would like to see happen in the subject area.
The Mayor asked to hear from the Traffic Engineer; Traffic Engineer Paul
Singer stated he did not really know why the subject use was not permitted in
the CR area but he surmised that it was due to the fact that drive-up type
restaurants created a great deal of traffic flow. The traffic flow in itself
was not "bad" or detrimental to any area provided it was adequately
mitigated. In this case, he did not believe, with proper mitigation measures,
the use would be detrimental. They had several meetings over the months with
McDonald's people regarding how the traffic problems could be mitigated and
had come to very satisfactory solutions to the problems, but traffic would
increase.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned with adding drive-thru restaurants in that
area even with right turns only, since at present people trying to get out of
their motels could wait a very long time. If the City was to allow a
drive-thru, she could foresee proliferating a problem in an area the City was
trying to help and not hinder. She could not vote for the change at all.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the final vote on the Code amendment
for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he moved for continuance
because he might find himself voting emotionally on the matter today and also
because he would like a great deal more information on the subject.
Before concluding, Mr. Huston spoke to some of the concerns expressed. A vote
was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
142/112: ORDINANCE NO. 4526: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4526 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4526: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0FANAHEIM
REPEALING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.01, SECTION 1.01.380 AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS
1.01.380 AND 1.01.385 TO CHAPTER 1.01 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO PRISONERS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CITY COST IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL
ACTION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
797
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4526 duly passed and adopted.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss current and potential litigation with no action anticipated; the City
Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss pending and potential
litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:58 p.m.)
129: PUBLIC HEARING - 1983-84 W'EEDABATEMENT ROLL: Public hearing was held
to receive a report from the Fire Chief on the cost of abatement of weeds for
each individual lot where work was performed under the 1983-84 Weed Abatement
Program and to hear any objections from property owners liable to be assessed
for the abatement. Submitted was a report dated July 9, 1984 from Fire
Marshal Garth Menges attached to which was the July 9, 1984 report from Fire
Chief Bob Simpson listing the total charges for weed abatement.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the weed abatement charges
assessed under the 1983-84 weed abatement program and if there were objections
to the proposed assessment; there was no response.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the City Council determine a public
hearing was held on the 1983-84 weed abatement roll and no objections were
received from property owners liable to be assessed for the abatement.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution 84R-304 confirming the report of the Fire
Chief and authorizing the County Auditor to enter each assessment on the
County tax rolls. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-304: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AN~HEIM CONFIRMING THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FLRE CHIEF REGAP~DING THE COST OF
WEED ABATEMENT, AND DIRECTING THE FILING THEREOF WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-304 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-31 (READVERTISED) AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by MarJorie S. and Alan R. Talt,
for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and RS-5000 to CO to construct a 2-story
commercial-office building on property located at 2500 East Ball Road.
798
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ .1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-119, 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
Reclassification No. 83-84-31, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner of subject property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate
to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of
the street along Sunkist Street and a strip of land 53 feet in width from the
centerline of the street along Ball Road for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Ball
Road and Sunkist Street, including preparation of improvement plans and
installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street
grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work
shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; and that security
in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in
an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with
the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said
security shall be posted with the City prior to approval of improvement plans,
to guarantee the installation of the above-required improvements prior to
occupancy.
3. That all driveways shall be designed to accommodate ten (10) foot
radius curb returns as required by the City Traffic Engineer.
4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall
be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the
Chief of the Fire Department.
7. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
8. 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 commercial buildings.
9. 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.
10. That street lighting facilities along Ball Road and Sunkist Street
shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance
with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and
799
City Hall} Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 7~ 1984} 10:00 A.M.
that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit,
or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the
above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim prior to approval of building permits.The above-required improvements
shall be installed prior to occupancy.
11. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee for tree planting purposes along Sunkist Street and Ball Road in an amount
as determined by the City Council.
12. 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; provided, however, that there shall be no medical or dental
offices nor any health spas or bingo activities.
13. That a 6-foot high block wall shall be maintained adjacent to the
single-family residences along the southerly and easterly property lines.
14. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject
property, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 10 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be
completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become
null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are
complied with within one year from the date of this resolution, or such
further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
15. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Condition Nos. 8 and 9,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to
complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090
of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3,
5, 7 and 12 above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of July 10, 1984 and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Mark Cernich, 629 No. Main Street, Orange, was present to answer questions.
Councilman Pickler stated there were two items of concern to him. Permitted
uses for the property included Health Spas and Bingo establishments and he
wanted those two uses excluded; Mr. Cernich was agreeable.
Assistant City Attorney Franks confirmed for the Mayor that it would be a
Proper stipulation to request of the applicant; Mr. Cernich so stipulated that
he was agreeable to excluding Health Spas and Bingo establishments.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that medical and dental offices were also permitted
uses and there was always a great deal of parking necessary for those uses.
She asked Mr. Cernich if he would stipulate to excluding those uses as well.
800
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 7~ 1984; 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Cernich answered he was not agreeable to stipulating to no medical or
dental offices. There might be a need in the neighborhood and that was a
normal office use.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that heavy parking requirements were involved;
Mr. Cernich pointed out that the Planning Department would make certain that
such an operation would not be permitted or if it was, they would have to
reduce the size of the building in order to have adequate parking.
There being no further persons who wished to speak the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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 she was going to speak against approval unless a
stipulation was made not to have any medical or dental usage on the property.
The property was zoned for housing and being reclassified to allow
commercial. If it was going to create a problem with neighborhood parking,
she did not want to see that occur.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-305 for adoption, granting
Reclassification No. 83-84-31 subject to Planning Commission conditions and
also that there be no Health Spas or Bingo establishments as stipulated by the
applicant. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-305: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-305 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2562 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Equitec 80 Real Estate Investors, to
permit retail sales of computers and office furniture on ML zoned property
located at 1971 South State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
801
Clty Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-122, 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. 2562, subject to the following conditions:
1. That a traffic signal assessment fee equaling the difference between
the industrial and commercial assessment fees shall be paid to the City of
Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council.
2. 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.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City ofAnaheimmarked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
4. That Condition No. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed within
a period of 60 days from the date of this resolution.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Rick Ray, 6700 Victoria, was present to answer questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she noted Code Enforcement discovered the
situation and the applicant did not have a permit for retail sales in that
location. She wanted to maintain the integrity of the zoning in the
industrial area where retail sales were not allowed. She asked the present
status of the matter and also if the applicant was using flags, banners and
signs.
Mr. Ray answered that his company did not use flags and banners. Sales were
geared toward businesses and most solicitation was done over the phone and by
personal contact. He also clarified that the business used two parking spaces
at any one time since most of the sales were on an appointment basis. He also
stated in answer to additional Council questions that the Business was not
oriented to retail sales to the general public, that they did some advertising
on their computer supplies in the Los Angeles Times business section.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response he closed the public hearing.
Miss Santalahti then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that there had been no
problems or complaints relative to the business. The ML Zone did not permit
special events permits and flags and banners. Relative to signing, as long as
the business complied with regular ML signing, they could have 20% signage on
a wall. As evidenced by the posted exhibit, only a very small unit was
involved.
802
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACTREPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: 0n 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.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-306 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2562 subject to City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-306: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2562.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-306 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HFARXNG - VARIANCE NO. 3406 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application submitted by Stephen C. and Barbara A. Walker, to construct an
addition to a single-family residence located on RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned
property located at 855 Swallow Way, with the following Code waivers: (a)
minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum garage setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-111, 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 Variance
No. 3406, subject to the following conditions:
1. That a roll-up garage door shall be installed and maintained on the
portion of the garage containing the northernmost enclosed parking space which
is located less than twenty-five (25) feet from the cul-de-sac, as required by
the City Traffic Engineer.
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 final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1
and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Mayor Roth stated he requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
particularly because of a letter signed by the Senior Vice-President of the
Anaheim Hills Planned Community Association (Master Association) Tallis
8O3
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Margrave. (See letter dated June 7, 1984 addressed to Mr. Dean Scherer
Planning Department from Mr. Margrave - made a part of the record). He was
going to yield to Mr. Margrave to explain the position of the Homeowner's
Association and would then have Dr. Walker, the applicant, present his case.
Mr. Tallis Margrave, 6503 Serrano Avenue, stated he asked the Mayor to have
the item reviewed because he felt it was necessary to protect Dr. Walker's
interest. Their Master Association discussed the problem with the Feather
Hill Association. He wanted to make it clear to Dr. Walker that the City's
approval of the Variance was not his final approval since he still had to
obtain approval from the Master and Sub-Association. In another case
involving Dr. Lester, the Homeowner's Association filed a one quarter million
dollar lawsuit against him. His tennis court had been removed, the block
walls were going to be removed, but the swimming pool might be allowed to
stay. He noted it required City approval to change CC&Rs and he felt the City
was right in the middle. He (Margrave) was present to ask the Council to
propose an ordinance to require that the association grant approval prior to
issuing Building Permits within the eastern quarter or within the eastern
quarter south of Santa Aha Canyon Road so that geographically similar cases
would not be cropping up.
Mayor Roth asked if it was the responsibility of the City to enforce CC&Rs or
a civil matter.
Mr. Robert Franks, Assistant City Attorney, answered that it was a civil
matter between the Homeowner's Association and its members. Mr. Margrave
stated that the City Attorney had rendered an opinion that the two were
separate issues and that was true. The CC&Rs did not restrict or require the
City to grant or deny the relief requested but on the other hand, if relief
was granted by the City it was still a matter that had to be resolved between
the Homeowner's Association and its member.
Mr. Margrave wanted the situation to revert to the former procedure where
someone could not pull a Building Permit until Homeowner Association approval
was given.
Mayor Roth asked if Dr. Walker was present.
Dr. Steve Walker, 855 Swallow Way, stated he had submitted his plans to the
City in trying to add a bedroom onto his home for his growing family. He had
gone through all the steps necessary and had talked to the Sub-Association.
After a long discussion with that Association, the Associatlonwrote a letter
to him stating they had to deny his plans because the improvements did not fit
within the City of Anaheim Code restrictions. He then asked for a variance
and that was the only thing at issue. He was well aware that he had to go
through the Anaheim Hill approval process. His legal Counsel did not feel he
had a CC&R problem and he was well within his rights through the CC&Rs to add
on to his property. Frankly, he did not understand the problem and was asking
the City Council to approve the variance which he could then send back and ask
the Association what the problem was with the CC&Rs.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak.
8O4
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Joseph DiJulio stated that he lived next door to the subject property and
the reason he objected, he was the only one that was going to be affected.
The wall would be about 32 feet away from his living-room and it would block
his view.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he had a parking shortage there at the present
time; Mr. DiJulio stated if Dr. Walker built the proposed improvement his
(Walker's) car was going to be even with the sidewalk. Right now, parking was
sufficient.
Mayor Roth stated this was a cul-de-sac with large sidewalks and there was
sufficient parking there at the present time.
Warren Bloom, 740 No. Thrasher Way, a Member of the Architectural Committee of
the Sub-Assocation, stated the Committee denied the improvement because it was
in opposition to the City ordinance, the details they received were not in the
proper procedure to support the CC&Rs. The improvement would obstruct the
view of the neighbor adjacent to the applicant. For those reasons the
Committee denied the request.
Joel Goldberg, 875 Swallow Way, stated he lived two doors away from Dr. Walker
and he was in support of the request for variance for the addition. The way
Dr. Walker's home was set back, it was set back well over 35 feet. It was a
iow profile addition that was not in the view of the street.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, 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.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-307 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3406, subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-307: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3406.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he was offering the resolution of
approval upon advice of the City Attorney that the matter was a civil one and,
further, in his opinion, there was sufficient room to allow the addition.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
805
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-307 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-44 (REVISION 2)
(READVERTISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Texaco,
Anaheim Hills, Inc., for an amendment (No. 2) to Resolution No. 72R-208 to
amend the Zoning Element of the Planned Community relative to 5.4 acres
(Portion B) located on the southeast side of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon
Road to construct a 9-lot, 7-unit, RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned subdivision.
The City Planning Comm~ssion at their meeting of June 25, 1984 recommended
that City Council Resolution No. 72R-208 be amended to amend the zoning
designation for a 5.4 acre site designated as Portion B near the intersection
of Serrano Road and Hidden Canyon Road to construct a 9-lot 7-unit,
RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned subdivision.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. George Kerns, Salkin Engineering, 1215 East Chapman, agent for the
applicant, was present and stated he was in accord with the Planning
Comm~ssion recommendation.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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 Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-308 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 71-72-44, Revision 2, amending the zoning element of the
planned community as requested. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-308: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING ELEMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY FOR ANAHEIM HILLS
AS HERETOFOREAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-208.
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-308 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2579 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Anaheim Doctors Investment Co., to
permit a 49-bed psychiatric hospital for adolescent chemical dependencies on
8O6
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
CL zoned property located at 1660 and 1664 West Broadway, with Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-121, 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. 2579, subject to the following conditions:
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Pat Gover and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Mayor Roth first explained the procedure to be followed at the public hearing
and then asked to hear from the appellant.
Pat Gover stated the appeal was filed as a result of contributions not just
from the Broadway Pre-school, but also homeowners, parents and others. The
issue was not whether Dr. Lewis was providing a quality program or questioning
his qualifications. The issue was simply location. They did not feel it was
appropriate to locate the proposed program in an area consisting of a great
number of small children and active elders. They were told those to be
treated at the hospital were average kids from middle-class homes but she
maintained that once they became chemically dependant, they were no longer
normal or average. She did not believe their problem should be
over-simplified. They were unstable, unpredictable, dysfunctional, their
problem was acute, and could not be treated on an outpatient basis, but they
must be confined to acute care facility and receive treatment.
Ms. Gover then briefed the main concerns if the facility were allowed into the
community - if one of the patients decided to leave the facility, it could not
be said they would not cause harm, physical or emotional. The fact that AWOLs
did occur showed that security, no matter how good, could be breached. Just
one incident could do irreparable harm. It was the unpredictability and
uncertainness she was having trouble dealing with. The close proximity of the
Day-care Center to the hospital, both buildings A and B made it vulnerable.
There was a Day-care crisis every bit as serious as drug problems. Parents
relied on the pre-school but were uncomfortable with the thought that their
children would be a few feet away from the proposed hospital. She had talked
with hospital representatives, including Dr. Lewis, on several occasions,
learned about the program and saw slides, however, her concern and uneasiness
remained. She reiterated that she did not feel that locating 49
dysfunctional, chemically dependent adolescents in such close proximity to 80
school children was a responsible thing to do. She thereupon submitted
photographs of the facility showing its close proximity to the pre-school and
Casa Bonita Home for the elderly.
The following people then spoke in opposition and listed are their main points
of contention and reason for opposition to the subject hospital:
807
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. David Thompson, 616 So. Arden, referred to and quoted statements from the
the Planning Commission of June 25, 1984, where extensive testimony was given
(see minutes that date - specifically Pages 383, 387, 388 and 391 to which Mr.
Thompson referred). Dr. Lewis was proposing to bring into the community a
highly lucrative business and thus they were looking at a business vs. a
neighborhood. Five hundred signatures in opposition were collected and
presented to the Planning Commission which he felt were disregarded. He also
submitted additional petitions to add to the previous petitions filed (made a
part of the record). They did not want Dr. Lewis's program in that
neighborhood.
Mrs. Vera Markowitz, speaking on behalf of Casa Bonita, 152 West Broadway,
stated their home for the elderly was directly beside and in front of the
proposed Juvenile Drug and Alcoholic Rehabilitation Hospital.
The residents of the home were all fragile senior citizens who sold their
homes in the hopes of finding a safe, secure place to live. Their lives were
quiet and consisted of daily walks in the neighborhood as mandated by their
physicians for physical therapy. The home had a great deal of medication on
hand and there was a fear that the Juveniles, drug and alcohol dependent,
would have access to the old age home. The 64 residents had already expressed
a great fear. The lack of security and standardized visiting hours were a
constant source of danger.
Melanie Roth, 1593 Renee, first relayed her experience as a Licensed
Psychiatric Technician and then pointed to the fact that there were five major
adolescent drug treatment programs within a 20-mile radius at present. All
were on major thoroughfares and not on the same lot as'a pre-school or an
active elder home. It had been stated the kids were normal, however, they did
have a' substance abuse problem resulting in certain abnormal behavior which
she explained. Further, at Metropolitan State Hospital where there were
licensed State police, there were AWOLs which had to be reported to the
Sheriff. When those patients got out, at the same time, drug got in and that
was her main concern. She then submitted a letter dated August 6, 1984 from
Gayla Porcelli (made a part of the record) which expressed her (Roth's)
concerns as well.
Doctor Joseph Fernandez (Internist) stated he was against the location but not
the program. The elderly were an encouraging target for those in need of
money. There were several doctor's offices on the premises including his and
tWO medical buildings across the street each with narcotics in their office
which was also an encouragement. He considered the location to be the "worst"
place for such a hospital considering the close proximity of children, the
elderly and doctors' offices.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition at this time,
the Mayor asked to hear from the applicant.
Mr. Bob Michelson, speaking on behalf of Dr. Lewis, explained that Life Plus
(Health West Foundation) was a non-profit foundation currently operating six
hospitals in southern California. They would manage and operate Anaheim
Doctors Hospital with a treatment program for young people age 11 to 17 years
8O8
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
of age. The program was designed by, and would be directed by Dr. David
Lewis. The proposal was to put a hospital use in an existing hospital
building and except for a technicality, the use might have gone in
unannounced. Initially they went door-to-door with very little response and
concern expressed. They also invited the neighbors to an open house with very
little turnout. They contacted at least twice, the businesses adjacent to
them, most particularly the convalescent hospital, pre-school and church. The
opposition came at the Planning Commission hearing and they were surprised by
it. After approval by the Planning Commission, they again made a door-to-door
campaign and had another open house and only four families attended.
Mr. Michelson then expanded upon the physical plant and its relationship to
the neighborhood as well as the program and how it would relate to the
neighborhood. He did so by amplifying his presentation with slides showing
not only the existing site, but also two other such facilities, most
specifically the Coldwater Canyon Facility in North Hollywood and a similar
facility in Pasadena. The Coldwater site was similar to the subject site with
a church, school, playground and homes in close proximity. As part of his
presentation later in the meeting, Mr. Michelson referred to the packet of
letters in support previously submitted and then highlighted some of the
information contained therein. He then turned the presentation over to Dr.
Lewis.
Doctor David Lewis, 6421 Coldwater Canyon, North Hollywood stated some of the
feelings of the neighbors was a result of not understanding the teenagers in
the program. They were adolescents having serious problems coping and in
daily living who had difficulty in school, were at odds with their parents,
ran around with a bad crowd of kids, their major substances of abuse being
wine, beer and marijuana. They were not hard-core addicts, bikers, thugs or
hoods. They were teenagers at a place in life where they were having
difficulty with substance abuse requiring inpatient treatment. He then
continued with the slide presentation which was representative of a walk-thru
through of the facility to show the physical surroundings, staff and some of
the patients which included a slide showing the schedule of activities for
each teenager and the 24-hour supervision provided. Most of the safety
measures were not to protect the neighbors from the hospital, but to protect
the youngsters. The same thing was being proposed for Anaheim, a highly
supervised program, by trained staff. He also clarified that relative to
staff who were highly trained and profe~ional, ~ome were people who were
recovering but they had to be "sober" and had to be sober for a number of
years. They did not hire anyone actively using any substance.
Dr. Lewis then answered questions posed by the Council. He clarified that
they provided 11 to 12 hours of nursing care per patient per day. The
teachers at the Coldwater facility were employees of the Los Angeles Unified
School District, that he had not had the opportunity to make similar
arrangements with the Anaheim School district for the subject facility, that
he had contacted the Principal of Loafs School who was supportive the first
and second time he spoke with him. The Principal stated he had received calls
from the neighborhood and told those people that he talked with his
superintendent and his superintendent said that everything was ok.
8O9
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Brent Lamb, 20500 Nordhoff, Chatsworth, Executive Vice-President for
Health West Foundation (Life Plus) stated they operated eight hospitals and
six were in southern California. The Foundation had worked with Dr. Lewis for
a number of years and were pleased with the relationship and excellence of his
(Lewis's) program. The Foundation had agreed to provide management services
if approved and included it as part of the non-profit system. In answer to
Councilman Overholt, he reported that the Foundation was not going to own the
hospital, but provide management services, Dr. Lewis was not part of the
organization but a medical director for a program at two of their facilities,
the Foundation would fully operate the facility, and all of the employees
would be their employees but with a separately operated medical staff.
The following people then spoke in favor of the proposed hospital and included
are their main points of support:
Mrs. Joanne Stanton, 1507 Harle, stated she was present not as a member of the
Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees at this time but as a
parent and citizen and one concerned about young people. She had seen the
growing trend with younger and younger children becoming involved with
marijuana, beer and wine. She also saw more students being expelled from
school and her coucernwas, where were they going to get help. She visited
the Coldwater Canyon facility and that diminished any concern she might have
had. She would be supportive of allowing the program in the community and
would not be concerned if the facility were next door to her home. It would
be much better if the youngsters were in a facility rather than walking the
streets. She did not feel the patients were dangerous.
Mrs. Cappy Brown, 316 Hillvlew Road, (Member of the Anaheim Union High School
District Board of Trustees) stated she visited the Coldwater facility with
Mrs. Stanton. It was more dangerous to walk down any street in Anaheim due to
the number of chemical abusers in the City than it would be living next to
such a facility. It was a hospital and that was the primary consideration.
Reverend George Stone, Minister of Christ Church Unity, stated he was
approached by the staff of the proposed hospital and found their ideals were
very much in accord with that of the Church. They had also agreed to share
facilities and parking if the use was approved.
Jean and Jeanne Blackwell, 507 Plymouth Place, stated she v~sited the
Coldwater facility with Betty Patterson, President of the Anaheim City School
District Board of Trustees. There were real concerns in the school district
relative to chemical abuse. She then briefed the Council on the problems the
school district faced revolving around the fact that even younger children
were becoming involved with substance abuse and cited certain studies
documenting such abuse among elementary and high school districts. Her Board
had taken no action on the subject program and she was expressing the view of
Betty Patterson and herself at this time. If patients in such facilities left
and went AWOL, they did not stay in the immediate neighborhood. Those treated
at the facility would be less a danger than all the other kids that were not
getting help. She had no fear for the personal safety for the children going
to and from the Loara School, or those in the home for the elderly relative to
the people who would be treated in the facility.
810
Cit~ H~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mrs. Connie Helps, 1670 West Cerritos, relayed a personal drug related
experience in her family and the help she received through the Palmer Drug
Abuse Program and that was how they became involved with Dr. Lewis. They had
to drive to Los Angeles at that time. She was instrumental in bringing the
Palmer Drug Abuse Program for children and parents to Orange County. It was
established at St. Michael's Episcopal Church tn Anaheim. The drug abusers
were brought into the Parish Hall which was connected to the pre-school. They
had been in operation since 1981 and there was no problem of any kind.
Mr. John Helps, 1670 West Cerritos, elaborated further speaking from personal
experience with drug abuse in his family involving his son. He would be
willing to trade his house and live at the back of the hospital if someone
would be willing to live next to the kind of business where he lived~ a
mini-market. He saw more drugs and drug paraphernalia and the kind of people
no one would want to have around their house than he had seen around the
hospital. The location of the subject hospital was a good one and would
provide an education and monument showing that people did get into terrible
problems with drugs.
Susan Callaway, University of Texas at Austin, stated she was one of the
recovering people and in the past had been a troubled teenager for years.
Since then, she had worked as a counselor. The subject location was a good
one. Old people's homes and nursery schools were not familiar to teenagers.
If they went AWOL, they wanted to get out of the area. She urged that they
view the situation as a societal ill and it was the responsibility of society
to meet some of the needs.
RECESS: Councilman Bay moved for a ten minute recess. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:37 p.m.)
Mr. Alan Shore, Senior Counselor, Palmer Drug Abuse Program, stated he had a
160-case load clientele and his office was at St. Michael's Episcopal Church
where he confirmed that there never had been an incident in the two and a half
years the Palmer Drug Abuse Program had been located at the church. He
submitted a letter from the Director of the Program stating that the only
incident was once where a ball was kicked through. He then introduced a 13
year old addict in the Palmer Drug Abuse Program, Mike Welch.
Mike Welch, 4208 Dogwood, Seal Beach stated he was in the hospital and the
kids in it did not cause a lot of trouble. He Just wanted help. The hospital
was not anything bad. He had been in the hospital for 70 days and he was back
home now. He had been off drugs 80 days. It was a good program and helped a
lot of people.
Jim Lougee, presently living in Ventura County but a former resident of the
City, relayed a personal experience involving his son and reported on the
difficulty at the time in finding a facility for treatment. He felt that
Anaheim and Orange County were fortunate to have a facility that met the
requirements. He urged the Council to take a strong look at the proposal from
811
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
a safety standpoint. It was well documented and shown that the kids were not
a danger.
After the foregoing presentations, Mr. Michelson reiterated the subject
facility was a hospital in a hospital location and would provide hospital care
for those needing it, ages 11 through 17. Two beds would be dedicated to
those who could not afford the program which was a requirement of the
Certificate of Need. They had submitted a preponderance of evidence relative
to the Coldwater and Pasadena facilities which were in similar settings.
There were pre-schools, convalescent hospitals, businesses and residences who
were all in support. There was an overwhelming group of evidence submitted
that it was a safe and acceptable facility if the neighbors would be willing
to understand it and take their share of the community's responsibility for
the program.
The Mayor then asked Mrs. Gover to make her's-mmation.
Peggy Timanus, 1571 West Elm Street at this time spoke in place of Mrs. Gover
and explained that she had been working with the residents, parents,
grandparents and business people in the area from the beginning. The
applicant was only required to contact people within 300 feet. Therefore,
most of the residents living in the single family residences in the
surrounding neighborhood were not aware of the invitation to visit the
Coldwater Canyon facility. It was stated earlier that the pre-school and home
for elderly might be unfamiliar territory to those who might be out of the
facility, but there was also a bar and liquor store less than a block away.
Admitting for the facility was within 50 feet of the pre-school chain link
fence and she had a three year old boy attending the pre-school. She did not
know how she was going to explain to him why a youngster was being brought
into the hospital in restraints. It was also mentioned the dangers were on
the streets. That was why she had chosen to keep her child at a private
children's center. She was speaking for the neighbors, the people at the
school and the people at Casa Bonita. There was no fence behind Casa Bonita
and their windows were three feet off the ground making them easily
accessible. It was necessary to consider additional traffic. The gate
recommended by the Police Department was in the back and not the front of the
facility. The Police Department also recommended lighting, and with large
windows, and continual lighting at night, that would interfere with the
restfulness for the people at Casa Bonita.
Mrs. Timanus continued that those in opposition had never once tried to
question the program or the people involved, only the location of the
facility. Dr. Lewis indicated the major problems with the youngsters revolved
around beer, wine and marijuana. At the Planning Commission hearing, he also
mentioned the third big use was cocaine and there was also a chance that when
admitted, some of the kids may have been on PCP laced with marijuana. As
residents, they had a right to ask the Council to protect their neighborhood.
They were still afraid. Where was the security, who was going to be
responsible and where was the liability going to lie if something happened.
One incident was too many. She also submitted a letter from a Law Enforcement
Agent (made a part of the record).
812
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Thompson again spoke noting that the back fence of the property bordered
residential homes and he was a homeowner on that street. The proposed
basketball court was going to destroy the value of the adjacent properties.
The people represented by the 500 signatures submitted in opposition did not
want the facility located in their neighborhood and all those people present
did not want it either.
Mrs. Nancy Hollis, 1715 South Nutwood, stated as a registered nurse, she
understood the facilities and Dr. Lewis's desires and the need. She had also
taken care of the elderly and she would not put her mother in the Casa Bonita
facility. That facility was there first as well as the pre-school. She
questioned why they needed a gate, security guard and lights. It was putting
revenue above residents. (Mayor Roth interjected and clarified that a City
Business License for such use was minimal revenue to the City 325 a year).
Mrs. Carol Mattson, 591 South SonJa, stated she was speaking for many of her
neighbors who could not be present today because most of the people in
opposition had toddlers at home making it difficult to be present as well as
costly. She was concerned for her children. If there was such a need for the
type of facility being proposed, she felt the applicant should be looking for
a larger facility to handle more cases. She questioned who was in charge,
what they were in charge of, and their background.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Roth then stated the Council had an obligation to take a long look at
the situation to see what could be done relative to the drug abuse problem.
He was alarmed by what he heard today. There was little doubt relative to the
quality of the proposed program and the need as well as Dr. Lewis's
credentials. What he saw was the fear of the unknown as expressed by the
residents and the question as to what such a facility might generate in their
neighborhood. The citizens of the community had to be considered and the
responsibility of the elected body was to assure that residents property
rights were protected and that they could feel comfortable and relaxed in
their homes. However, he would like to see one last chance given to saving
the proposed activity and suggested that the matter be continued for 30 days.
He wanted to give the applicant and his staff an opportunity to work with the
citizens in the community and further to make readily available to them
transportation to the other facilities. He would also like to evaluate the
existent facilities himself since he had not had an opportunity to do so. He
was hoping that Anaheim citizens could work together for a common good, to try
to understand the problem, and to take the time and effort to look at the
other facilities. His commitment to the opposition was that unless they could
tell him in 30 days that their fears had been satisfied, he could not support
the proposed hospital but if no effort was made on their part to understand
the problem and work cooperatively, he would evaluate that as well.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Dr. Lewis to clarify some of the statements made,
one being that a mother did not know how to explain to her child what was
happening when the youngster was brought in with restraints and also if there
was any use of heroin.
813
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Dr. Lewis first stated that the youngsters were not brought in restraints and
secondly that teenagers use of heroin was only one-half percent. They had not
detoxified a teenager from heroin. Relative to kids who used heroin, it was a
misrepresentation of what he said. They would use it if they had the money.
It was a very expensive drug and most kids did not have the money to buy it.
Also, he explained that the kids would be taken to the back of the property to
the hospital and the parents to the front. No kids were admitted at the front
of the hospital. Also, his agreement with the Police Department was to have
no PCP abusers at the facility and he would also add heroin to that if
everyone would feel more comfortable. F~ids in the program were at the
facility between 30 and 45 days. He also clarified that as indicated on Page
384 of the Planning Commission minutes, "...technicians similar to a nurses
aide are usually three to four months sober." If he said that and it was
copied down correctly, it was incorrect. They had hired people as early in
their sobriety as three months but that was not the usual period. The usual
was approximately a year. He did not say earlier that they had been sober for
fifteen years but some had been sober for as many as fifteen years.
Councilman Bay asked the shortest time of sobriety of people working in any of
the facilities; Dr. Lewis answered, at this time, no less than six months.
Councilman Bay then asked who would be in charge and who the neighbors could
call if there was a problem. He wanted to know the single person in charge to
answer complaints.
Dr. Lewis stated he was in charge and his phone number was listed. He would
fix something that was wrong immediately. He also clarified that pool hours
would not be as late as 10:00 p.m. but approximately 8:30 p.m.
Councilman Bay stated many problem issues came into the Council. He could not
expect Anaheim residents, the people who lived in the City who he represented,
after listening to the problems to say that they were going to give up the
sanctity of their homes or the quietness of their residential area because
they were going to take part in solving the problems of the world. The
Council had to face their constituents every week and he was on the Council to
answer to his constituents, residents who expected some protection under
zoning and the reason for the hearing. The issue, in his opinion, if the
program was going to be in the subject location, he agreed with the Mayor to
give 30 days providing the applicant with an opportunity to change people's
minds and if they could not do so, he could not vote to allow the facility in
that location. If the neighbors could be convinced that their fears were
imagined and tbmt there would be no impact to the sanctity of their
residences, he would be more than happy to support it in 30 days, but at this
time he could not do so.
Councilman Overholt stated that Dr. Lewis was obviously a very skilled and
highly trained professional. But for the two beds the Planning Commission
required the hospital to make available free of charge, the facility was
providing services for those who could pay for it. The non-profit corporation
was merely administering the operation but Dr. Lewis was making an investment
in a private business in Anaheim. For many years in that area there was a
facility just north of Loafs school called the Speech and Language Development
814
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Center which handled children with emotional difficulties and some of the
fears the residents had could equally be applied to those who were at that
facility. Three school trustees were present today, two from the Anaheim
Union High School district and one from the Anaheim City School district. He
would like to see the facility located at that subject property because he was
extremely interested in the work that was being done. On the other hand, he
had to put his feelings aside and he was not going to put something into a
neighborhood that the neighborhood did not want. It was necessary to sell the
people who were opposed for reasons unfounded and not the City Council. He
did not believe the applicant had done a good selling Job at this point. He
agreed with a 30 day delay during which Dr. Lewis could sell the neighbors on
the fact that his facility was not going to be a hazard to their neighborhood
and particularly the elderly retirement home and pre-school.
Councilman Pickler agreed with the continuation. He had visited the Coldwater
Canyon facility and talked to the patients as well as the adjacent businesses.
He felt the proposed facility would benefit the total City, the constituency
he represented. He stressed that the residents should take the opportunity to
see the other facilities. He was certain that they could get Dr. Lewis to
provide transportation. He acknowledged that the proposed facility would be a
money-making operation, but there was nothing wrong with that while at the
same time performing a needed service. The Broadway property was similar to
the Coldwater facility and he would like to see the facility given an
opportunity considering it was a project of benefit to all.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2579 and negative declaration to Tuesday, September 4, 1984, at
1:30 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Thompson stated that the residents collected
signatures and appeared before the Planning Commission and were voted down.
It was done on their time and the appeal made with their own money. They were
present today and now the burden again was back on them as residents of the
City. He had to miss two days of work and now they were being asked to spend
another 30 days on the matter. He felt the Council was wrong.
Mayor Roth stated he was sorry Mr. Thompson felt that way but he did not think
there were too many City Councils that spent as much time trying to be as fair
with their constituents. If he did not feel he had a moral obligation, he
would not have suggested the continuance but did so in fairness and because of
the apparent need. He stated that the hearing was closed but when the matter
was discussed again, any member of the Council could reopen it.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
142/112: ORDINANCE NO. 4526: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4526 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4526: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.01, SECTION 1.01.380 AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS
1.01.380 AND 1.01.385 TO CHAPTER 1.01 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE
815
City Hallt Anahetmt California - COUNCIL MIlfffES - Auzust 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
PERTAINING TO PRISONERS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CITY COST IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL
ACTION ·
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4526 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4531 AND 4532: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4531
and 4532 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4531: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
REIATING TO ZONING. (81-82-6, CO 805 North Harbor Boulevard)
ORDINANCE NO. 4532: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
R~ATING TO ZONING. (83-82-6, CO, east side of Anaheim Boulevard So. of
Stanford Court)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4531 and 4532 duly passed and adopted.
149: PARKING STUDY: Councilwoman Kaywood again asked the status of the
report relative to current parking requirements.
Miss Santalahti stated that the report was in process. Staff was preparing
slides and she wanted to take it to the Planning Commission as well within two
or three weeks.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated tbmt perhaps it should be submitted to the Council
first and then the Planning Commission.
114/175: ELECTRIC OUTAGE - PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE - TREE TRIMMING PLAN:
Councilman Bay referred to the report received on the electric outage that
occurred on Sunday, July 29, 1984 in the area of La Palma Avenue and
Brookhurst Street. The result of the outage and the cause were trees in the
12 ky lines. He was, therefore, interested in being brought up to date on the
status of the action discussed in the past on what the City's preventive
maintenance was going to be on trimming trees out of electric lines. He
wanted more information within the next two weeks on the preventive
maintenance plans and programs being proposed.
816
City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COt~CIL ~INDTES - August 7~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed
Session. (5:50 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:41 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:42 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
817