1983/11/15City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of th~ City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend David Beadles, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION: Mrs. Fran Mauck introduced Miss Joy Swinford, the 1983/84
Miss Anaheim/Miss USA/Miss Universe, to the Council.
Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council and the City, first congratulated Miss
Swinford on capturing the title and then presented her with roses and a
briefcase with the City seal.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Great American Smokeout Day in Anaheim, November 17, 1983.
National Family Week in Anaheim, November 20-26, 1983.
Youth Appreciation Week in Anaheim, November 13-19, 1983.
Miss Janet Parry accepted the Great American Smokeout Day proclamation; Grant
Hubbard, the National Family Week proclamation; and Bill Clendenin, the Youth
Appreciation Week proclamation.
Mr. Hubbard then presented to the Mayor a bound book entitled, "A Brief Family
History of Don R. Roth, Mayor of the City of Anaheim, Tracing the Roots of His
Family Back to Europe;" Mayor Roth expressed his deep appreciation for such a
meaningful gift and one that would become a family treasure.
119: PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE TE IVI MAORI CULTURAL DANCE TROUPE: Mr.
Galai Kernahan, on behalf of the Cook Islands Te Ivi Maori Cultural Dance
Troupe, presented each Council Member with a Cook Island dollar as a gesture
912
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
of friendship and in appreciation for all they had done for the Troupe. Mr.
Kernahan then gave the background on the dance troupe, which had visited the
City in July and who were going to be making a return visit in 1984. The
Troupe had been in existence for twelve years and in the Cook Islands, a tiny
South Pacific Nation with which the United States recently finalized a treaty
of friendship, was considered a National treasure.
140/119/106: PRESENTATION - ANAHEIM LION'S BREAKFAST CLUB - ~1,500 CHECK FOR
THE BOOKMOBILE OUTREACH PROGRAM: Mr. Vern George, President of the Anaheim
Lion's Breakfast Club, accompanied by a number of Club members, presented a
~1,500 check to the Mayor to be used for the Bookmobile Outreach Program.
Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council, the Library Department and the City,
expressed his gratitude to the Lion's Breakfast Club for their generous
contribution, which would assist in perpetuating a most worthy program.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to appropriate the $1,500 into Program No.
01-177-3196. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114: VISIT OF YOUTH AMBASSADORS FROM MITO, JAPAN: Mr. Riley presented eight
visitors from Anaheim's Sister City, Mito, Japan, consisting of six youth
ambassadors who were outstanding students from the Ibaraki Prefecture. The
students were accompanied by Mr. Chikaro Onuki, the leader of the Tsukuba Expo
'85 Youth Ambassadors, and Mr. Minoro Kondo. Ms. Cheiko Duty, interpreter,
introduced the visitors and expressed greetings from the delegation. She
explained that they were present also to inform the Council of Expo '85, a
scientific exposition to be held in Ibaraki, and inviting those who could do
so to attend. A presentation was then made by one of the students to the
Mayor of a poster, a plaque and a message from Mayor Wada of Mito, who
reiterated the invitation to come to the Expo.
The Mayor and Council, in turn, presented flag sets to the students and City
Seal paperweights to Mr. Onuki and Mr. Kondo.
114: COUNCIL REORGANIZATION: Designating a member of the City Council as
Mayor Pro Tem, in accordance with the City Charter and Council Policy No. 111.
Mayor Roth opened the floor to nominations.
Councilman Bay stated it was his pleasure to nominate Councilman Irv Pickier
for the position of Mayor Pro Tem.
Councilman Overholt moved to close nominations. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth moved to cast a unanimous ballot designating Councilman Irv
Pickler as Mayor Pro Tem in accordance with the City Charter and Council
Policy No. 111. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
913
City I-Iall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
119/144(0CTD): INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION (OCTC) 15-YEAR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM: Mr. A1 Hollinden
of the Orange County Transportation Commission gave a presentation on the
subject program, summarized as follows: The Commission, in response to many
people, firms, corporations and cities decided to place on the ballot in June
of 1984 a one-cent sales tax election for the purpose of transportation
funding for the future. The Commission had come up with the sales tax based
upon a piece of legislation that went through the State Legislature last year,
which gave them the authority to do so. Part of the legislation also provided
that they show all revenue sources existing, as well as sales tax, and they,
therefore, had to devise a plan acceptable to the majority of the cities
(fourteen of twenty-six representing 50 percent of the incorporated population
of the County) and the County Board of Supervisors. That plan was going to be
released on December 12, 1983. Their plan consisted of 75 percent highway and
roadway and 25 percent transit, the highway portion of the plan consisting
mainly of I-5 and 1-405, both scheduled to be completed in the next 15 or 20
years whether or not they had a sales tax. He then outlined the additional
components of the plan, emphasizing that they were mainly concerned with the
work trip from the point of origin to destination. Twenty percent of the
money was scheduled to come back to the cities, since the cities knew their
individual needs best. They also saw the possibility of a discretionary "pot"
to handle those streets that served more than one city, or a major portion of
the County transportation system. The transit portion would be somewhat less
than 25 percent, including commuter rail and a fixed rail system of
approximately 38 miles, traveling through the most central dense corridor. A
total system concept could best serve the citizens of Orange County and they
were enlisting Anaheim's support. He then introduced the new Executive
Director of the OCTC, Mr. Stan Oftelie.
Mr. Oftelie stated that part of the reason that the City of Anaheim was so
successful was due to the fact that it had a unique vision. One of the things
they were asking the City to do was to help to communicate that vision to some
of the other Councils and people in the County, so that the plans they were
proposing could be an ultimate success.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Hollinden by Council Members as to whether or
not Amtrak and a light rail system would be part of the plan, whether there
would be sufficient time to educate citizens relative to the program before
the election was to take place, if approved, would a time limit be indicated,
thereby sunsetting the one-cent sales tax, if the Commission had anything to
do with the American High-Speed Bullet Train Project, etc. Mr. Hollinden also
confirmed for Councilman Bay that they were going to continue to pursue
obtaining a representative fair share of transportation costs Yrom CalTrans
for Orange County Freeways, but that would only provide improvements to I-5
and 1-405 during the next 15 years. If they wanted to wait for the State and
Federal governments to do the primary projects, they would be talking about 30
to 40 years.
City Manager William Talley stated a question that needed to be considered if
the ballot measure passed, would there be any economic dislocation, i.e., the
efficiency of the tax itself--would a sales tax in Orange County dis%ocate
914
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
purchases to other counties; Mr. Hollinden stated they were still completing
research on that question, but they did not see any dislocation occurring, for
instance with regard to automobile purchases. In Los Angeles County where the
sales tax was 6 1/2 percent, dealers did not feel there was too much
dislocation.
Mr. Jerry Bennett, Manager of Transportation Planning, County of Orange, then
gave a status report relative to the plans for three transportation corridors
with the aid of a color-coded graphic (County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways) posted on the Chambers wall, showing the proposed routes. Relative
to the Eastern Transportation Corridor, he showed the anticipated link-up of
the transportation system from the Riverside/Corona area to the South County.
Mayor Roth stated the Eastern Corridor was his main concern at this time. He
was referring to the area anywhere from Weir Canyon, moving toward Gypsum
Canyon, with traffic traveling south and connecting with I-5 somewhere near
Myford Road. That link was so important, because people looking for
affordable housing were being forced into Riverside County, and each morning
the Riverside Freeway was extremely congested even now. If the trend
continued, he felt that Route 55 would become the largest parking lot in the
world and they needed relief from that, the need being to bypass Route 55.
Mr. Bennett agreed and stated that basically covered the function of the
Eastern Transportation Corridor and what they were trying to accomplish.
The Mayor thanked Messrs. Hollinden, Oftelie and Bennett for being present
today and briefing the Council on the important OCTC 15-year Transportation
Investment Program.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,740,241.71, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman ~
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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. 83R-441 through 83R-445, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
915
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
1. 118: The following claims filed against the City were rejected and
referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Margaret A. Smith for personal property damages and
food loss purportedly sustained due to an electrical outage at 1662 West
Ball Road, Apartment C, on or about August 6 and 7, 1983.
b. Claim submitted by Golden West Baseball Company, Inc., dba California
Angels, for indemnity based on Orange County Superior Court action
#408824, Beverly J. Baker vs. Golden West Baseball Company for personal
injuries purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim
Stadium, on or about September 6, 1982.
c. Claim submitted by Ann Yeakley for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to an accident caused by negligent construction, maintenance
and design of roadway on Mohler Drive at or about its intersection with
Del Giorgio Road, on or about July 6, 1983.
d. Claim submitted by Virginia Courtney for personal property damages and
food loss purportedly sustained due to electrical failure at 1664 West
Ball Road, Apartment #D, on or about August 6, 1983.
e. Claim submitted by Laura Louise Casper for personal injury and
property damages purportedly sustained due to an accident involving a
City-owned vehicle on La Palma Avenue, 76 feet west of Columbine, on or
about September 8, 1983.
f. Claim submitted by Glenda Louise Moore for personal property loss
purportedly sustained due to corroded electrical equipment at 644 Gilmar
Drive, on or about August 13 to 27, 1983.
g. Claim submitted by Barry R. Hommey for personal property loss
purportedly sustained due to improper billing by the Utilities Department
to 4724 Maychelle Drive, covering the period on or about April 12 through
June 10, 1983.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No.
83-10-36, Southern California Edison Company for authority to include San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 3 as a Specified Major Addition
under the Major Additions Adjustment Clause and to revise rate levels
established thereunder to Recover the Costs of Owning, Operating, and
Maintaining San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 3; to make
certain changes to its Base Rates and certain other rate design criteria
set forth in Decision No. 82-12-055 and/or the California Public Utilities
Code; requesting a change in the Commercial Operating Date Criterion with
respect to Unit 3; and to establish procedures for this and related
Applications.
916
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
b. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes o~f October 24, 1983.
c. 105: Golf Course Commission--Minutes of September 23, 1983.
3. 180: Authorizing the Risk Manager to place an order with Rollins Burdick
Hunter, the City's Broker of Record, for 580 million (per occurrence) of
additional comprehensive general liability coverage, excess of the City's
present coverage of 520 million (per occurrence) at a premium cost not to
exceed 554,000 annually.~
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Y.S.P., Inc., in an amount not to
exceed 530,000 for juvenile diversion services, for the period July 1, 1983
through June 30, 1984.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing
Committee in the amount of ~110,000 for law enforcement services and resources
from 4:00 p.m. on July 29, 1984 to midnight on August 11, 1984, for the
Olympic events to.be held at the Anaheim Convention Center.
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the Anaheim City School District at a
cost of 57 per day for the use of one classroom at Melbourne A. Gauer School
for an Extended Day Care Program; term commencing September 8, 1983 and ending
June 15, 1984; and authorizing the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Director to execute same.
7. 139: Conditionally supporting the passage of AB2099 (Farr), the
California Park and Recreational Facilities Act of 1984 and communicating said
support to our legislative representatives.
8. 155/158: Having considered Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for
the proposed widening of Anaheim Boulevard between Cypress Street and Lemon
Street, and having considered evidence, both written and oral, presented to
supplement Draft EIR No. 263, the City Council finds that: EIR No. 263 is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with the City and
State CEQA Guidelines, and hereby certifies EIR No. 263; the City further
finds that the project will improve access and traffic flow through the
project corridor and the adjacent areas. It will improve the accessibility of
the downtown redevelopment area thereby stimulating business activity to the
benefit of all City residents. The physical features of the project area make
it infeasible to reduce the environmental impacts to an insignificant level;
and the City Council, therefore, adopts this Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to S&C
Electric in the amount of 514,787 for two additional padmounted sectionalizing
switches, in accordance with Bid No. 4042.
10. 160: Accepting the bid of Okonite Company in an amount not to exceed
567,745.91 for 7,860 feet of 15KV 750 KCMIL URD Triplexed wire, in accordance
with Bid No. 4001.
917
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
11. 160: Accepting the low bid of Toro Pacific Distributing in the amount of
~29,633.36 for four rotary mowers, in accordance with Bid No. 4051.
175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-441: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: YORBA
SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 55-659-6329-8603A-36200. (Markel Cement Contracting, Inc.,
contractor)
165: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-442: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HARBOR
CENTER PARKING LOT W/S HA/IBOR BOULEVARD, S/O BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 89-362-6327. (Griffith Company, contractor)
164: .RESOLUTION NO. 83R-443: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: STINSON
STREET STORM DRAIN AND WATER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
24-791-6325-E1280 AND 53-606-6329-27530-34320. (Changing Times Enterprises,
Inc., contractor)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-444: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: OLIVE HILLS
PARK PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 1980 STATE PARK BOND
ACT NO. 80-30054, ACCOUNT NO. 16-829-7103-1402C. (Parrott & Wright
Construction Company, Inc., contractor)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-445: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Imperial
Terrace; TRW, Inc.; Raymond Spehar, et al.; Thorobred Racing Plate Co., Inc.;
Rogelio V. Pereyra, et ux.; Carl M. Cissell; Hassan A. Mohaghegh, et al.;
Hassan A. Mohaghegh, et al.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-441 through 83R-445,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
918
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
123: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR A CITY-WIDE SPEED LIMIT ANALYSIS: Authorizing an
agreement with Berryman and Stephenson, Inc., in an amount not to exceed
~30,000 for a City-wide Speed Limit Analysis. Submitted was a joint report
dated October 14, 1983, from the Engineering Division and Police Department
recommending approval of an agreement with the subject firm.
Councilman Bay asked if in the request for proposal, a time limit was set up
as a criteria for choosing the contractor.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer answered "no," but that one of the items in the
RFP was a catch-up, so that they would not be without speed limit protection.
Time was of the essence, but not specifically stated as such.
Councilman Bay stated his concern was that the firm selected by staff was not
the low bidder, and the explanation given was the estimated flow time for the
project. Since the answer was "no" to his question, he wanted to know the
justification for selecting other than the low bidder on the difference of
four months versus two.
Mr. Singer answered that there were certain streets where the traffic study
was going to expire and, therefore, tickets could not be written or the speed
limit enforced. By compressing the time, they would have a study completed
within two months. They were gaining that enforcement capability and thus
were making up the difference.
After further discussion and questioning on the issue between Council Members
and staff, Councilman Overholt stated he agreed with Councilman Bay's concept
of stressing that time was of the essence; Mr. Singer stated that it was
implied.
City Manager Talley explained that when time impositions were put into bids,
it usually prompted a surcharge. If they said the job had to be done in a
certain period of time, the contractors tended to surcharge the bid in order
to compress the time.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize an agreement with Berry]nan and
Stephenson, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $30,000 for a City-wide Speed
Limit Analysis, as recommended in joint report dated October 14, 1983, from
the Engineering Division and Police Department. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. Councilman Bay voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
160: ACCEPTANCE OF QUOTATION TO PURCHASE FOUR POLICE PATROL VEHICLES FROM
MAURICE J. SOPP AND SON CHEVROLET: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on
memorandum dated November 10, 1983, from the Director of Maintenance, John
Roche, recommending the acceptance of the subject quotation, including the
discussion portion of the report explaining the reason for the requested
action.
919
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive Council Policy No. 306 relating
to advertised bidding and accept the quotation of Maurice J. Sopp and Son
Chevrolet in the amount of ~38,223.60 (including tax and options) for four (4)
1983 Malibu Police Patrol Vehicles, as recommended in memorandum dated
November 10, 1983, from the Director of Maintenance. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175.123: AGREEMENT WITH BOYLE ENGINEERING FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THREE
WATER PROJECTS, GROUP A: Councilman Roth moved to authorize an agreement with
Boyle Engineering Corporation in an amount not to exceed ~140,600 for
engineering services for three Water projects designated Group "A," as
recommended in memorandum, dated November 3, 1983, from the Public Utilities
Board. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler questioned staff on the reason why
they did not choose the iow bidder, especially when the difference was
approximately ~30,000.
Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, explained that the projects were
analyzed in accordance with Council Policy No. 401, which had six factors to
be considered in analyzing such proposals, one of the items being,
reasonableness of the fee. In going through all of the items through a point
system and assigning weights to the various factors, Boyle Engineering came
out on top, even though the fee was higher.
After further questioning of Mr. Auerbach by Councilman Pickier relative to
the criteria used for choosing one firm over the other, Councilman Bay
recommended when there was such a large variance in fees between the low
bidder and the bidder selected, they should use more rationalization for their
choice. If the Council knew enough about the situation, he did not think
there would be such a long line of questioning; Mr. Auerbach stated they would
do that in the future.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Pickler voted
"No." MOTION CARRIED.
175.123: AGREEM~ENT WITH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SIX
WATER PROJECTS, GROUPS B AND C: Councilman Bay moved to authorize an
agreement with Willdan Associates, Engineers & Planners, in amounts not to
exceed $48,658 for Group "B" Projects and $81,916 for Group "C" Projects, for
engineering services for six Water projects, as recommended in memorandum
dated November 3, 1983, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Councilman Pickler moved to approve an application
for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Thai A. Nguyen for a public dance to be
held November 19, 1983, from 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention
Center, in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
920
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
108: HEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 83-16, STARCADE I: Fred
Mattox, to consider an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director denying
an Amusement Arcade Application for Starcade I, 2136 East Lincoln Avenue, for
a maximum of 70 amusement devices (continued from the meeting of November 8,
1983; see minutes that date). Mr. Douglas "Doc" Livingston, 1904 East
Romneya, Suite 106, explained at the meeting of November 8, 1983, he was
requested to get some information to the surrounding businesses and have them
sign a statement that they did not oppose Starcade, and to also give them
notice that their application was for a maximum of 70 machines. He had signed
statements with him, and he also made the people aware of the Anaheim
Municipal Code Section providing if they did not do what they said they were
going to do, that they would have the right to petition to have the business
removed. Staff had not seen the statements.
Mayor Roth suggested that the item be trailed to give staff an opportunity to
review the statements to ascertain how many people were not now opposed to the
proposed Starcade.
Mr. Livingston then reported that out of the nine who previously objected, six
of those were no longer objecting.
Councilman Overholt moved to trail the matter of an Amusement Arcade
Application for Starcade, so that an analysis could be made by staff of the
people who signed Mr. Livingston's statements. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:53 a.m.)
Later in the meeting, Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning,
confirmed that Mr. Livingston had submitted nine letters of those who were now
not in opposition to the proposed business out of a total of seventeen, and
that would exceed fifty percent. She explained if they had been provided with
that information at the outset, the Planning Director would have approved the
application. Staff was now satisfied.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve Amusement Arcade Application No.
83-16, Starcade I, at 2136 East Lincoln Avenue, for a maximum of 70 amusement
devices, in accordance with staff recon~nendations. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that approval was with the understanding that
if there was any problem, the permit could be revoked.
179: BILLBOARD STUDY: Report from the Planning Department relating to
billboard regulations. This matter was continued from the meetings of May 24,
July 19, and October 18, 1983--see minutes those dates. Submitted was a
report dated November 15, 1983, from the Planning Department/Zoning Division,
subject: "Billboard Study Update."
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, first explained the
essence of the color coded map posted on the Chambers wail, which depicted the
three main freeways that ran through Anaheim, areas of the freeway where
921
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
billboards were prohibited, possible locations for freeway billboards, areas
where billboards were already in place throughout the City as noted by blue
dots, and areas where it was possible to construct billboards which would
comply with present regulations. She then briefed the extensive and detailed
ll-page report (on file in the City Clerk's office), the first sentence of
which recommended denial of any proposal to allow freeway-oriented billboards
in the City, but with recommended alternatives should the Council determine
that permitting freeway-oriented boards was in the public's best interest.
(See paragraph 2, page 1 of the subject report.)
At the conclusion of Miss Santalahti's presentation, Councilwoman Kaywood
asked how many additional sites for billboards were permitted in 1965 in
exchange for removing billboards from the freeway; Miss Santalahtl answered
that they were easily more than doubled. Councilwoman Kaywood noted then that
there were hundreds in exchange for 30 that were removed.
Mayor Roth noted that representatives from the billboard industry were present
in the Chambers audience; Councilman Pickler interjected and stated that they
had heard from the representatives of different firms at previous meetings and
today he wanted to get some input from the Council as to their feelings and if
the industry subsequently felt they had anything to add, they could do so.
Mayor Roth stated that if there was to be any dialogue relative to government
getting into the sign business, his position was clear--he did not believe
that government should be in competition with free enterprise and would not
support that concept.
Mr. Ronald Thompson, Planning Director, then explained for Councilman Overholt
the concept of one or more non-profit entities being formed for the specific
purpose of developing freeway-oriented billboards and returning the revenues
to the City to fund capital improvements (see Page 2 of the November 15, 1983
staff report).
At the conclusion of Mr. Thompson's briefing, Councilman Overholt surmised
that the City would then be going into the billboard business; Mr. Thompson
clarified that was the bottom line.
Mayor Roth then further clarified for Councilman Overholt that he would be
opposed to such an alternative. He supported billboards on City-owned
property at the Stadium and Convention Center, but not expanding that into
private properties along freeways or anywhere else.
Councilman Bay, in voicing his opinion, stated his feelings were similar to
the Mayor, although he was not certain that he even approved of the City being
in the sign business at the Stadium. He did not approve of any government
function looking for a way to take over the profits of a personal enterprise.
Councilman Overholt stated if they wanted a third vote opposing that concept,
he agreed on that particular issue, the next issue being whether they wanted
to have freeway boards.
922
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
When Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that when the freeway boards were removed
in 1965, hundreds of locations in the City were given in exchange. Two were
allowed at each corner, or eight per intersection. If they were willing to
give that up, perhaps there was a basis for discussion. If not, and the
industry still wanted freeway locations, the agreement was being abused at
this point, and she felt there was nothing to talk about.
Miss Santalahti clarified that in 1965 when major modifications were made,
there were less than 30 freeway-oriented billboards. The exchange was that
legally they could establish eight boards at every highway intersection. She
believed there were 198 at other locations existing today, with boards ranging
in size from 72 square feet to 672 square feet.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that staff mentioned the change took place at a
public hearing and she was concerned why the meeting today was not a public
hearing. She felt if there was to be a decision reached today, they had
excluded the public. She maintained it was a major decision and major change
for Anaheim. They had a prohibition against billboards in the Scenic Corridor
Overlay Zone and if they were going to destroy the rest of the City, the
people should have a right to be heard.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Harry Ricketts, 1632 West Valencia, Fullerton, stated he was present on
another matter, but he was concerned about the outdoor advertising aspect. He
had always admired Anaheim for having a plan and sticking to it. He agreed
with Councilwoman Kaywood if the matter was considered in 1965 he would think
they would be deviating from their methodical methods by going back and doing
something contrary. Billboards were a sore point with all citizens in the
United States. He would be against adding billboards to what they had now.
He also confirmed for Councilman Bay that he would prefer to have a public
hearing on the matter.
Mrs. Eileen Anthony, 1345 Amberwick Lane, stated that two months ago it was
the unanimous decision of Anaheim Beautiful that they were opposed to
billboards of any kind in the City. They felt they were the "ugliest" things
in creation.
Councilman 0verholt a~kad what ~ha would think if something could be worked
out to reduce the number of boards in the inner City by allowing freeway
boards--how would citizens react.
Mrs. Anthony answered ihat she could not speak for the citizens, but as an
individual, she was anti-billboard. She also noted that Anaheim Beautiful had
done a lot to beautify the City and their club was made up of individual
citizens concerned about the community. Another aspect that concerned them
was the fact that billboard companies paid only $100 a year for a license,
whether they had one sign in the City or ten. If the City needed money, she
suggested that perhaps the industry should be paying a fee on each individual
sign, although she clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that money would not
make ugly beautiful.
923
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Bob Mickelson, 3823 Glassell Street, Orange, stated he felt the question
that was being asked was whether they should proceed with any consideration to
amend the ordinance, not whether the ordinance should be amended. They were
speaking about a land use control under the Zoning ordinance and the only way
they could amend that was through the manner prescribed by State law, which
required public hearings before they could make a decision to amend it.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that Anaheim was a Charter City and,
therefore, governed by that Charter in dealing with any ordinance revisions
which requires the customary introduction and then adoption procedure. It was
a public meeting, not a public hearing, which was advertised and the normal
notice requirements of a Council meeting were involved.
Mr. Ted Toderoff, 2959 Belie Court, stated he was present on another matter,
but was concerned about the subject issue. He had to side with Councilwoman
Kaywood and Mrs. Anthony that to approach the matter without a public hearing
was ridiculous.
Mr. Ken Keesee, 406 North Dwyer, stated he had seen good and bad types of
advertising. In his situation, he was trying to get a billboard on his
property on South Anaheim Boulevard. He paid taxes on nine different pieces
of property and was a supporter of Anaheim Beautiful for a time, as well as
other charitable organizations. He had "paid his dues" within the City and
was only able to do so because he had revenue coming in. He could not see
where his sign was going to be so obscene or detrimental to the City. He also
clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that if his property was not selected as a
site for a board, he would not oppose billboards if they were attractive,
because he realized the ultimate importance of advertising.
Mayor Roth then stated he believed they had heard from everybody but the
industry, but felt they needed to make a decision today. They had several
alternatives--continue the matter in order to get additional input, act today
to uphold the existing ordinance and continue to explore the possibility of
limited freeway advertising, or take an action upholding the existing
ordinance, eliminating any possibility of exploring an additional amount of
revenue that could be gained from freeway advertising.
Councilman Pickler stated in 1965 the ordinance was revised, changing the
whole situation, and he ~elt it should be reviewed, even i£ they did not want
to make any changes. Perhaps they did give up too much and they should look
at it again. They had the potential for additional revenue and they could
control whatever they decided to do. They utilized the CUP process, and it
was something they did not want to relinquish. He did not want to include
railroad property at this time and he would also limit the number of
applications from a firm. It was also necessary that they give some direction
to staff, so that they could work out the problems with which the Council was
concerned and also come back with dollar figures to look at. As evidenced by
the previous discussion, the non-profit concept had been eliminated. His
personal opinion was that he did not want to be a bookkeeper, but they should
come up with flat fees to be charged for boards. He was not saying whether
924
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
they should cut back on boards within the City. As long as they could limit
and control the situation, they could keep a "handle" on it, while at the same
time getting extra funds that could be used in the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that at the time freeway boards were removed in
1965, no landscaping was being done on freeways that had boards, and there was
some question now whether or not freeways with billboards would be
landscaped. She did not feel they should risk that for the people of Anaheim.
Councilman Bay stated he had heard a lot of new thoughts today, as well as the
question of a public hearing. In his mind, he felt the Council needed to look
at the existing ordinance for potential changes for one primary reason--the
City went into the billboard business at the Stadium. In doing so, regardless
of the ways the revenues were being used for the public good, the Council had
no choice but to look at the ordinance from the standpoint of what the City
was doing that private enterprise was not allowed to do. He felt it was up to
the Council to take the facts they had gathered up to now and give staff some
indication as to where they (the Council) were going. They had to find some
way to give the industry at least a share of what the City had done itself.
Secondly, the question of a public hearing was an important one and his
opinion on that was, before they made their final decision on changes,
whatever they might be, that there absolutely should be an advertised public
hearing inviting citizens to participate.
Thirdly, on the basis of new or additional revenue, the industry itself had
said they had no opposition to an increase in their business license. The
other various techniques of increasing revenues varied by different opinions
on the Council. He shied away from trading aesthetics for money, but the City
had already done that. That was another decision for the Council to make. He
did not know if they were ready to make those decisions today.
Councilman Overholt stated he disagreed with a couple of points, the first
being that he did not have a sense of guilt with what started the issue, the
Theme Tower project. That board was now being modified in a way that would be
more acceptable to the community. The issue was not whether the Council did
something in the past that was now forcing them to allow private industry to
do the same, but whether the Council, contrary to the Council of i965, wished
tO continue to prohibit outdoor advertising or its expansion on the freeways
in the City. After 18 years, it was time to take another look. His position
was that if it could be done in a way that could preserve the aesthetics while
giving some consideration to the taxpayers of the City, more than ~100 a year
for each company, then he was in favor of examining the possibility of
considering freeway advertising. They had proposals from the industry which
were getting very close. He felt they had gone as far as they could go today
and should direct staff to incorporate the concepts expressed.
Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that there was no relationship between
allowing further billboards along the freeways or any place else, and raising
the $100 a year per company fee. Raising the fees to a proper one had nothing
925
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
to do with allowing any further billboards and the industry felt that the ~100
a year, regardless of the number, size or location was ridiculous. She also
disagreed with Councilman Bay as far as guilt feelings on the Stadium
billboards, which served a very different purpose, that of funding the Amtrak
Station. As she recalled, she abstained on that vote because she did not feel
she could vote for it, but on the other hand, she felt the citizens wanted the
Amtrak Station, needed the transportation and they would be favorable to it,
so she abstained rather than vote "no." She was also opposed to the liquor
and tobacco advertising on it, but abstained for the same reason. She
represented the people of Anaheim and what she heard from all of them was that
they were opposed to billboards. They hated them and found them disgraceful.
The public purpose of the City's two boards were not to be mistaken as opening
the door, because she also disagreed with the City going into the business.
There was nothing billboards had contributed to the C]ty of Anaheim up until
this date.
Councilman Bay stated he did not see a consensus amongst the Council;
Councilman Pickier stated he was getting a consensus that they wanted
something and felt they wanted staff to come up with some recommendation for
freeway signs. He was going to move that staff be directed to come up with an
ordinance or whatever it would take to permit freeway signs, with certain
stipulations relative to the 500-foot spacing of boards, a fixed figure
instead of a percentage of gross receipts or square footage, no railroad
property, etc.
Councilman Overholt stated if his motion was to direct staff to come up with
an ordinance amending the existing billboard ordinance that would permit
outdoor advertising on freeways with appropriate limitations, he would second
such a motion.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated the reason he would
second such a motion was because he was not sure the 500-foot spacing was the
right thing, but that it should be more than 500 feet.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, if there was a possibility that any kind of
billboards on the freeway would mean the State would not do any landscaping,
would that affect his decision; Councilman Overholt stated that was something
staff would have to look into.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked to have the motion repeated; Councilman Pickler
stated he felt Councilman Overholt's suggested motion would be more
appropriate.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that staff be directed to draft
an ordinance amending the present billboard ordinance to permit freeway
outdoor advertising with appropriate limitations including, but not limited
to, the number of applications per company per year, spacing between signs,
zones in which the boards would be allowed, size and height of boards, and all
other pertinent issues broached in the discussions and subsequently submit a
definite recommendation, not excluding the possibility of reducing the density
of the boards within the inner City. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
926
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked staff if they thought they could
possibly take the information in the motion and come back with answers without
starting an actual make-up of an ordinance.
Miss Santalahti answered she would expect to do a draft ordinance, because it
would include numbers and probably with an explanation on any numbers that
might be unclear. She also asked if the intent was for them to look at
business license fees.
Councilman Overholt answered "yes," and thereupon included the following to be
'added to the foregoing motion: Including the substantial increase in revenue
to the taxpayers of the City from licensing of freeway boards.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for a written opinion as to whether the
installation of billboards would prohibit the landscaping of any freeways.
Miss Santalahti explained that verbal information from the State was that
there were no instances of landscaping requests that were being held back by
freeway billboards at this time; however, she would try to get that in writing
from the State.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Overholt with the
addition relative to an increase in revenue. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
179: VARIANCE NO. 2252--EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Charlotte Rhodes, for
an extension of time to Variance No. 2252, to legalize a roof sign constructed
within 300 feet of an existing free-standing sign on property located at
3136-B West Lincoln Avenue, was approved in accordance with the recommendation
of the Zoning Division, to expire August 27, 1984.
Councilman Pickler noted that pictures were just submitted by staff depicting
the signing.
City Manager Talley suggested that since there was a question on the matter,
that it be discussed after a break for Closed Session and lunch (1:07 p.m.).
Later in the meeting (3:19 p.m.), Miss Santalahti explained that the variance
was originally granted for one year because of the lease the tenant had on the
property. Since that time, the Council regularly granted extensions. To
modify it from one year from date of approval, it would b~ n~cessary to
readvertlse the item in order to delete that specific condition. They could
only do so for one-year increments at present.
Councilman Pickier asked if staff wanted the sign to remain; Miss Santalahti
referred to the two photographs submitted (made a part of the record). The
signing situation was almost identical to what it was originally, plus the
fact that they put an improper sign almost on the sidewalk. She felt the wall
sign was entirely adequate to advertise the business at that location.
927
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the sign had been there for many years; Miss
Santalahti stated it was illegally constructed originally, but they had not
received complaints from the other tenants.
Councilman Bay stated he thought personally they needed to either get rid of
the sign or find some way to extend the review to stop the administrative
costs coming in so often.
Mayor Roth suggested that they make this the last extension and the sign must
come down on August 27, 1984, which he felt was fair, since it would give the
time to move it or do something else.
Councilman Roth moved to grant an extension Of time to Variance No. 2252, to
legalize a roof sign constructed within 300 feet of an existing free-standing
sign on property located at 3136-B West Lincoln Avenue, to expire August 27,
1984, as recommended by the Zoning Division, with the explicit understanding
that this was the last extension of time to be granted and the sign would have
to be removed not later that August 27, 1984 . Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to ask about the illegal sign in
front of the business; Miss Santalahti stated that they would be given a
notice to remove that sign.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations and to give a litigation update with no action
anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and for a lunch break.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:07 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:19 p.m.)
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4460: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4460 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4460: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (83-84-3, CO, 401 South Euclid
Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4460 duly passed and adopted.
928
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 15, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4461: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4461 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4461: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-21, CO(SC), ML(SC) and
CL(SC), north of the Riverside Freeway, west side of Weir Canyon Road)
142/114: ORDINANCE NO. 4462: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4462
for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4462: AN ORDINANCE OF THE.CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.010 OF SECTION 1.12.010 OF CHAPTER 1.12 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO PROCEDURES. (City Council meeting time)
Councilman Overholt also stated that at the next meeting he would also be
asking for a vote on the motion relating to rescheduling of the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings.
179: BILLBOARDS ON HARBOR BOULEVARD: Councilman Pickier referred to a
picture from a recent newspaper article taken on Harbor Boulevard showing a
heavy sign density on that portion of Harbor Boulevard across from the
Disneyland entrance.
Miss Santalahti reported that many of the signs were legal non-conforming
signs that preexisted current conditions. She also explained that if there
was an expansion to a motel or a business in that particular area, they did
not require modification of the sign, but if they were putting in a new sign
panel or reconstructing the sign, they would typically compromise on a smaller
or lower sign. Only one or two a year came in for "serious" reconstruction.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
p.m.)
(3:32
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:10 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED, (5:11 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
929