1982/01/12City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL ~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour (entered
the Council Chambers at 2:24 p.m.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PURCHASING AGENT: John Thomason
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Philip Grammatica
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
PUBLIC WORKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
b~yor Pro Tem Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
a~endance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Tom Favreau, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Pro Tem Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
"Audio-Visual Week" - January 17 to 23, 1982.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held June 16, 1981, and November 24, 1981. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. Councilman Roth abstained on the minutes of June 16, 1981, and
Councilman Overholt abstained on the minutes of November 24, 1981, since both
were not present at those respective meetings. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kmywood 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 ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,328,840.74, in accordance
with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved.
43
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
153: CONTRACT FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS - BALL-TAFT MEDICAL CLINIC:
Authorizing an agreement with the Ball-Taft Medical Clinic for pre-employment
physicals for the period covering January 1, 1982, through December 31, 1983.
By general consent, the Council agreed to trail consideration of the subject
to later in the meeting for full Council action.
Later in the meeting (when Mayor Seymour was present), City Manager William
Talley briefed the Council on the issue which was discussed at the meeting
of December 29, 1981 (see minutes that date). Mr. Long, the Administrator of
Ball-Taft Clinic, and Dr. Krause, a principal of the organization, were present
to answer any questions.
First, Mr. John Thomason, Acting Risk ~nager, answered questions previously
posed by the Council, and subsequently, Mr. Steve Long of the Ball-Taft Clinic
addressed some of the concerns expressed by the Council.
The Mayor wanted assurance that the City would be getting the highest quality
physicals possible. His major concern, however, was that the present bid of
Ball-Taft was so low in comparison with the other facilities who bid, as well
as in comparison to their bid submitted in 1976, that he felt something was
wrong.
MOTION: Following extensive discussion and questioning between the Council,
Mr. Long and staff, Councilman Bay moved to authorize the contract on the
prices bid by Bail-Taft with the assurance that a certified radiologist review
the X-rays. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to vote against the motion. On the first
page of report dated December 18, 1981, the second iow bidder gave an Alternate
"A" and Alternate "B" (report on file in the City Clerk's office). Alternate "A"
was $5,000 more than the bid from Ball-Taft, which they would only submit on
the basis of receiving referrals for Workers'Compensation treatment. If they
could not be assured of receiving those referrals, then their bid would be
$32,400, which was almost $20,000 more than Ball-Taft. He could not believe,
therefore, that the $13,860 bid from Ball-Taft was a legitimate bid.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMB'ERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Mayor Seymour asked that staff take another look at the matter and, in addition
to the process that was completed, he was interested in knowing if there was
some way that staff could assure the Council that the City would Be g~tting high
quality physicals once the contract had been signed, not before. He would also
invite the Ball-Taft Clinic to come back in with their low bid. He was in favor
of the low bid, but they had to find some way to be assured they were going to
get a quality physical.
44
City Hall~ Anaheim,.California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt they needed to check out all the bids in 1976 to see
what was required. If they were going to do it for one company, they should
do it for all; the Mayor stated he saw no problem with that.
Councilman Bay felt that they were now changing what they asked for in the
contract and the dollar amounts would change accordingly.
Mr. Talley stated he felt there was a breakdown in confidence in Ball-Taft's
ability to deliver. His recommendation would be to award to the second
bidder.
MOTION: The Mayor stated he had no problem with that except he would like
to have some time for the Council to consider that. He thereupon moved to
continue the matter for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Talley stated his understanding was that the Council desired to continue the
matter, but deny the award. There was a possibility they might want to rescind
the denial if they wanted another week to think about it; the Mayor asked that
the matter be placed on the agenda in one week, and during the week, if he had
additional information, that it be provided to the Council before next Tuesday.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved as
recommended.
a. 160: Bid No. 3831--Five 37.5KVA Switched and five 37.5KVA Unswitched Single-
Phase Subsurface URD Transformers, Item Nos. 1 and 2, award to Kuhlman Electric,
$13,896.60; Five 50KVA Switched and five 50KVA Unswitched Single-Phase Sub-
surface URD Transformers, Item Nos. 3 and 4, award to General Electric Co.,
$16,642; and Fifteen 75KVA Switched, twenty 75KVA Unswitched, five 100KVA
Switched and five 100KVA Unswitched Single-Phase Subsurface URD Transformers,
Item Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, award to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, $99,136.50.
b. 160: Bid No. 3825--Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase
order to Cone Chevrolet Company, in the amount of $14,674.13 for one walk-in
van.
c. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
McMahan Desk Co. in the amount of $42,484.80, for Virco chairs, Model G9100,
for the Convention Center.
d. 106/128: Authorizing the transfer of 396 part-time hours and $2,707 from
the Police Department to the Finance Department, for the purpose of administering
the City's program of billing for excessive false alarms.
45
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
e. 150: Authorizing the submission of a funding proposal to the State of
California Department of Education Environmental/Energy Education Grant Program
in the amount of $22,500, for the purpose of establishing a Docent Interpretive
Program at Oak Canyon Nature Center.
f. 153: Authorizing a monthly automobile allowance in the amount of $225
for the new Assistant Public Utilities General Manager - Power Resources,
effective January 1, 1982.
g. 175: Authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to make a
claim on behalf of the City to the Board of Supervisors of San Diego
County, for excessive taxes levied for the Fiscal Year 1981-82, relating
to the City's i.66 percent Ownership Interest in San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3.
h. 101: Remodel of Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning System
at Anaheim Stadium, Stadium Club. Account No. 61-501-6340. Continue
award of contract to January 19, 1982.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
113/125: SELECTION OF AN OFFICE AUTOMATION VENDOR: Authorizing the Data
Processing Director to send a letter of the City's intent to exclusively
negotiate with WANG Laboratories, Inc., for its office automation require-
ments.
bE. Phil Grammatica, Data Processing Director, answered questions posed by
Councilman Bay relative to the data submitted in support of the subject
recommendation. Councilman Bay stated as they embarked on a program with
a potential of one-half million dollars in cost over the next three years,
he wanted to know, not only at budget time but sooner, what the proposal would
domino into in EDP cost estimates for the whole operation across the next
three years. He was also interested in the program resulting in cost reductions
to pay for itself. When they were spending large amounts of money on EDP, he
wanted to see where the tangible savings were, where people previously had to
do something manually.
City Manager William Talley stated that information would be provided.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the Data Processing Director to
send a letter of the City's intent to exclusively negotiate with WANG Laboratories,
Inc., for its office automation requirements, as recommended in memorandum dated
January 12, 1982, from the Office Automation Committee. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
46
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982, 1:30 P.M.
CItY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 82R-10 through 82R-12, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-555 RELATING TO INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE LINDA VISTA RESERVOIR REROOFING PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-6i9-6329-26410-34200. (Bids to be opened on
February 4, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE
LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES,
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LINCOLN AVENUE FEDERAL AID
PROJECT STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, HES-L031(007), LINCOLN - FROM RIO VISTA
STREET TO 438' W/O AND RIO VISTA STREET - FROM HEMPSTEAD TO LINCOLN AVENUE,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-791-6325-El140, 47-791-6325-El140
AND 49-795-6325-E5240. (G. R. Frost, Inc., $172,000)
123: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 12
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
(Anaheim Boulevard and "Old" Lincoln Avenue and modification to the median
located south of the intersection of Clementine Street and Lincoln Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 82R-10 through 82R-12, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
123/175: PRICE WATERHOUSE~ FINANCIAL MODELING SYSTEM - ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX-
EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER RATINGS: Councilman Roth moved to authorize an agreement
with Price Waterhouse & Company in an amount not to exceed $25,000, to develop
a financial modeling system in order to provide quarterly financial information
necessary to maintain the Electric Utility's tax-exempt commercial paper ratings
with Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's Corporation, and authorizing
the Public Utilities General Manager to execute same, as recommended in
memorandum dated January 8, 1982, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
47
~it~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
105: RESIGNATION FROM THE SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to accept the letter of resignation of Elsie V. Bonnett from the
Senior Citizen Commission as submitted in letter dated December 31, 1981,
with a letter of thanks to be sent for her service. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
156: LOUIS DEXTER - REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION: Proposal
regarding the establishment of a Public Safety Commission as presented at the
meeting of January 5, 1982 (see minutes that date).
Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked that consideration of the subject be trailed to later
in the meeting when a full Council would be present.
Later in the meeting (9:27 p.m.), Mayor Seymour referred to Mr. Dexter's report,
submitted at the meeting of January 5, 1982 (see minutes that date), Public
Safety--TheTwo-Edged Sword. He asked the City Manager when something could be
prepared by the Fire and Police Chiefs in answer.
City Manager Talley stated that he did not think the report submitted in 1979
by the two Chiefs, in answer to the same request for a Public Safety Commission,
would change. They were the same two Chiefs, and he was doubtful there would
be a 180 degree change in their attitudes.
After a brief discussion relative to the time frame for submittal of a report,
Councilman Roth moved to direct the Police and Fire Chiefs to respond to the
City Manager and, in turn, that a report be submitted to the Council on staff's
reaction and recommendation with regard to Mr. Dexter's report; report to be
submitted at the meeting of February 9, 1982, with a copy to be provided to
Mr. Dexter. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Application submitted by Astro Pyro-
technics on behalf of H. Wilson Company for a Public Fireworks Display Permit
to discharge fireworks on the lawn and parking lot located south of Inn at the
Park Hotel, 1855 South Harbor Boulevard, on January 21, 1982, for a five-minute
duration between 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Action on the subject was trailed until later in the meeting to receive
clarification from the Fire Marshal on a question posed by Councilwoman
Maywood.
Later in the meeting, City Manager Talley reported that he spoke with the
Fire Marshal who confirmed that a representative from the Fire Department
would be present when the fireworks were discharged and if wind problems
arose, they would not be allowed to proceed.
MOTION: Councilman Overhoit moved to approve the subject application as
recommended by the Fire Marshal. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Council-
man Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
48
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
179: THE ART ~qD ANTIQUE EMPORIUM~ INC.: Request by David Traub for a clari-
fication of fees to be paid under Conditional Use Permit No. 2198, to permit
retail antique sales on ML zoned property located at 131 West Katella Avenue
(continued from the meeting of January 5, 1982), was submitted.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that the subject request had been withdrawn
by Mr. Traub.
No further action was taken by the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were filed against
the City and action recommended as noted:
Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by David Claussen for property damages purportedly sustained
due to tree roots in parkway invading sewer and stopping it up at 928 North
Siesta Street, on or about October 19, 1979, and December 5, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Virginia Anastasi for personal injuries purportedly
sustained at Anaheim Stadium when an unknown object caused claimant to fall,
on or about September 20, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by Laura Ann McGuire for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about
November 7, 1981.
d. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone Company for property damages purportedly
sustained when conduit was damaged by City subcontractor using a backhoe while
placing a water line at 1800 East Lincoln Avenue, on or about September 9, 1981.
e. Claim submitted by Saga Motor Hotel for property daraages purportedly sustained
when a meter blew off the wall and smashed through a window at the Saga Motor
Hotel, 1650 South Harbor Boulevard, on or about October 6, 1981.
Claim denied and referred to Bayly, Martin and Fay/San Antonio:
f. Claim submitted by Robert Dew for personal injuries purportedly sustained
due to actions of the Anaheim Police Department at the Elks Lodge in Anaheim,
on or about September 19, 1981.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
49
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January i2~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of December 7, 1981.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of October 15, 1981. (Unapproved)
c. 114: City of Westminster, Resolution No. 2200, urging the Orange County
Board of Supervisors to rescind their action applying for joint use aviation
purposes, Los Alamitos Naval Air Statio~ and urging the Department of Defense
to reject this request.
d. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 61138
(NOI No. 60), in the matter of the application of Southern California
Edison Company for authority to increase rates charged by it for electric
service.
e. 175: United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Southern California Edison Company, Docket No. ER81-177-000, Order Ruling
on Objections to Data Requests (December 15, 1981).
f. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--~nutes of December 9, 1981.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-13
and 82R-14 for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and
certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Abbey Services
Corporation)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-14: 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: 2 M.G. RESERVOIR AT
LENAIN FILTRATION PLANT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-619-6329-
26500-34200. (Peter Kiewit Sons' Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 82R-13 and 82R-14 duly passed and
adopted.
5O
City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST FOR A REHEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2278: Request of Dr. K. N.
Hurria, for a rehearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2278, to permit commercial
use of a residential structure on CL zoned property located at 3347 West Ball
Road, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (denied by
Resolution No. 81R-592 on December 29, 1981--see minutes that date), was submitted.
It was determined that no representative was present in the Chambers audience
to discuss the subject request for rehearing.
City Clerk Roberts confirmed that both the owner and Dr. Hurria were notified of
the meeting.
Councilman Bay stated he felt strongly that the request for the CUP was
adequately discussed in the original hearing on December 29, 1981. In reading
Dr. Hurria's request for rehearing, received January 7, 1982, he noted an
implied parking agreement with Anaheim General Hospital but did not see any
evidence of that agreement. He, therefore, suggested that unless the Council
wanted to trail the matter, that the applicant be informed by the Council, at
least from his standpoint, that there be evidence of a parking agreement to
solve the parking problem. If not, he saw no reason for a rehearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Anaheim General Hospital was across Ball Road,
separated by six to eight lanes of traffic. It was very hazardous and she would
be against such an arrangement.
Councilman Overholt stated he was inclined to trail the request for a full Council.
However, there was a vacant office next door to the subject property and as he
suggested at the prior meeting, perhaps something could be worked out. He felt
they should give the applicant an opportunity to be heard.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to grant the request for a rehearing. Council-
man Roth seconded the motion, indicating that the applicant should provide some
type of agreement for off-street parking.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he had seen nothing in the letter
submitted by Dr. Hurria that was just cause for a rehearing. He should submit
any new information in writing since, to him, the number of employees was not
even germane.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay
City Attorney William Hopkins stated in view of the tie vote, the matter would
have to be held over for full Council action. The item was trailed by the
Council.
51
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:.30. P.M.
Later in the meeting, Mayor Seymour, having been informed of the tie vote on the
subject earlier in the meeting when he was not presemt, stated he would vote for
the rehearing. Therefore, the motion offered that a rehearing be granted carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay
161: ORDINANCE NO. 4300: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4300 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4300: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3190, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3567 AND ORDINANCE
NO. 3631 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL b~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4300 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4301: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4301 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4301: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-13, RM-3000, south-
west corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4301 duly passed and adopted.
142/149: PROPOSED ORDINANCE - NO PARKING ANY TIME - PORTION OF BROOKHURST STREET:
Amending Subsection 14.32.190.410 of the Code, No Parking At Any Time--Streets
Designated, to.include Brookhurst Street on the east side, from the North City
Limits to Crescent Avenue and from Lincoln Avenue to Broadway; and on the west
side, from the North City Limits to Crescent Avenue and from Lincoln Avenue to
Broadway.
52
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. J. W. Davis, Jr., 1246 North Brookhurst, stated there were several people
in the Chambers audience present to speak on the issue. (It was determined by
a show of hands that eight people were present.)
The b~yor Pro Tem and Councilman Overholt suggested that the matter be trailed
for approximately thirty minutes for full Council action; those present had no
objection.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (2:08 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
being present.
recess.
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council members
(2:24 p.m.) The Mayor arrived in the Council Chambers during
119: INTRODUCTION OF THE 1982 DISNEYLAND AMBASSADOR: Mrs. Mary Jones, Community
Relations, Disneyland, introduced to the Council Miss Joanne Crawford, the 1982
Disneyland Ambassador.
Miss Crawford then read and presented a "Proclamation of Friendship" honoring
those cities which were official gateways to the Magic Kingdom of Disneyland--
Anaheim, Orlando, Florida, and in 1983, Urayasu, Japan. She also presented
a symbolic bronze key to the Council, representing the Key to the Gateway of
Disneyland in Anaheim.
On behalf of the Council, the Mayor welcomed Miss Crawford and presented her with
roses and a briefcase with the City seal.
142/149: PROPOSED ORDINANCE - NO PARKING ANY TIME - PORTION OF BROOKHURST STREET:
(see notes above)
Since there were a large number of people present on the matter, the Mayor asked
to hear from those who wished to speak at this time.
The following people then spoke in opposition to the proposed "No Parking"
proposal for the below listed reasons: Mr. Jerry Thomas, 1204 North Brookhurst;
Mr. Edward Lissitz, 1207 North Brookhurst; J. W. Davis, Jr., 1246 North Brookhurst;
Sylvia McDonald, 1184 North Brookhurst.
The residents were concerned over their inability to be able to park their
vehicles should the ordinance become a reality; parking would only be available
in garages and if they were full, there would be no place to park for themselves
or their guests, and such a situation would cause a loss of value to those homes;
if "No Parking" was allowed on Brookhurst, parking would then occur in the blocks
behind and around the area; inadequate parking had been planned for the tract of
houses originally and previously, when there was another proposal to remove park-
ing on Brookhurst, the residents petitioned that it not be done; it was not
possible to park in the alleys behind the homes because of the Fire Code.
Comments were also made relative to lack of police surveilance and enforcement
of traffic laws in their area.
53
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Thomas also submitted a petition containing fifty-four signatures of the
fifty-four people who were approached to sign it, recommending that they not allow
"No Parking" (on file in the City Clerk's office). He also offered some
recommendations relative to mitigating traffic congestion.
A Mr. Joseph Buena, Fulton Street, spoke in favor of the "No Parking" proposal
because of the horrendous traffic on Brookhurst Street which would be somewhat
alleviated since there would be more room on the street if parking were not
allowed.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then explained that the reason for recommending "No
Parking" in that area of Brookhurst Street was mainly due to the continually
growing volume of traffic which was in the vicinity of 38,000 ADT. The congestion
was also aggravated by left-turn demands into the private driveways and into the
public streets adjacent to the roadway.
Discussion then followed between Council Members Seymour and Bay and the Traffic
Engineer relative to possible alternatives, such as parking on certain portions
of the alleys at given hours, widening of driveways, etc.
Mr. Singer stated that they had not investigated the problems that would be
created by "No Parking" on a home-by-home basis, the solution for which might
entail a separate answer for each home.
Councilman Bay suggested that staff investigate the area, specifically from
La Palma to the Riverside Freeway on both sides of Brookhurst, and to find
for the Council where there were tangible parking problems on specific homes.
He wanted to see some factual data from the Traffic Department by next week
on a house-by-house case; Mayor Seymour also asked for information, particularly
as it pertained to sanitation and fire. It was necessary to have cooperation
among those two departments if they were going to pass the proposed ordinance.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the subject for
one week, directing the Traffic Department to review, on a house-by-house case,
those homes on both sides of Brookhurst from La Palma to the Riverside Freeway,
and to find for the Council the tangible parking problems involving specific
homes; staff to investigate alternatives relative to relieving such problems;
information also to be provided from the Fire Department and Sanitation
Department. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARi%IED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4302: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4302 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4302: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-20, RM-3000,
2035 West Katella Avenue)
54
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
134: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 171 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application by Sunset of California Homes, Inc., for amendment
to the Land Use Element to consider an alternate proposal of land use from
the current General Commercial designation to Low-Medium Residential for
approximately 5.8 acres of land located on the northeast corner of La Palma
Avenue and Romneya Drive (continued from the January 5, 1982, meeting, when
extensive input was received--see minutes that date).
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on General Plan
Amendment No. 171 and Negative Declaration to January 26, 1982, at 3:00 p.m.,
as requested by the applicant, The Wellington Group, Gerald Rewers, President,
in letter dated January 6, 1982. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
129: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1979 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE: To
consider adoption of the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code with amendments
thereto, and amending Chapter 16.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (continued
from the meeting of October 27, 1981).
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the public hearing on the 1979
Edition of the Uniform Fire Code to February 23, 1982, at 3:00 p.m., at the
request of the Fire Department. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-12A: In accordance with application
filed by Gloria Rowe, public hearing was held on the proposed abandonment of a
former Southern California Edison Company public utility easement acquired by
the City, as successor, located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and Fairmont Boulevard, pursuant to Resolution No. 81R-579, duly published in
the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated November 17, 1981, and a recommendation by
the Planning Commission, were submitted recommending approval of said abandon-
ment.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Mr. David S. Collins, 1077 West Ball Road, representing Mrs. Rowe, stated that
the ~ubjact wa~ an ancient Edison ~a~am~nt which was no longer necessary and
they would like to have it abandoned.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
55
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-15 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 81-12A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED GENERALLY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD AND FAIR}~ONT BOULEVARD. (81-12A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-15 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-13A: In accordance with application
filed by Meyer Investment Properties, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of an existing public utility easement located between West Street
and the Santa Aha Freeway, north of Vermont Avenue, pursuant to Resolution
No. 81R-580, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted
in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated November 20, 1981, and a recommendation by
the Planning Commission, were submitted recommending approval of said abandon-
ment.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
EN"JIRONI~NTAL II~PACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL E~IPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements ~or
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-16 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 81-13A. Refer to Resolution Book.
56
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED BETWEEN WEST STREET AND THE SANTA ANA
FREEWAY NORTH OF VERMONT AVENUE. (81-13A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-16 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-14A: In accordance with application
filed by Mr. Jerry G. Slater, public hearing was held on the proposed abandonment
of a 2½-foot overhead public utility easement located within Lot 52, Tract No.
5427, on the south side of Janeen Way, 100 feet more or less east of Lancer
Drive, 650 feet more or less south of North Street, pursuant to Resolution
No. 81R-581, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted
in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated November 20, 1981, and a recommendation by
the Planning Commission, were submitted recommending approval of said abandon-
ment.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-17 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 81-14A. Refer to Resolution BoOk.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN LOT 52, TRACT NO. 5427, SOUTH
OF JANEEN WAY, EAST OF LANCER DRIVE, SOUTH OF NORTH STREET. (81-14A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-17 duly passed and adopted.
57
City Halt~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
155: PUBLIC HEARING - REVISION TO EXHIBIT NO. 7 OF THE SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD
ACCESS POINT STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Submitted by the City Planning
Commission to consider a revision to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon
Road Access Point Study in order to provide for access onto Santa Aha Canyon
Road as part of an overall access plan for an approved church and educational
facilities on approximately 10.8 acres of land located on the southeast side
of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Eucalyptus Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-245, declared
that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project, and further,
recommended approval of Access Point designated as 12, as shown on Exhibit
No. 1.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition,
to the proposal; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of this Negative Declaration; that no sensitive environmental
impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the initial study submitted by the
petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare and EIR. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-18 for adoption, approving Access
Point designated as'12, as shown on Exhibit No. 1, Revision to Exhibit No. 7
of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A REVISION TO EXHIBIT NO. 7 OF THE SANTA ANA CANYON ACCESS POINTS
STUDY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO A CERTAIN SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF
SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, EAST OF EUCALYPTUS ROAD AND WAIVING CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NO. 201. (Amending Resolution No. 66R-27)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-18 duly passed and adopted.
58
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2276 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Benner Sheet Metal, Inc., to permit a metal recycling center
on P~ zoned property located at 2860 and 2870 East Miraloma Avenue, with a
Code waiver of maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No.. PC81-250~ declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to this project, and further, granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2276, in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Miraloma Avenue as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the Office of the City Engineer.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2079 to the Planning Department.
3. That the existing structures shall be brought up to the minimum standards of
the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
4. That all on-site circulation for customers' vehicles and vehicles delivering
salvageable materials shall be clearly indicated on the site.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer.
7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal
assessment fee in the amount of $500.00 per acre within a period of sixty
(60) days from the date herein.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay appropriate drainage
assessment fees to the City of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer
within a period of sixty (60) days.
9. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim within a
period of sixty (60) days.
10. That fire hydrants shall be installed on subject property as required by
the Fire Marshal.
11. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
59
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No.
l, provided, however, that revised plans shall be submitted to and approved
by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Department showing relocation of the
gate 60 feet from the sidewalk on ~raloma Avenue and relocation of the proposed
6-foot high block wall 50 feet from Miraloma Avenue.
13. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12 above-mentioned, shall
be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under
this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued,
whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may
grant.
14. That Condition Nos. 7, 8, and 9, above-mentioned, shall be completed within
a period of sixty (60) days of approval by the Planning Commission or no later
than January 30, 1982.
15. That no trucks, containers, or other vehicles that haul or contain trash
shall be permitted to be parked outside the perimeter of the yard.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Louis A. Benner, agent,
and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, explained for Council-
man Bay her understanding was that the Planning Commission granted the request
in part, but denied the request for the waiver~ The fence, plus the gate, were
to be located farther back. The applicant later came forward and stated he under-
stood the decision differently and clarified what he stipulated to was the issue of
the gate, but he still wanted the waiver of the fence. At that point, it was
his option to come to the Council.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then explained for Councilman Roth that the reason
for the setback of the gate was to enable a truck to pull off the street while
waiting for the gate to open. It did not mean the entire front area had to be
moved back.
Mr. Louis Benner, 219 South Lemon, referred to Page 3-a of the Staff Report to
the Planning Commission, Request (2), Maximum Fence Height - 30 inches permitted;
6 feet proposed. On Page 3-b, (15)(a), there was a somewhat contradictory
statement, "That the recycling yards be effectively site-screened from adjoining
streets and properties;" They were proposing a fence height of 6 feet or more,
whatever the City would-permit. Secondly, there was a misunderstanding with the
Traffic Engineer. They would accept a 15-foot setback from the street as far
as the fence was concerned, and the entrance gate being set back 60 feet in order
not to impede traffic on Miraloma, as Mr. Singer stated.
6O
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Benner then presented a chart illustrating adjoining properties and streets,
showing various setbacks in those surrounding areas, averaging approximately
16 feet, and six of the nine lots were on Miraloma. He then explained for
Councilman Bay, if he were held to the 50-foot setback on Miraioma and 60 feet
to the gate, due to the large truck nature of his business and the type of
storage involved, it would impede their traffic in the rear of the property in
that they could not turn a large truck around. Trucks would then have to back
out onto the street versus making a circle on the property and entering the
street head-first. At the Planning Commission meeting when he agreed to the
50-foot setback, he was looking at the 60-foot gate which was acceptable, but
he misunderstood the 50-foot setback and that was why he was contesting the
decision.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Mr. Robert Cannon, 517 12th Street, Santa Monica, stated he was one of the
owners of the 20 acres of land directly across the street from the proposed
recycling development. They were opposed to the particular use, but if per-
mitted, they had a strong interest in seeing that the use be screened from the
street.
The Mayor asked if he would contest that out of nine improved lots, six had a
15-foot setback; Mr. Cannon suggested that the figures were in error and it
seemed to him that at least four of the properties on Miraloma between Red Gum
on the east, and Blue Gum on the west, were set back considerably more than
that. He personally walked those four properties today and those were the
only ones he could attest to.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Benner
to make a summation.
Councilman Roth stated he would be more concerned if buildings were built in the
setback area, but the applicant was trying to build a fence within a setback
which others in the area already enjoyed. It was unbelievable to him that they
were trying to force a setback in a fenced-in area where there were already
permanent buildings in closer proximity to the street.
Mr. Benner stated relative to the pictures on La Cresta, he was not aware of
the difference as to how the street was rated relative to its use. At 2990
Miraloma, the setback was 15 feet. Ail of them were not at 15 feet, but varied.
He did not know if Mr. Cannon walked the properties he (Benner) mentioned in
his presentation. Also, as Councilman Roth pointed out, buildings were constructed
past the 50-foot area and he thought with the block wall screening, it would
provide sufficient screening from the public. He asked the Council to consider
what he was storing did require a bulk amount, and it must be outdoors.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
61
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982~ 1:~0 P.M.
Mr. Benner then clarified the following upon Council questioning: he would
stipulate to an eight-foot wall; he was agreeing with the sixty-foot setback
for the gate but he wanted the wall to be fifteen feet from the property line
instead of fifty feet. In his appeal letter, he indicated thirteen feet, but
fifteen feet would be acceptable. He further clarified, however, that if the
Council granted a thirty-foot setback, that would be acceptable.
Miss Santalahti then explained the setback requirement was measured from the
property line, which was not the same as the curb. She assumed that the
applicant was aware that from the curb to the property line there was additional
footage involved. He could not measure the parkway area which was about twelve
feet from the curb. The ten feet of landscaping required would be back from
the property line, which was twelve feet from the curb.
Mr. Benner stated he did not understand that as such and he was talking from
the curb. If set back twenty-two feet, plus another thirty feet, that would
be fifty-two feet from the street, and he would be back where he started as far
as his proposal was concerned. He had asked for a thirteen-foot setback plus
the twelve feet, as just explained, would be twenty-five feet. What Councilman
Bay recommended would be acceptable (thirty feet) but if back further, it would
be a hardship as far as his business was concerned.
Councilman Bay asked for confirmation that what would be acceptable to Mr. Benner
was a setback of thirty feet from the curb or eighteen feet back from the property
line; Mr. Benner answered that was correct. He also noted that the examples he
showed in the photographs were from the curb.
Mr. Singer reported that any measurements referred to should be tied to the
centerline of the street, and from that centerline to the property line was
forty-five feet. Anything beyond that was private property.
Miss Santalahti then explained for the Mayor that from the centerline, the
Planning Commission required a 95-foot setback to the block wall; for the gate
distance, it was 105 feet from the centerline of Miraloma.
She also clarified that she did not believe there were any immediate neighbors
to the subject proposed business that had received a waiver similar to the subject
request, namely, new construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of t-his Negative Declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject property for General Industrial Land Uses comensurate with
the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal
and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant
or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
62
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to uphold the Planning Commission's
decision which was to grant the Conditional U$~ Permit, in part, denying the
request for the setback. Her reason for so doing was in the long-range interests
of Anaheim in upholding the standards that the Anaheim Economic Development
Corporation felt should be upheld with regard to industrial land. If they were
now going to allow someone to encroach, those who had complied would be punished,
and in the long run, the City and the entire Redevelopment Project would suffer,
since this particular location was also in Project Alpha.
Councilman Roth stated he was going to oppose the resolution because Mr. Benner
was not asking for any more than what was already existing on the street and he
was not asking to put a permanent building in a setback area, but only a fence.
Councilman Overholt stated he had no quarrel with the 8-foot block wall, but he
had yet to know of a situation where new construction received a waiver of a
setback requirement. He was going to support the resolution. He asked for
confirmation that Councilwoman Kaywood was denying the appeal on the setback,
but that she was willing to accept the 8-foot wall; Councilwoman Kaywood answered
"yes" with the proper setback.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Benner if he was now clear in his understanding as
to where the 50-foot setback would be placed with reference to the curb and the
centerline; Mr. Benner answered, using a 12-foot setback, it would be 62 feet
from the curb. He was thinking it was 50 feet and applied for a 13-foot setback
from the curb, although 15 feet would be acceptable. He would, however, accept
a 30-foot setback from the curb.
The Mayor stated he was going to oppose the resolution because there would be
no buildings constructed that would violate the 50-foot setback for structures.
He did not see anything wrong with a setback of 30 feet from the curb with an
8-foot high wall.
Councilman Bay was considering offering a substitute resolution for somewhat
less than the 50-foot setback, but somewhat more than the 30 feet. If he could
not offer such a resolution at this time, prior to voting on the resolution
proposed by Councilwoman Kaywood, then he intended to vote to deny.
Councilman Overholt pointed out the reason Mr. Benner was present was due to
a misunderstanding on everyone's part at the proceedings at the Planning
Commission's hearing. He wanted Mr. Benner to return to the Planning Commission
to see if there was a clear understanding and what they might recommend; Council-
man Bay favored a return of the matter to the Planning Commission; Councilwoman
Kaywood had no objection.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing to
February 16, 1982, at 3:00 p.m., during which time the Planning Commission
would again review the matter and report back to the Council. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
63
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:50 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Overholt. (5:03 p.m.)
The Mayor stated that Mr. Overholt would be in the Chambers shortly; however,
he was able to hear the proceedings.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-5~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2259
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by American National Properties,
Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to C-R, to permit a five-story
office building on property located at 2111 South Manchester Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-242, disapproved
the Negative Declaration from the requiremant to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report on the basis that there would be significant individual or cumula-
tive adverse environmental impact due to the approval of the Negative Declaration
and that sensitive environmental impacts were involved in the proposal due to
the relocation of approximately 94 mobile homes, causing a disruption to the
life styles of those tenants, and the trauma could lead to or aggravate medical
problems; that moving the coaches would cause traffic congestion problems and
pollution to the air and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner
indicated significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts.
The City Planning Commission further denied Reclassification No. 81-82-5 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2259.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by American National
Properties, Inc., and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (5:05 p.m.)
Mr. Terry J. Tweedt, Vice President, American National Properties, Inc.,
210 West Cerritos, stated he had read the report prepared by the Planning
staff and it was a good summary of the data in the case. He then gave a
brief background on the history of his company as well as the history of
the subject property. They were not asking for any waivers of Building
Codes. Tenant relocation was not previously addressed and they would now
like to make the following relocation assistance available: that American
National Properties pay 100 percent of the transportation costs to relocate
the mobile home coaches,~ including tearing them down and setting them up,
within a 100-mile radius, by using the lowest bidder of the several moving
companies they had asked to submit bids. Tenants would be allowed to leave
the park at any time, but.no later than October 1, 1982. They had done what
the State law and the City requested of them in all respects. The City chose
to adopt a General Plan and they had submitted an application which fit within
64
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
the purview of that General Plan. The park was 26 years old, operating with a
conditional use permit granted for an interim park use. The density in the park
was twice as great as would be allowed by new Zoning Codes. There were a
tremendous amount of infrastructure problems which would take $300,000 to repair.
In concluding, he stated theirs would be an excellent project to be approved by
the City Council, which fit with the City's General Plan, and they requested
approval.
Mro Tweedt confirmed that the relocation offered was being introduced for the
first time today and neither staff nor the tenants were aware of it.
Mayor Seymour stated that such information should be presented to the tenants
and subsequently, give them an opportunity to respond. He did not know if such
an offer was going to begin to satisfy some of their needs. He felt it would
be better to continue the matter until such time as the Planning Commission and
tenants had an opportunity to respond~ He added that a date for a work session/
public hearing was in the process of being finalized between the Planning
Commission and the Council relative to the entire question of mobile home parks
throughout the City, as well as relocation parks.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, then explained for Councilman Bay that
the General Plan for the subject area showed C-R along the Manchester
Avenue frontage, with the remaining of the entire area Medium Residential Land
Use. There would have to be an interpretation by the Council as to whether or
not the General Plan would be appropriate since it could be considered either
way; Councilman Bay surmised then that it was up to the Council to interpret
the General Plan in this case.
The Mayor reiterated, because of the information presented today by Mr. Tweedt
and the action he outlined relative to a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission, he felt it appropriate that the matter be continued; Mr. Tweedt
stated he had no problem with that.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized for the developer that there was no zoning on
the property at present for him to do any kind of building. She also expressed
her concern that the Planning Commission hearing was held November 16, 1981,
the American National Properties' letter of appeal on the Planning Commission's
decision was dated December 3, 1981, and today, January 12, 1982, they presented
new information go that nobody had any advance knowledge of their proposal.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue the public hearing on Reclassifi-
cation No. 81-82-5, Conditional Use Permit No. 2259 and a Negative Declaration
to March 16, 1982, at 3:00 p.m., and in the interim, the matter was to be
referred back to the Planning Commission, since new information was presented
at the meeting relative to an offer of relocation of the park tenants, and that
information should also be presented to the tenants, in writing, by the developer,
and discussed with them to give them an opportunity to respond. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion.
65
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Frank Heller, Attorney for National American
Properties, 27001 La Paz Road, Mission Viejo, introduced himself and stated
they would be pleased to meet with the representative of the tenants if he
represented them as a group.
Mr. Vincent Jantz, Attorney, 2700 North Main Street, Santa Ana, stated he had
been working with the tenants of the park for some considerable time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
After further clarification from staff, the Mayor asked that the joint work
session between the Planning Commission and the Council be held on March 9, 1982,
at 7:00 p.m., and that before the meeting was advertised, that consideration be
given to holding it in a larger facility. The subject of the work session would
be as foliows: (1) Identification of those mobile home parks in the City that
should be zoned on a permanent basis rather than what has historically been done;
(2) identification of those parks in the City that do lend themselves to
conversion; (3) identification of a relocation park within the City limits
to contain the dispossessed units as a result of conversion on those mobile
home parks that may be candidates.
RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing on
the Eighth Year, .1982-83 Community Development Block Grant Program and Budget.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motions. MOTION CARRIED. (5:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:22 p.m.)
174: PUBLIC HEARING - EIGHTH YEAR, 1982-83 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) PROGRAM~=AND BUDGET: To consider a 1982-83 program and budget as
recommended by the Communitywide Community Development Block Grant Citizen
Participation Committee for a total allocation of approximately $1.8 million.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed the
Council on his report dated January 15, 1982, recommending the adoption of
the Eighth Year, 1982-83 Community Development Block Grant Program and Budget,
as recommended by the Communitywide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee, for
a total allocation of approximately $1.8 million (report and recommended budget--
attachment number 3 of the 12 attachments, on file in the City Clerk's office).
At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Priest introduced Steve Jimenez,
Chairman of the Communitywide Citizens Committee, who was prepared to discuss
the findings and recommendations of that committee (also, see minutes of
the Committee's public hearings which were held October 1, 1981, October 15,
1981, and October 29, 1981, on file in the City Clerk's office).
66
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Steve Jimenez explained the procedure followed and highlighted some of the
criteria they used relative to their selection process and prioritizing for the
allocation of CDBG funds. He asked that the Council look favorably upon their
requests, as listed in Attachment No. 3, for an estimated allocation of $1.8
million, with the further recommendation that if the City's Entitlement Grant
was greater than that amount, that the four back-up activities, indicated in
the order of their priority at the bottom of the sheet, totaling $81,000, be
funded.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those who wished
to speak to the 1982-83 CDBG Budget.
Kathryn .Thompson, Chairman, Orangewood, a new home for dependent children,
asked :hat the Council reconsider their application for a share of CDBG funds
which would be used to help construct the new emergency shelter facility for
abused children, replacing the Albert Sitton Home. Their project was a unique
partnership between the public and private sector to raise funds for those
children who were inadequately housed at this time. She then gave the back-
ground as to why they felt their project should go forward (see letter dated
June 9, 1981--Attachment 9 of the Executive Director's memorandum). Their
request for $224,000 from Anaheim was based on referrals from Anaheim to the
home in 1980, totaling 17 percent. In the first four months of 1981, 71 children
from Anaheim were referred to the home.
Lynne Coenen, Executive Director, Women's Transitional Living Center, Orange,
gave the background on the Center, which was a shelter for battered women and
their children (see letter dated September 23, 1981--Attachment 8 of the
Executive Director's memorandum). The statistics indicated that 24 percent
of the clients served by the WTLC were from the City of Anaheim and their
request for $57,000 was 19 percent of their initial request made in 1980-81,
based on the unpaid mortgage, as well as the percentage of Anaheim clients
served.
Eugene Scorio, Executive Director, Orange County Fair Housing Council, explained
that they submitted their request for a share of CDBG funds in the amount of
$35,000 based specifically upon the total utilization percentage of the City of
Anaheim of the services of their Council. Of the 26,700 calls and services
to clients, Anaheim utilized 4,700, or a little over 17 percent. He then
elaborated on the services provided (see Attachment 10 of the Executive
Director's memorandum).
Mr. Mike Shanahan, Chairman of the Citron Neighborhood Council, 716 South
Indiana Street, stated that although he was basically supportive of the
previous three recommendations, he asked that the Council not grant those requests
for funds. Each one of the representatives asked for their fair share from
the City of Anaheim for use by 100 percent of the population. He felt they
were asking for funds that should come from the General Resources of the City.
67
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
CDBG funds represented federal tax dollars being channeled back to the City
for a four-district area and something had to be done to benefit those areas
(Central City Neighbcrhood, Patrick Henry Neighborhood, Citron Neighborhood,
South Anaheim Neighborhood) to prevent them from becoming worse. He stressed
that the funds they were talking about tonight were not City funds and he
strongly urged thmt the City grant funds to those three organizations, but
not from CDBG funds.
Upon Council questioning, Mr. Priest clarified that the funds did not legally
need to be targeted to the four neighborhood areas.
There being no further persons who wished to .speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Jimenez then explained for ~he Mayor that the three requests were considered
by the Committee, and the testimony given by Mr. Shanahan paralleled the con-
sensus of the group. Althc. ugh the community felt the requests were very important,
the bottom line was that the money should be spent in their own neighborhoods.
Mayor Seymour first stated it was clear that the Council was legally empowered to
make appropriation of CDBG fUnds wherever it saw fit. He was personally prepared
to accept the recommemdations of the Communitywide CDBG Citizen Participation
Committee, with some changes thmt might not be in CDBG funds. He wanted to see
the recommendations of the Committee accomplished as long 'as the Council was
committed to identify where they might find an additional $225,000 for the
Orangewood Home (later in the meeting clarified as being $224,000), $57,000
for the Women's Transitional Living Center, and $20,000 for the Orange County
Fair Housing Council ($15,000 less than their request, but an increase of $5,000
over the previous year), and further, that the backup activities recommended
by the Committee, $10,000 for .the Washington' Community Center Basketball Court,
$36,000 for the Washington Community Center Handball Courts and Lights, and
$10,000 for La Palma Park Security Lighting, also be funded. He excluded the
$25,000 for the initial study for a storm drain in the Patrick Henry area
since he was optimistic that in the future they were going to find a way to
fund storm drains. He wanted to make a commitment this evening in their
approval of the Budget recommendatiohs that they would~ achieve the funding
of the three requests. He was seeking a commitment that somewhere, somehow in
the 1982-83 budget process that they identify the $358,000.
Councilman Roth was supportive of the proposal advocated by the Mayor.
City Manager Talley asked for clarification that they were directing staff to
reflect in the'Resource ~Allocation Plan for 1982-83, $2,157,000, and at present,
they believed $1.8 million would be appropriated by the federal government; the
Mayor answered, that was correct and he should use all his creative thinking
relative to these matters, which they considered of high priority and committed
to see them through.
68
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Talley cautioned that Congress might come back and
reduce the $1.8 million; the Mayor stated, so as not to mislead anybody, if
Congress should cut back the $1.8 million to $1.2 million, for instance, they
were going to have to have another meeting.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the CDBG Citizen Participation
Committee recommendations for CDBG funding, FY 1982-83, as submitted, amounting
to $1,800,000, with the addition of a committed appropriation of the following:
$224,000 - Orangewood New Home for Dependent Children; $20,000 - Orange County
Fair Housing Council; $57,000 - Women's Transitional Living Center. Also,
Backup Activities recommended by the Citizen Participation Committee - see
items 1, 3 and 4 at bottom of their funding recommendation as follows:
$10,000 - Washington Community Center Basketball Court; $36,000 - Washington
Community Center Handball Courts and Lights; $10,000 - La Palma Park Security
Lighting.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (9:20 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (9:27 p.m.)
148: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONGRESSIONAL CITY CONFERENCE: Councilman
Overholt stated that he would be happy to attend the subject conference
(February 27 - March 2, 1982) if the Council would like him to do so. He would
miss the Council meeting of March 2, 1982.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that Councilman Overholt attend the National
League of Cities Congressional-City Conference in Washington, D.C., February 27 -
March 2, 1982; that he be reimbursed out of the Council's travel account for
City expenses thereto, and, if necessary, that he be authorized to vote on
behalf of the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
115: AUTOMATIC DOOR - 2ND FLOOR BRIDGE ENTRANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood noted
that the recent wind storm had blown open the automatic door on Friday and it
had to be tied shut, making the second story bridge entrance to the Civic Center
unusable. She felt, if there were a fire or earthquake this would create a
dangerous situation in evacuating the building. She thereupon requested staff
to review the contract for those doors to ascertain whether the manufacturer
could do something to prevent a recurrence. The best alternative should be
explored, including enclosure of the bridge.
69
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12~ 1982, 1:30 P.M.
164: OAK STREET STORM DRAIN: Councilman Roth stated that as Chairman of the
Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency, he had a request of the Council that
a telegram be sent to the Army Corps of Engineers requesting that they retain the
Oak Street Storm Drain in the All-River Plan for the Santa Ana River. The
next ten days were crucial to the entire All-River Plan, which had previously
been endorsed by the Council.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that IGR send a telegram signed by the Mayor
to the Army Corps of Engineers requesting that they retain the Oak Street-Storm
Drain in the All-River Plan for the Santa Ana River. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
139: AB781 (LEVINE) MANDATORY INSULATION LAW: Councilman Bay stated that he
put in the Council boxes the Los Angeles Times article on the subject bill, with
a copy to Cindy Cave, Intergovernmental Relations Officer. He planned to
recommend that the Council take a position of opposition at today's meeting,
but since a great deal of information needed to be gathered, which IGR was
in the process of doing, he would merely recommend that article for their
information and further staff information would be provided so that it could
be discussed and a position taken by the Council at the next meeting.
181: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE AD HOC HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW
COMMITTEE: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to ratify the appointment of Mabel Walker
to the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Review Committee to fill the vacancy
created by the death of Alfred R. McDaniel. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
182: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE RELOCATION APPEALS BOARD: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to ratify the appointment of Robert Dory to the Relocation Appeals
Board to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Ian Skidmore. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
139: AB1049 (NAYLOR): Mayor Seymour referred to the memorandum submitted to
him earlier today by Cindy Cave, IGR, relative to the subject bill on Inverse
Condemnation. The City had been approached by the League of Cities to generate
strong opposition to the bill. She (Cave) had prepared a telegram to Assemblyman
Richard Robinson, which he read. The Committee meeting on the bill was to take
place the next day.
The Council then discussed various provisions of the bill with the City Manager
and City Attorney, and its ultimate consequences both to the City and property
owner if passed in its present form.
At' the conclusion of discussion and comments by the Council, no formal action
was taken.
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 with action anticipated.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:00 p.m.)
7O
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (11:05 p.m.)
li2: SPECIAL LITIGATION MATTERS: Councilman Seymour moved to confirm the
employment of Rutan and Tucker to handle special litigation matters for the
City of Anaheim with reference to Rutan and Tucker letter dated January 7, 1982.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:06 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
LEONORA N. SOHL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
71