1984/11/271_57
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kmywood, Bay, Pickler, Ow~rholt and Roth
COUNCIL M~MBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CIVIL ENGINEER - DESIGN: Arthur Daw
SGT., VICE DETAIL: James Brantley
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Mary L. Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn 0verholt, Jr. led the assembly in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
114: COUNCIL REORGANIZATION - SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM: Mayor Roth
declared nominations open for the selection of a new Mayor Pro Tem.
Councilman Pickler nominated Councilman Overholt.
There were no additional nominations.
Councilman Pickler moved to close nominations.
Before further action, Councilman Overholt stated he was honored by the
nomination but he felt the relationship between the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem
should be very cordial and close. Since he and the Mayor were recent
opponents, he asked Mayor Roth if he would like him to be Mayor Pro Tem.
Councilman Roth first seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion and
noted that he had been put in a very unusual position. He then stated he
believed he could get along with anyone on the Council and his position as
Mayor should rise above what took place during the recent campaign period.
voiced his intention to work with Councilman Overholt and the entire City
Council.
He
Councilman Overholt asked then if the Mayor would like to have him serve as
Mayor Pro Tem; Mayor Roth stated he had no problem whatsoever and confirmed he
would like Councilman Overholt to serve in that capacity.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion closing nominations. MOTION
CARRIED.
1123
1.58
City B~11, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt was unanimously selected to serve as Mayor Pro Tem for the
period ending November, 1985.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Mrs. Dorothy Devitt as an
expression of sincere condolence to Mrs. Devitt and her family on the recent
passing of former City Engineer William Devitt, who gave 21 years of dedicated
public service to the citizens of Anaheim.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
"California Community College Student Affairs Week"
in Anaheim, December 5-7, 1984.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to eight members of
the Rams Cheerleading Entertainers traveling on a 3-week celebrity tour during
the holiday season. Performing for American servicemen and women in Ireland~
Norway and the DMZ border of Germany.
119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council~ presented to and
congratulated Charles H. Redd, Deputy City Attorney, the Certificate of
Completion he received from the American Arbitration Association, "Arbitration
Advocacy Institute".
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pickler moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,341,476.29, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the ~ollowing 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-455 through 84R-462, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 175: Southern California Public Power Authority Report and Financial
Statements and Additional Information for the year ended June 30, 1984.
(on file)
1124
; 55
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of October 17 and
November 7, 1984.
c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Report for the month of
October 1984.
2. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Price Waterhouse in an amount not to
exceed $10,000 for a maximum of 100 hours of electronic data processing
auditing services.
3. 153: Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the Flexible Compensation Plan to
allow participation by full-time employees represented by the Anaheim Police
Association and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47
effective January 1, 1985.
4. 153: Authorizing nunc pro tunc corrections to the Flexible Compensation
Plan to clarify date portions which were inadvertently omitted.
5. 160: Accepting the bid of Westinghouse Electric Company in the amount of
$24,844.28 for two 750 KVA three-phase padmount transformers, in accordance
with Bid No. 4144.
6. 160: Accepting the bid of Westinghouse Electric Company in the amount of
$30,998.56 for six each 225 KVA three-phase padmount transformers, in
accordance with Bid No. 4131.
7. 124: Postponing award of the Anaheim Convention Center Parking Lot
Counter System, Account No. 24-307-7115, to December 4, 1984.
8. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-455: A ILESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
RELOCATION OF PRESSURE REGULATING STATION #46 CONSTRUCTION OF PRESSURE
REGULATING STATION #61, WATER SERVICE RELOCATIONS, AND INSTALLATION OF
INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE REGULATORS AT VARIOUS LOCATION IN THE PERALTA HILLS AREA
IN THE CITY OFANAHEIM ACCOUNT NO. 54-603-6329-02176. (opening of bids on
January 3, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
9. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-456: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR COMPLETION OF THE BROOKHURST STREET
WATERLINE TO G.R. McKERVEY, INC. (Awarding a contract to G. R. McKervey, Inc.
as replacement contractor, in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for completion
of the Brookhurst Street Waterline between Pacific Lane and Harriet Lane,
Account No. 54-605-6329-01740)
10. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-457: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-70 NUNC PRO TUNC. (Amending
Resolution No. 84R-70, nunc pro tunc, correcting the Laborer starting rate of
pay)
11. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-458: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-72 NUNC PRO TUNC. (Amending
1125
156
City N, 11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Resolution No. 84R-72, nunc pro tunc, correcting the Underground Line Crew
Supervisor schedule number)
12. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-459: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-71 NUNC PRO TUNC. (Amending
Resolution No. 84R-71, nunc pro tunc, correcting the Account Clerk schedule
number)
13. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-460: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-71 NUNC PRO TUNC. (Amending
Resolution No. 84R-57~ nunc pro tunc, adding the classification of Junior
Typist Clerk Confidential Schedule No. 0690 J-E)
14. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-461: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (84-5A) (Declaring intent to abandon a
portion of former easement for road and public utility purposes located within
East Anaheim Center on the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and
Lincoln Avenue, Abandonment No. 84-5A, and setting a date for the public
hearing therefor, suggested date: December 18, 1984, 1:30 p.m.)
15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-462: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 84R-455 through 84R-462:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-455 through 84R-462, both inclusive
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - VINTAGE LANE STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Awarding a
contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Kershaw Construction
Company, in the amount of $235,240.60, for Vintage Lane Street, Storm Drain,
Water, Masonry Sound Wall, Street Light, Landscape Planting and Irrigation
Improvements, Account No. 46-792-6325-E2840.
City Manager WilliamTalley stated a representative from McGrew Construction
Company, Inc., was present to speak to the matter.
Mr. Richard Dinnebeir, 600 West Santa Aha Boulevard, Santa Aha, representing
McGrew Construction Company, Inc., explained that he originally wrote to Bob
Jones of the City's Engineering Department on November 2, 1984 and
subsequently spoke to the City Attorney's Office. In addition, letter dated
November 21, 1984 was sent to the Council putting the City of Anaheim on
notice of McGrew Construction Company's protest regarding the bidding process
in relation to the subject contract, attached to which was a copy of the
November 2, 1984 letter. The points of concern were as follows: McGrew
1126
l .53
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27t 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Construction did not believe that at the time the bids were submitted (bid
opening November 1, 1984) Kershaw Construction was a licensed contractor to
complete all of the work called for at the time they entered the bid process.
It was his understanding that last week the Award of Bid was continued one
week to allow Kershaw to become licensed to do the work. Another point of
contention was the fact that Kershaw did not list any other subcontractors
other than the one for landscaping whereas the contract would require
specialty subcontractors. It was the belief of McGrew Construction that
Kershaw would have to find subcontractors to go forward and do the work and
that was against the policy and spirit of the bid process. The difference
between the two bids (Kershaw and McGrew) was only $462.00. At the time
Kershaw filed their bid, they were not a responsible and qualified bidder as
called for. McGrew did file their protest in a timely fashion with Mr.
Jones. They were present today to request that the Council award the bid to
McGrew construction, the lowest and most qualified bidder.
Mayor Roth asked to hear from staff.
Mr. Art Daw, Civil Engineer - Design, explained at the time the bids were
received, Engineering checked the license as reported in the proposal by
Kershaw. It was determined that the bidder had three separate licenses. In a
verbal communication with the State License Board in Santa Aha, that office
indicated they felt at that time Kershaw was properly licensed but did not put
that in writing. The City Attorney's Office advised as long as the contractor
was properly licensed prior to starting construction, that was acceptable.
Kershaw was advised that prior to the time of recommending the award of
contract, they would have to get a letter from the License Board stating the
fact that the Company was properly licensed. A representative from the
Company went to Sacramento where plans were reviewed by the State Board. At
that time, Engineering was called and later confirmation made by mail that the
State did not consider Kershaw to be properly licensed. That was prior to
last weeks Council meeting and why a one week continuance was requested.
Subsequently, as confirmed by a telephone call from Sacramento, Kershaw did
take the examination and passed, and now had been issued a Class WA" license
which was proper for the work.
Councilman Bay asked if there was any requirement in the bidding process
stating that at the time of the bidding, the participants must be licensed.
City Attorney William Hopkins answered his Office found nothing that stated a
contractor must be licensed at the time of the bidding, but such requirement
was necessary at the time of the award.
Discussion and questioning relative to the issue followed between Council
Members and staff. Additional questions were posed to Mr. Dinnebeir.
The Mayor then asked to hear from a representative of Kershaw Construction.
Mr. Mark Trautwein, Office Manager, Kershaw Construction, 6880 Archibald
Avenue, Alta Loma, stated his Company went through a great deal to get the "A"
license and were told that they were now properly qualified. He called Santa
Aha and Sacramento. Since Sacramento wanted to see their plans, he flew there
1127
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
and subsequently received a letter recommending that Kershaw obtain an "A"
license. Mr. Kershaw then flew to Sacramento and got the license. Relative
to subcontractors, Kershaw was going to sub-bid the landscaping. Kershaw was
the low bidder, properly licensed, and wanted the Job.
After further discussion and questioning between Council Members, staff and
Mr. Talley for purposes of clarification, Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess
into Closed Session to discuss potential litigation. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:15 a.m.)
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the
City Attorney concerning potential litigation.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:33 a.m.)
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to reject all bids on the Vintage Lane Street,
Storm Drain, Water, Masonry Sound Wall, Street Light, Landscape Planting and
Irrigation Improvements (Account No. 46-792-6325-E2840), and that the Public
Improvement be readvertised. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
169: FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION - FIXED MEDIAN - LA PALMA AVENUE EAST OF
KRAEMER: City Manager William Talley referred to memorandum dated
November 21, 1984 from the City Engineer Gary Johnson, listing possible
funding sources for the subject median. The report also noted that as a
condition of approval for expansion of their restaurant, Carl Karcher
Enterprises, Inc., agreed to pay for one half of the cost of the median, not
to exceed $10,000.00, (see minutes of November 13, 1984 where the matter was
discussed).
Councilman Bay moved to approve the construction of a raised median at La
Palma Avenue east of Kraemer Boulevard and that Recommendation No. 1 in staff
report dated November 21, 1984 from the City Engineer be approved as the
funding source, Redevelopment Fund #46. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION - HUMDINGER #4: Application submitted
by Jimmy Weldon Stiltz, Humdinger ~4, 2560 West Lincoln Avenue, to permit one
dancing girl, seven days a week, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. This matter was
continued from the meeting of October 30, 1984, to this date.
Mr. Loyd Charton, 12682 Santa Aha Heights, Attorney representing the
applicant, Mr. Slayton, the owner, first submitted pictures showing signs
inside the bar which were the biggest and most prominent signs of all warning
customers of the consequences of alcohol-related offenses. Also, if a
customer felt that he/she was intoxicated, the bar would call a cab to take
them home with the cost of the cab being borne by the Humdinger. In 22 years
since Mr. Slayton had owned the bar, he had never been denied a permit to have
a dancing girl. Mr. Slayton also had a favorable recommendation from the
Police Department. The Department found no reason to deny the requested
1128
City Hall~ A-aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
permit and he was certain the Council did not want to close Mr. Slayton's
business.
Mr. Ralph Slayton, owner, then reported the location of four of his other bars
outside of Anaheim. He also stated that he had bikini dancers in all of them
and confirmed that the request was not for a new entertainment permit, but a
renewal.
Sergeant Jim Brantley, Anaheim Police Department, then reported for the Mayor
that the Police Department had no additional information to offer. He
clarified for Councilman Pickler that the 31 police contacts reported covered
approximately one year from the time the previous permit was approved.
Fourteen observations of the 31 were by police officers and 17 were calls for
service either from the location or the employees or management of the
location.
Mayor Roth stated the Council would be happier if bars such as the Humdinger
would leave the City but conversely, advice from the City Attorney relative to
legal ramifications involved made it difficult to close such establishments
down. He found it offensive that taxpayers had to pay for policing bars as
well as the time it took away from other more pressing police activities.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the entertainment permit application
submitted by Jimmy Weldon Stiltz, Humdinger #4, 2660 West Lincoln Avenue, to
permit one dancing girl, seven days a week, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated the Mayor touched upon
areas about which he was concerned. He felt somehow they had to eliminate
such businesses and if he was going to have to vote according to the law,
perhaps they would have to work to change the law. He was opposed to bikini
dancers and was going to vote against the requested entertainment permit
application.
City Attorney Hopkins stated his office was looking at the present ordinance
and hopefully could devise a more substantive ordinance that would stand up in
COUrt.
Councilman Bay pointed out if the law gave businesses the right to have such
entertainment, and if those businesses were operating within the ordinance and
the Police Department had no strong reasons that would stand up in court to
refuse it, he did not see that the Council had much choice on their vote.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Pickler and
Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was voting "no" because of the reasons given
as well as the fact that she was opposed to the entertainment starting at
11 a.m.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION - FOXEYS: Request by Mary Ann Benway,
Foxeys, 1007 East Balsam, for dancing girls, 7 days a week, from 11:00 a.m. to
1129
152
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
2:00 a.m. This matter was continued from the meeting of October 30, 1984, to
this date.
Mr. Loyd Charton, Attorney representing Foxeys, stated that Foxeys received a
favorable recommendation from the Police Department. However, Mary Ann
Benway, the applicant, was the manager whereas the owner was Jettey Holgerson
and the application should have been under her name. They were informed
through the Police Department that Mary Ann Benway had an old police record.
Subsequently Ms. Holgerson fired her. The only applicant for the
entertainment permit should be Jettey Holgerson and her name substituted for
Mary Ann Benway. Foxeys had less police contact than that of the Humdinger #4
previously discussed.
Mayor Roth asked the City Attorney his advice relative to the name change;
City Attorney Hopkins stated the objection that had been made concerning the
present applicant (Benway) would be eliminated.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the new application should be submitted with the
proper applicant's name; City Attorney Hopkins answered a new application
could be required, or as Mr. Charton suggested, it could be done by
interlineation, lining out the old name and putting in the new.
Councilman 0verholt stated if the intensity of the investigation was not the
same for the applicant as the person or persons having the supervision or
management of the applicant's business also listed in the application, he felt
it would be appropriate that a new application be filed.
Sergeant Brantley explained that the intent of the investigation was the same
for all. He was personally aware of Ms. Holgerson being the owner and had
spoken with her on several occasions and never found anything detrimental in
her backgound.
Discussion then followed between Council Members and staff relative to the
name change on the application and how best it should be handled. Also during
the discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Ms. Holgerson to describe the type
of entertainment as listed on the application.
Jettey Holgerson, owner of Foxeys, stated there was a small platform behind
the bar. They open at 11 a.m. and girls danced on that plat£orm. The
majority dance in one-piece leotards, one girl at a time, from 11 a.m. to 1:30
a.m. They employed anywhere from six to eight girls, some full-time and some
part-time. She had been in business for 15 years and years ago they opened at
9 a.m. and now it was 11 a.m. It would be disaster for her business if the
entertainment permit were not approved. She confirmed for Councilwoman
Kaywood that there would be no business without having the dancing girls and
it was necessary to start at 11 a.m. instead of 2 or 3 p.m.
Councilman Overholt stated he presumed Ms. Holgerson was going to submit a
substitute application for the one now on file; Ms. Holgerson answered that
was correct.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the entertainment permit application
for Foxeys, 1007 East Balsam, for dancing girls, 7 days a week, from 11:00
1130
1.49
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
a.m. to 2:00 a.m. with the permit being approved in the name of the owner
Jettey Birgette Holgerson who was going to submit a new application containing
her name. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Council Members Pickler
and Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
172: JUTTING OUT PARCELS ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS: This matter was continued
from the meetings of July 31, October 9, and 30, 1984 - see minutes those
dates. Submitted was a report dated November 9, 1984 from the City Engineer,
recommending that the Council approve a Policy Statement relative to the
subject parcels attached to which was a priority listing, with priority being
based upon the number of accidents at certain locations as well as a proposed
Policy Statement, (on file in the City Clerk's Office).
City Manager Talley explained for Councilman Pickler that if the Council
approves the policy as previously discussed, staff would place the projects
into the Capital Improvement Program which was in the process of being
developed and expected to be submitted to the Council in March or April, 1985.,
Mayor Roth recalled Council discussion on the issue wherein it was felt that
developers were going to wait to have the City make the improvements thus
setting a precedent for the future.
Councilman Pickler maintained if they could avoid a hazard, it was something
the Council should act upon and he did not feel it would set a precedent.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the recommended Policy Statement regarding
the elimination of Jutting out parcels on arterial highways.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he wanted to give the
matter more study before voting.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue a decision on the subject
Policy Statement for two weeks for further study by the Council. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay stated he would then like to have a comparison of the way the
City handled such situations now relative to jutting out parcels vs. what the
proposed change would do because at this time he did not see any big change
other than adding priorities due to "sketchy" accident information.
City Manager Talley explained that the City did not do the work at present and
the change would be in the way the City approached the problem. It was
contemplated the City would now take dedication from the property owner and in
turn perform the necessary work on certain selected pieces of jutting out
parcels based upon prioritization chiefly designed around frequency of
accidents at the location. The City would not only be an advocate, but an
initiator of the project.
Councilman Bay also asked for any information that might be germaine on the
basis of a change of use where the parcel remained a jut out at the time of
that change. For instance, the location on La Palma Avenue next to Cal Comp
1131
City ~a!l~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
which he thought was going to be taken care of, but it was still there six
months later.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber. (12:15 p.m.)
Art Daw, Civil Engineer - Design, explained there was consideration by the
Engineering Division to attempt to improve that parcel at the time of the
street improvement project several years ago; Councilman Bay interrupted and
pointed out that there was a change of use since then which would have
warranted that improvement. Mr. Daw stated if there was a conditional use
permit or some zoning action then the condition should have been imposed
regarding the installation of improvements. Staff would check into that
matter.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion continuing consideration of the
Policy Statement for the improvement of Jutting out parcels on arterial
highways to December 11, 1984. Councilwoman Kaywood was temporarily absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, City Manager Talley explained that on the analysis, staff
was only looking at the contemplated Policy vs. the existing City Policy and
not reviewing all Policy alternatives.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chamber. (12:16 p.m.)
123: AGREEMENT WITH CANYON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER PROVIDING ACCESS FROM
IMPERIAL HIGHWAY TO THE CENTER: Mr. Alan Watts, Attorney, Rourke & Woodruff
on behalf of the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center, first referred to the agreement
before the Council which was prepared by City staff along with some suggestion
from his client relative to modifications. The agreement was in acceptable
form and had already been executed on behalf of the Shopping Center.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if ingress and egress for the landlocked Schantz
property had been resolved.
Mr. Watts stated he could not represent that had been resolved. It was the
view of Canyon Plaza that the proposed agreement and the resolution of the
access to the Schantz property were not related and the latter was going to
require a different physical solution. Canyon Plaza was prepared to proceed
and attempt to resolve that problem as quickly as Mr. Farano's client
(Schantz) and the City wished to do so.
In answer to Councilman Pickler, Mr. Watts gave an historic overview of the
situation existing between the two properties (Canyon Plaza Shopping Center
and the Schantz property) following which Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney
representing the owners of the Schantz property explained his client's view of
the situation and the differences of opinion between the principals.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Farano requested a continuance of the
proposed agreement for a period of six months but during that time the access
to the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center from Imperial remain open and that all
parties, including the principals of Schantz and Canyon Plaza Shopping Center
1132
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
as well as the City Traffic Engineer be instructed to meaningfully pursue a
solution with CalTrans (also see his letter dated November 16, 1984 which
covered the issue as well as request presented today) with a report back to
the Council regarding a permanent solution to be made in six months. He also
requested that the various parties be directed to resolve the access situation
between the Schantz property and Canyon Plaza by a non-recordable document.
He reiterated he was not present to oppose the agreement but that execution of
the document should be postponed for six months. Canyon Plaza did not request
the agreement and, therefore, should not have a problem waiting another six
months and in the meantime the situation could be pursued with CalTrans.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, then reported on the CalTrans view of the
matter, their first and major objection being reconstruction of the traffic
signal to the freeway offramp because that signal would have added an
additional time increment to the access point and as a result would cause
back-up onto the offramp further than it was backed up today. The second
objection was the relocation of the eastbound onramp to the freeway.
Mayor Roth felt that in this instance, CalTrans understood the problem
completely. In his opinion (Roth) the only possibility of ingress and egress
to the Schantz property would be from Via Cortez; Mr. Farano stated that his
client would like to see the City participate in the pursuit of a solution via
the intersection plan with CalTrans. They saw the City as a vital part of
such negotiation.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in staff report from the Engineering Division to
the City Manager/City Council dated August 31, 1984 it stated, "CalTrans is
vehemently opposed to permanent access to private property at the intersect~on
of Imperial Highway and the Riverside Freeway eastbound offramp." She did not
understand why Mr. Farano kept saying that no one had approached CalTrans
whereas to her it was clear that CalTrans was giving a flat "no" to any such
proposal.
Mr. Farano stated he was not aware of any other contact with CalTrans in
August of 1984. If the Council was now telling him that they were no longer
interested in pursuing the intersection solution with CalTrans, he was sorry
to hear that. However, he felt in dealing with CalTrans it was dependent upon
who was contacted, how many times and how they were approached. He thereupon
withdrew his statement about the Council not being interested.
Mr. Watts then stated the view of Canyon Plaza Shopping Center was different.
He reiterated first they felt that the proposed agreement had nothing to do
with the ultimate access to the Schantz parcel and secondly the variance he
spoke to earlier (Variance No. 2948 - also see his letter dated November 21,
1984 to Floyd Farano - Re: Proposed Access to Canyon Plaza Shopping Center -
on file in the City Clerk's Office) was approved by the Planning Commission in
1977 and Schantz owned the property at that time. Canyon Plaza Shopping
Center had been prepared since that time to implement the condition in that
variance and were still prepared to do so. He had no problem in proceeding
trying to implement that by reason of an agreement with Schantz and the owners
of the Shopping Center.
1133
148
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then explained for Councilman Pickler that if
there was a possibility of getting access to the Schantz property from Via
Cortez that would be in the interest of traffic. Any additional delays on the
eastbound offramp at Imperial would be detrimental to the traffic capacity.
If some other access could be arranged, and Solomon Drive was another
possibility, there would be two access points ultimately available. In that
case, he felt the property was then developable while at the same time
preserving the integrity of the offramp.
Mr. Harry Rinker, owner of the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center then explained for
the Mayor that the boundaries of his property and the Schantz property Joined
one another all the way from Imperial to nearly Via Cortez. Also Via Cortez
was a dedicated street part of the way and the dedication had been on file
with the City for five or seven years offering dedication to the Schantz
property. Mr. Farano had copies of the documents with him as well.
The Mayor emphasized for Mr. Farano that to him that was an ideal situation.
There was ingress and egress to the landlocked Schantz property and that was
through Via Cortez.
MOTION: Councilman Roth noted that the action before the Council today dealt
with the agreement regarding access from Imperial Highway with the right of
cancellation within 180 days. He thereupon moved to approve an agreement with
Canyon Plaza Corporation for permanent access to the Canyon Plaza Shopping
Center via the existing temporary driveway at an annual fee of $2,000.
Before action was taken, the Mayor encouraged Mr. Rinker to work with Mr.
Farano and his clients in trying to come to some solution relative to ingress
and egress.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted, however, that since the agreement solved Mr.
Rinker's problem completely in providing the access (ingress only) to his
Center, it would take away the incentive for him (Rinker) to work with Schantz.
Mr. Rinker stated that the agreement was cancellable and if they fail to
cooperate, it could be cancelled on six months notice.
Councilwoman Kay~ood seconded the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss personnel matters with no action anticipated; The City Attorney
requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with
no action anticipated.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the
City Attorney concerning potential and pending litigation with no action
anticipated.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch
break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(12:50 p.m.)
1134
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:55 p.m)
AFTER RECESS: Chmirman Roth reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, all
Agency Members being present. (1:55 p.m.)
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL: To consider
the proposed First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement with
Meyer Investment Properties, Inc., providing for the sale and redevelopment of
certain real property in the Redevelopment Project Alpha, consisting of
approximately 13 acres generally bounded on the north by Lincoln Avenue, on
the east by Clementine Street, on the south by Broadway, and on the west by
Harbor Boulevard, to provide, inter alia, for the construction of the first
phase parking structure by the Agency and the sale of such structure to the
developer on an installment sale basis.
The City Clerk announced that letter dated November 6, 1984 had been received
from Allan W. Ralston, Executive Vice President of Meyer Investment
Properties, requesting a continuance of the Joint public hearing on the
subject to December 4, 1984. Mr. Priest confirmed that was correct and the
continuance to December 11, 1984 had been discussed with the developer.
The Mayor/Chairman asked if anyone was present to speak to the subject; there
was no response.
MOTION: Council/Agency Member Roth moved to continue the joint public hearing
to consider the proposed First Amendment to Disposition and Development
Agreement with Meyer Investment Properties, Inc., to Tuesday December 11, 1984
at 1:30 p.m. Council/Agency Member 0verholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Roth moved to adjourn.
Agency Member Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:56 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461: Application
submitted by Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to amend conditions of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461, to permit two 14-story, 200-foot high office
complexes on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 300 West Katella Avenue.
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 was certified by Council at the meeting of
January 24, 1984 as being in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act along with the statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-18, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 subject to certain conditions and the City
Council at their meeting of March 27, 1984, granted Conditional Use Permit No.
2461 subject to all City Planning Commission conditions including additional
conditions as stipulated in Resolution No. 84R-124 (see minutes of March 27,
1984). A rehearing was requested by the Attorney for the applicant relating
to the imposition of certain conditions and the request for a rehearing was
granted by the Council at their meeting of April 3, 1984 and continued from
1135
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
the meeting of May 15, 1984, June 5, 1984, July 14, 1984 and October 9, 1984,
to this date (see minutes those dates).
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2460 AND 2462:
Application submitted by Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to consider amendments to
Condition No. 23 to Resolution No. 84R-35, Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and
Condition No. 18 to Resolution No. 84R-37, Conditional Use Permit No. 2462, as
conditions of approval, that the owner(s) of subject property shall pay its
proportionate share, and shall execute and record an agreement in a form
approved by the City Attorney's Office obligating owner(s) to pay its
proportionate share, of the cost of certain off-site public improvements and
services pursuant to that certain assessment district or benefit area to be
hereinafter established by the City of Anaheim, pursuant to the requirement of
Development Agreement No. 83-01 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim
Stadium Associates, for Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460 and 2462, to permit a
17-story, 171-foot high, 852-room hotel with accessory uses and on-sale
alcoholic beverages on proposed C-R zoned property and two 234-foot high,
180-unit condominium towers with various Code waivers on proposed RM-1000
zoned property, respectively, on property located at 300 West Katella Avenue.
(continued from the meetings of July 14 and October 9, 1984)
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 was certified by Council at the meeting of
January 24, 1984 as being in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act along with the statement of Overriding Considerations.
This matter was continued from the meetings of July 24, 1984 and October 9,
1984, to this date (see minutes those dates).
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated November 21, 1984 from the
attorney for the applicant, Mr. Floyd Farano, requested a continuance of
certain conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2461, 2460
and 2462 to April 30, 1985.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney representing the applicant, explained relative to
the request for a continuance, he wanted to have the Council act upon
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461, the office structure, with the exception of
Condition Nos. 17 and 22 requested to be continued to April 30, 1985 as well
as consideration of Condition No. 23 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and
Condition No. 18 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2462 also to April 30, 1985.
He stated that the reasons for the request were explained in detail in his
letter of November 21, 1984 (made a part of the record).
City Attorney William Hopkins stated he had reviewed Mr. Farano's request and
it was his opinion that the Council could not approve one part of the CUP and
not the other. Further, if the matter were to be continued to April 30, 1985,
he recommended that the Council have the public hearing readvertised due to
the extended length of time involved.
Planning Director Ron Thompson stated the Planning staff would recommend if
the Council wanted to hear the issue prior to the April date, that they be
1136
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
given an opportunity to prepare a report on the entire issue in view of the
fact that Mr. Farano's letter dated November 26, 1984 (made a part of the
record) made changes to his letter of November 21, 1984, and was written with
accompanying documents and transmitted to staff only last Wednesday. Because
the agreements involved, which apparently had been approved by the City
Attorney as to form, could impact the City by several millions of dollars,
Council should have a report on the entire issue and he requested a
continuance until at least December 18, 1984.
Councilman Bay asked if possible that the reports by staff be ready by the
Friday before December 18, 1984 for Council consideration.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the rehearing on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2461 and the continued public hearing on Conditional Use Permit
Nos. 2460 and 2462 to December 18, 1984. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Farano on how he
would be ready by December 18, 1984 to present the issue; Mr. Farano answered
he hoped to obtain basic approvals for the concept of the office development.
What they wanted continued to April 30, 1985 was the final determination of
Riviera's necessity to participate in the Anaheim Stadium Associates
Assessment District and the street purchase plan. They were hopeful in the
meantime to work on the matter with staff with the result that there would be
a different concept of an Assessment District to bring to the Council in its
entirety.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt that was the "bone of contention." There
must be an agreement on the part of the applicant with that. She again
questioned why they should hold a public hearing on the 18th of December; Mr.
Farano stated his letter of November 26, 1984 (Page 2 and 3) listed seven
items, five of which were separate and apart from the conditional use
approval. He felt they could go forward with those items.
Councilman Pickler pointed out the City Attorney's opinion that could not be
done and he (Pickler) was not going to go against that opinion.
Mr. Farano stated the City Attorney's opinion was news to him and he was not
aware of that. He would have to determine how he was going to treat that. If
some common ground of understanding could not be reached before that time, he
would come for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 on December 18,
1984.
After further questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood to Mr. Farano and
Planning Director Ron Thompson, a vote was then taken on the foregoing motion
of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TRACT NOS. 10980 AND 10982: Application
submitted by Kaufman and Broad, to amend conditions of approval, in particular
Condition Nos. 25 and 33, of Tentative Tract No. 10980 and 10982,
respectively, relating to posting a Bond with the City to guarantee grading
and landscaping of the slope adjacent to the regional shopping center site on
1137
City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27t 1984; 10:00 A.M.
property located south of Santa Ama Canyon Road, east and west of Weir Canyon
Road (Bauer Ranch). This matter was continued from the meetings of
October 23, November 6 and 20, 1984, to this date (see minutes those dates).
The City Clerk announced that letter dated November 19, 1984 had been received
from Kaufman and Broad requesting a continuance of their subject request and
public hearing to tkis date.
The Mayor asked if a representative was present from Kaufman and Broad.
Mr. Robert Galloway, Senior Vice President, Kaufman and Broad, explained that
his company had met continuously with staff. He then referred to the
documentation Just submitted by Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for
Zoning, which was a draft of the amended conditions, amending Condition No. 25
of Tentative Tract No. 10980 and Condition No. 33 of Tentative Tract No. 10982
as well as adding a new Condition No. 40 to Tentative Tract No. 10980 and
Condition No. 44 to Tentative Tract No. 10982 attached to which was a sketch
showing the effect of the proposed amendments. Kaufman and Broad was was in
complete agreement with those amendments as well as the government people with
whom they had been in constant touch.
Miss Santalahti then explained that there was going to be future action taken
by the Council regarding the boundary of the Tract falling in the slope. On
the conditions Just submitted, the first amended the two conditions previously
discussed and the second condition listed would be a new No. 40 on Tract
No. 10980 and a new No. 44 on Tract No. 10982, the intent being to alert the
homeowners in the form of an easement across their property that the slope
area potentially may be graded and landscaped by the adjacent property owner
to the north and the slope in the future be maintained Jointly by the two
separate property owners.
Mr. Galloway stated he agreed. There was a on lot line location to be
applied for under the Grading Ordinance which they had submitted some time
ago. Staff requested that it be held off until action on the subject item.
Having established that common property line ran through the slope what they
were doing now satisfied the requirements for the variance they were
requesting to the Grading Ordinance. He would like to feel that they had
covered everything this time so as to prevent them from having to go into
detail in the future. He did not know what else they needed to do other than
to show the line was in the middle of the slope.
Miss Santalahtl stated it should be adequate and should set the entire stage
for the Council approving that property line location.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response, he closed
the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the amendment of the conditions as
submitted by staff and agreed to by Kaufman and Broad also adding new
Condition No. 40 to Tentative Tract No. 10980 and Condition No. 44 Tentative
Tract No. 10982 as submitted by staff. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
1138
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
144: COUNTY OF ORANGE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM: Discussion
of policy and appointment of 2 Council Members to serve as liaison members
representing the Anaheim City Council.
Councilman Bay referred to the staff report of November 13, 1984 from the
Planning Director as well as the list of concerns and questions expressed by
cities relative to the Fee Program. He felt those were not the immediate
issue but what the County Board of Supervisors were looking for, particularly
Supervisors Nestande and Riley, is a group to get together to form a basic
organizational structure with the cities involved, the County and private
enterprise, including the Building Industry Association (BIA) view and then
get into the technical questions, i.e., a memorandum of agreement between the
cities most involved. He noted that some of the cities who should be involved
were not at this time. There was no question on the Anaheim Council that the
Eastern Corridor was very important to the future development of Anaheim.
Councilman Bay recommended that Councilman Pickler be a liaison representative
for Anaheim; Mayor Roth recommended Councilman Bay.
Council Members Bay and Pickler were unanimously appointed to be the liaison
representatives representing the Anaheim City Council regarding the County of
Orange Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program.
101/142/152: ORDINANCE NO. 4554: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4554
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4554: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04, SECTION 1.04.310 PERTAINING TO PURCHASING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, 0verholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4554 duly passed and adopted.
130/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4555: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4555
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4555: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A FRANCHISE
TO GOLDEN WEST REFINING COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE PIPELINES
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN KNOTT STREET.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, 0verholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4555 duly passed and adopted.
1139
'1.42
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood asked City Manager Talley relative to
Ordinance No. 4555 if there was a problem was it up to the Oil Company to fund
the clean up and repair; City Manager Talley answered "yes." A franckise did
not remove any obligations of the Company involved if there was a problem.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4556 AND 4557: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos.
4'556 and 4557 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4556: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclass No. 84-85-3, RM-1200, 2546 West Lincoln Avenue)
ORDINANCE NO. 4557: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclass No. 84-85-7 CL(SC), 5650 East La Palma Avenue)
RUTH REDEPENNING: Councilwoman Kaywood reflected on Ruth Redepenning, City
Treasurer and wonderful asset to the City who died unexpectedly on Saturday,
November 24, 1984. Ruth was held in the highest esteem by all of her peers
and colleagues and she would be sorely missed.
Councilman Overholt stated that Ruth was a lady of extreme professional
excellence. She also had a certain personality and spirit about her that wore
off on all with whom she came in contact. She had a great responsibility as
City Treasurer in handling millions of dollars of City funds. The people
around her respected her and were happy to work with her. Ruth's Legacy would
be with the City for many years to come and her passing was truly a loss to
the City.
All Council Members expressed the sense of loss in losing Ruth Redepenning.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(2:58 p.m)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:43 p.m)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilman 0verholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:44 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1140