1981/05/0581-649
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Rotm and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William p. HopKins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Ro0erts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PURCHASING--BUYER: Diane Hughar t
STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: Bill Lewis
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santa[ahti
DEPUTY FIRE MARHSAL: Ga rrb Menges
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Carl Sutliff
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: 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: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were authorized by the City
Council and issued 0y Mayor Seymour:
"Poppy Days" in Anaheim - May 15 and 16, 1981
"Medical Assistants Week" - May 11-17, 1981
June $chooler accepted the P.6ppy Days proclamation and Lynda Corbin accepted
the ~qedical Assistants Week proclamation.
il9: RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION: A resolution of recognition was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to the West Anaheim Lions Clu0 for
their generous contribution to the scholarship fund for the Anaheim "Youth of
the year."
119: RESOLUTION OF COP~ENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unani-
mously a~opted Dy the City Council and presented to Mr. Eugene Testi, Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department for his honesty and responsible
action in returning a wallet ne found at Anaheim Stadium containing $600.
!19: RESOLUTION OF COPE~NDATION: A resolution of cormmendation was unani-
mousl7 adopted a~opted by the city Council and presented to ~illiam J.
Griffith, City Librarian, Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, and Dean
Grose, Puolic Infonnation Coordinator, and their staffs for ~neir efforts in
assuring a complete 1980 Census Count for the City.
81-650
City Hall, ~naheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES -May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Sister Frances Mary,
Principal of St. Boniface School, in recognition of their 50th year celebra-
tion.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS AND CO~PlENDATION: A resolution of con-
gratulations and commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council to
be presented to Mr. Glenn E. Stewart, City Treasurer, upon his retirement.
b~INUTES: 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 Bay seconded the
mo~ion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS~ AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,386,453.26, in accord-
ance with the 1~80-81 Budget, were approved.
123: STUDIES AND INFORMATION RELATING TO CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT: Councilman
Over,blt moved to autmorize an agreement with the Agency by w~ic~ the Agency
shall pay $35,700 as a share of the City's cost for the preparation of studies
and information relating to conditions of blight within the definition set
forth in Section 33031 of C~e Health and Safety Code, as recommended in memo-
randum dated April 25, i981 from Executive Director of Community Development
Norm Priest. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CP~RRIED.
i74: SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTY'S APPLICATION TO HUD FOR REALLOCATED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDB~) FUNDS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded 0y Councilman Overnolt, the Mayor was authorized to sign a letter of
support for the County's application to HUD for reallocated Community
Development Block Grant funds and providing for the County to act as lead
agency in administering Anaheim's share of the reallocated funds, as recom-
mended in memoranuum dated April 20, 1981 from the Executive Director of
Community Development. MOTION CARRIED.
128: FINANCIAL STATE~VfENTS - NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1981: Councilman
Roth moved to receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months
ended March 3i, 1981. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay noted a $35,815,000 overrun, year to
~ate. During discussions on the new Budget, the City Manager stace~ ~ma~ t~e
General Fund would be $100,000 in tree red. He wanted to know mow they could
0e at the n~nth month with a $35,815,000 overrun in a planned budget and still
De in t~ne red. ire was concerned over the image given ~o the public that they
were either over 0udgeted a great deal or failed to accomplish a grean ,aeal.
81-651
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Finance Director George Ferrone explained first t~at approximately two-tmirds
of the Budget represented Enterprise Fund accounting and not General Fund
accounting, the utilities and Family Foresome operations. Most of the dollars
that were underspent now were in the capital projects expenditure area, most
of which were approved by the Council for current year spending and would
either be completed before the end of the fiscal year or moved forward into
the next fiscal year.
Councilman Bay asked if it would Oe worthwhile to add some special note along
with the proposed Budget indicating factors creating that amount on the up-
coming Budget and looking at capital that they might not get to next fiscal
year and also pointing out some of the potential variao[es--something to
modify the total figure that was advertised to the public on the City's Budget.
City Manager William Talley stated another way they could do it, if Council
wanted to do so as a policy, was to let the Council know what was coming up
treat was not positive and roughly the cost. A good example was the San Onofre
Project which was in the Budget speculatively. They could identify such
items, Out he felt they might be accused of enhancing the Budget if during the
year as the items~ were firmed up they added tens of millions of dollars as
projects came into fruition. Nearly all such items involved capital projects.
They could identify them and the degree of probability they would be funded.
Councilman Bay stated he broached the matter as a question the Council should
consider and perhaps they could talk about it in their Budget session next
wee k.
?~ayor Seymour then asked the following questions which did not need to be
answered at the meeting to~iay: (1) Why were Cney 388.6% over Budget in Human
Resources capital; (2) In the Utilities, sale of power was down 15%--was that
a result of lack of demand for electricity; (3) Under Internal Service Funds--
Operating Revenues--Billings~to Otter Departments--Other, there was a percent-
age variance (under) of 138.'1% and he wanted to know why.
City Manager Talley explained relative to the first question, that involved
the Payroll/Personnel System completed earlier this year. %l~ey nad advised
Council they would 0e coming forward with a recommendation at the end of the
year to a~just that Budget.
b~r. Ferrone answered relative to t~e second question, the primary cause of the
revenues being down more than expenses was due to the fact that they b'uilt up
a surplus of over $2 million in the Fuel Adjustment category and this was
designed to oring that down to the parameters of the indenture agreement. It
was a matter of coming up with rate increases and then being surprised by
Edison's lack of passing ~hose on to the City.
].layor Seymour stated, however, if that happened, he would think that the sale
of power ~ouid not be off 15.5%, but off less than 10.5%; ~r. Talley stated
c~ney would submit a report om that aspect through Mr. Ferrone.
81-652
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.~I.
Relative to the last question, Mr. Ferrone stated he would have to get a
response for the ~ayor.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to receive and file the subject
Financial Statements. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - DOUGLAS FIR POLES, BID NO. 3758: On motion by
Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low 0id of J. H.
Baster and Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of
$11,081.24, for 30 each 50-foot and 10 each 60-foot Douglas Fir poles, as
recommended by Purchasing Agent John Thomason in his memorandum dated
April 24, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE ORDER FOR ELECTRICAL METERS: Councilman Bay moved to authorize
the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, without competitive bidding,
to Scientific Columbus, in the amount of $21,735.30, for fifteen electronic
"Joule" meters, as recommended in memorandum dated April 29~ i981 from the
Purchasing Agent. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was' taken, both Diane Hughart, Purchasing--Buyer, and Carl
Sutliff, Electrical Engineering Assistant, answered questions posed by Mayor
Seymour for purposes of clarification explaining why the cost would be much
higher if the meters were purchased elsewhere.
A vote was t~en taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
174: YOUTH PROGRA~M ACTIVITIES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
0y Councilman Over~olt, the CETA Services Division was directed to continue
direct operation of Anaheim youth programs through fiscal year 1981/82, as
recommended in memorandum dated April 28, 1981 from Human Resources Director
Garry McRae. MOTION CARRIED.
106/174: SUP~b~R YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRA~M: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to (1)
authorize a Grant Agreement with the Orange County Manpower Commission in
amount of $32,185, for the period of March 1, 198t to September 30, 1981~ for
the operational planning of the City's Summer Youth Employment Program, and
authorizing the City Manager to execute same; (2) authorize a budget adjust-
ment to Program 359 (SYEP) to increase the work mours by 1280 and to increase
the program appropriation by $32,185, both as recommended in memorandum dated
April 27, 198t from the Human Resources Director. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: CREATION OF JOB CLASSIFICATIONS - STREET PAINTER I AND II: Councilman
Roth offered Resolution No. 8tR-200 and 81R-201 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated April 29, 1981 from the Human Resources Director. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-200: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEI~t ~NDiNG RESOLUTION NO. 80R-545 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSA-.
TION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
GENERAL CITY E>~LOYEES UNIT. (effective May 8, t981)
81-653
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-201: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY EPfPLOYEES UNIT.
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. 81R-200 and 81R-20i duly passed and adopted.
159: AWARD OF CONTRACT - MECHANICAL .MAINTENANCE FACILITY NATURAL GAS REFUEL-
ING STATION: Account No. 72-325-6325. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No.
81R-202 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended in memorandum dated
April 29, 1981 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-202: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOW'EST
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 FOLLOW-
lNG PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY NATURAL GAS REFUELING
STATION, 518 S. ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
72-325-6325. (Niagara Electric Corporation, $13,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-202 duly passed and adopted.
150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - CARBON CREEK BIKEWAY - PHASE I: Account No.
17-798-6325-E8010. City Manager Talley first briefed the Council on the City
Engineer's report dated April 28, 1981, recommending chat the Council grant
relief of old to the low Didder, A. M. Construction Company, Inc., and award
to the second iowest and most responsive bidder, Porter Construction Company
in the amount of $149,902.
Councilman Koch offered Resolution No. 81R-203 for adoption, awarding-a con-
tract to tme second lowest and most responsive bidder as recommended by the
City Engineer. Refer ~o Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-203: 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 CO~tPLETE THE FOLLOW-
lNG PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: CARBON CREEK BIKEWAY - PHASE I - CRESCENT TO GILBERT,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 17-798-6325-E8010. (Porter Construction
Company, $i49,902)
81-654
Cit~z Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-203 duly passed' and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that if A. M. Construction bid on any jobs again
~hat staff evaluate their bid very carefully.
158: DECLARING PARCEL ~OS. 27, 32, 10 AND A PORTION OF 11 AS SURPLUS LAND:
City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated May 5, 1981 from
Executive Director of Community Development No'rm Priest, recommending that the
Council (1) declare Parcel Nos. 27 and 32, and Parcel Nos. 10 and 11 (a
portion), located at Loara and north of North Street and south of Catalpa
Street as surplus land, and (2) direct staff to send letters to appropriate
public agencies as required by Government Code Section 54222, giving notifica-
tion that the land is available for purchase. He asked that Mr. Priest
further elaborate~ on the recommendation.
[~[r. Norm Priest stated ~hat they now had a more accurate description of the
parcels--Parcels 27 and 32, Book 34, Page 46; Parcel 10 and a portion of
Parcel tl northerly of the Orange County Flood Control Easement in Book 34,
Page 5 of the Orange County Assessor's Record. They were approached a snort
time ago 0y Anaheim Memorial Hospital expressing an interest in development of
senior citizens housing. At that point ~n time, they explored any possible
vacant parcels that might be available and gave the Hospital such information
as tmey had and invited them to seek any parcel they thought could be fruit-
fully developed for such housing. Subsequently they examined the subject
parcels and talked with representatives of the City's Parks and Recreation
Department relative to the aT~ailability of such parcels for housing. It would
appear that while a considerable amount of effort would have to be undertaken
should the property be made available for housing, that there had been a great
deal of effort undertaken by representatives of the Hospital to date. He
urged favorable consideration of the motion. Representatives of the Hospital
were present to make a presentation.
>ir. Will Woods, 4225 East La Palma Avenue, Chairman of the Board/ Anaheim Memorial
Hospital Association, explained that they had a project calling for t00 units
of assisted mousing for cae elderly. Those involved in such a project would
~ypically 0e a 74-year old widow of low to moderate income who had released
the family home back to the community and was now seeking some other type of
accommodation. The project would provide units for t~e elderly who required
financial assistance. There was a need in the community for 250 such units
wmich should be crea~ed by next year (see presentation to the City Council,
City of Anaheim, May 5, 1981--on file in the City Clerk's office). The 100
units being proposed would take a substantial portion out of that need. tt
would permit continuation of an objective of the Hospital to provide health
care for the community as a whole enabling the elderly to reside in a location
81-655
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
close to the Hospital so that when a need arose, the Hospital could assist.
The cost to the City would be nothing; ultimately, the Hospital would be
required to pay fair market value for property not being utilized for anything
otmer than a transfer for refuse in the City. The Hospital was a non-profit
community hospital, capably managed and one which had continually moved to
upgrade and improve its facilities to the point where it was one of the
leading hospitals in Orange County.
There was an element of urgency to their appeal today. It was necessary for
them to nave established evidence of control of the properties so that their
application could be submitted to HUD by May 15, 1981. They had been working
towards such a project for quite some time and were in hopes t~at they could
find some property in close proximity to the Hospital, but it had not materi-
alized until now.
Councilman Roth asked if there was any indication that HUD funds were avail-
a~le for such a project; Mr. Woods answered, "yes." He then deferred to a
Janet Shelanski who had ~one most of the work in preparing the application and
Bob Barton, a consultant on HUD projects of the subject nature.
Councilman Bay, speaking to staff, noted that the Council had received all the
data on the subject proposal just as the meeting started. In the opening
recommendations and discussions (see May 57 1981 memorandum from Mr. Priest)
it talked about 100 one-bedroom apartments located on two acres. Looking
through the data and identifying Parcel B, which me assumed was the parcel
they were interested in acquiring, he believed it involved four acres. He
wanted to know if they were planning to build 200 units on two acres or on
fotlr acres.
Mr. Woods answered initially they tmought the amount of land that was avail-
able encompassed two acres suitable for 100 units. However, it had since
developed that there was an Rdditional parcel of land available immediately
contiguous w~ich would gzve 'them an opportunity to build a larger project if
that should prove feasible.
Mr. Priest then explained that relative to the deadline, this was a HUD notice
of fund availability and there was a definite deadline, that being May 15,
1981, and the Hospital was under that time constraint. In terms of the two
vs. four acres of land~ the initial two under consideration would landlock one
City parcel and thus it b~came important from the standpoint of proper
~tilization of the land that both portions of land be held as a single
pffering.
Councilman Ov~rholt asked if Loara Street was the access to the property.
Pit. Woods answered that there was access at both ends. There was an easement
off of a cul-da-sac on the east end (Lomita Street), but the main access was
off Loara. He also confirmed that at build ont, they could have more titan tree
100 units and part of the access would be via ~he cul-de-sac at Lomita. As a
matter of conjecture, it would appear possible for them to O~ild as many as
i50 units, but the application, b~sed on ~he initial smaller parcel, would
remain at 100 units until it could be revised.
81-656
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated as he understood, the action today would be an indica-
tion that the land was available for the purposes of the grant with a deadline
of May 15, 1981. If the grant became available, they would then be coming
back with precise plans for Council approval at a later date; Mr. Woods con-
firmed tmat was correct.
Mr. Priest clarified Council action today would authorize sending letters out
to various public bodzes. If those bodies indicated no interest in the
parcels, the Hospital would come back to the Council with an agreement next
week. That application could not go forward until they nad such an agreement.
Jamet Sh._~lanski, representing Anaheim Memorial Hospital, stated that the
~rawing s~own to the Council was a preliminary site drawing snowing the utili-
zation of the first two parcels, 27 and 32~ which they understood were the
only two areas available to them. Because of the shape of the parcel and its
proximity to a flood control channel, it was necessary to spread the project
all along tmat area. Tmey wanted to go with as iow a density as possible and
enlarging the site would allow them more flexibility. They did not find out
until this morning t~at there was additional land available to them. They
were presently cot~sidering a project of two, three-story buildings with a
one-story recreation hall on parcels 27 and 32, approximately 3.5 acres. Now
they were looking at adding parcel 10 and part of Parcel 11 which would
enlarge the site in the interior and the total acreage would be closer to 4.5
or 5 acres. With that they would add an additional building of 50 units,
possi01y as a second phase, but in the initial phase they were limited to 100
units because the announcement called for only 100 units for the entire area
of Orange County. She confirmed for the Mayor that there would be 100 units
on 3.5 acres and 150 units on 4.5 or 5.0 acres if they acquired the additional
parcels. She also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood than at this point t~ey
were restricted to the application for 100 units and regardless of whether 3.5
or 5 acres were involved, t~ey were still at 100 units at this time and if
they added more, it would be.~dependent upon the funding feasibility.
Mr. Priest further clarified that the project would be subject to neighborhood
impact, environmental impact amd all of the other appropriate reviews
inciuding zoning. It was conceptual at this point in time and not a specific
recommendation.
Councilman Bay asked if there was any implied or other agreement on the zoning
accompanying the sale of the property.
?~r. Priesn answered that nhe implication would be ~hat the agreement (sale)
would be subject to obtaining the zoning. He was con£i~ent that the ~ospital
would not be interested in p~rchasing the property if tmey could not obtain
the appropriane zoning.
Miss Shelanski stated they envisioned that the sale would be contingent upon a
number of t~ings, one of t~ose being obtaining the proper zoning.
81-657
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated, although their action was limited, the Hospital
was interested in obtaining their favor. He would not hesitate to say it was
a great use for the property.
Councilman Roth agreed, but was trying to point out that to consider concise
plans, density, etc. , today was of secondary importance to the application of
the HUD grant which nad to be submitted by May 15, and they would have an
opportunity to again review the whole matter when precise plans would be
available to Council.
Councilman Bay stated ne was concerned about the reactions of the single-
family dwellings bordering the property particularly to the north. He was
interested in receiving public input before me would say that he liked the
whole project. It may very well be a fine way to develop the land, but he
emphasized he was interested in the public response from the adjoining
properties. If he voted today to declare the parcel surplus for sale, he
wanted it clear that it was no implication on his part that he even generally
approved the overall project at this time.
MOTION: CouncilWoman Kaywood thereupon moved to declare Parcel Nos. 27, 32,
10 and a portion of 11 located at Loara and north of North Street and south of
Catalpa Street as surplus land and directing staff to send letters to appro-
priate public agencies as required by Government Code Section 54222, giving
notification that the land was available for purchase. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT TO EMPLOY GLENN E. STEWART AS CITY TREASURER: Councilman
Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-204 for adoption, authorizing an agreement
to employ Glenn E. Stewart as City Treasurer, commencing May 22, 1981. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-204: A RgSOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS ~AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT TO EF[PLOY GLENN E.
STEWART AS CITY TREASURER AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Over~olt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-204 duly passed and adopted.
t65: STATUS REPORT - POSTED STREET CLEANING PROGRAM: Continued from the
meetings of February 17, March 24, April 14 and April 21, 1981. City Clerk
Linda Roberts announced that the item was continued from April 21, 1981 to
allow time for a report to be received from the Patrick Henry Neighborhood
Council and no written communication had been received as of this date.
81-658
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
;~[ayor Seymour stated if they had not submitted something in writing, perhaps
he was at fault because he attended the meeting held Saturday, April 25, 1981
in which approximately 20 to 22 tenants were in attendance, many non-Englis~
speaking. They had circulated a petition asking a "yes" or "no"--did they
want a c~ange in the methods of cleaning the streets. It was the unanimous
opinion, "no," they did not want to change. He offered that from the apart-
ment house area, in addition to all of the single-family residences that he
knew of to the south of Romneya who felt the same. Obviously they preferred
the inconvenience of moving vehicles as to a marked improvement in the clean-
liness of the streets and they were willing to go on that.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she also saw a copy of the petition and that was
her feeling from what she had been hearing from the neighborhood before, that
they did not want to change and were very pleased. The program had eliminated
many vehicles literally dumped along the curb which had a positive effect in
cleaning up the neighborhood. She suspected they would find the same situa-
tion if they checked other neighborhoods. She would be reluctant to go into a
temporary trial w~ich would be extremely costly, cause sign proliferation,
etc. If everyone parked on one side, it would create a great deal of friction
because there was~not enough parking in the first place.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the status report
pertaining to the posted street cleaning program. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before a vote was action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he did not automatic-
ally make a conclusion, nor agree with Councilwoman Kaywood, because of what
he heard first-hand from 20 to 22 tenants in an area where there may be 500
people; however, he was willing to back off that particular area. Council-
woman Kaywood may also be correct relative to one of the other areas
selected--at Cerritos and Ninth Street, but he for one was not prepared to
assume that. They should po. ll that area perhaps by mail and if that neighbor-
~ood should say "no," they d~%d not want alternate side sweeping, that would be
fine. He asked the Council if they would be willing to initiate some type of
polling in t~at area.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they nad received complainas coming from that
area asking for help.
Mr. William Lewi. s, Street Maintenance Superintendent, amswered that specifi-
cally he could recall several complaints from that area, but he would have to
research the records to answer the question with a degree of accuracy. He was
contacted by one of the owners there who purported to have owned his apartment
building for some 20 years and he expressed both interest in the program and
concern that it was going well. He was also concerned about the alleys not
being cleaned or as clean as he would like to have them. They had rescheduled
all of the alley cleaning so tmat the level of cleanliness of all of the
improved alleys had been improved accordingly.' Tn~_=y were now being cleaned
approximately once a month, wmereas previously it was once or twice a year.
81-569
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if the alternate side sweeping program were to
take place she presumed he (Lewis) would be making up the additional work
hours Dy reducing the alley cleaning; Mr. Lewis confirmed that was true.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt then that would not be a satisfactory trade-off to
the people involved, since they did like and preferred to nave their alleys
swept.
Councilman Roth suggested that relative to the Cerritos-Ninth Street area
there were two alternatives: (1) they could research the number of citations
written and (2) send a double-fold postal card to the residents to give them
the opportunity to respond via the addressed and stamped portion of the card.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that with reduced revenues and the
concern that money be spent wisely, unless there was an outcry from the neigh-
borhood to try something different, she felt they would be wasting money. As
well there would be a resulting contempt for authority by changing a procedure
once people knew now a program worked and if the new one did not work, to have
to go Back to the old method.
Mayor Seymour asked how many tickets nad been written since the program was
implemented; Mr. Lewis answered, approximately 50,000, fiscal year to date.
The Mayor stated he was strongly opposed to the motion to receive and file.
He did not believe that they nad scratched the surface relative to the prob-
lems in the program.
Councilman Bay asked if ae would be more in favor of a tabling motion for a
specific period of time. He also asked Mr. Lewis if they were receiving
complaints, indications or writing a heavy ratio of tickets in any specific
areas that he could see.
Mr. Lewis answered in the higher density areas, they could look at the ratio
of per curb sweeping mile wh'ich was a nigher number than in single-family
areas. Taking the same ratio and applying it towards the number of residen-
nial living units, that ratio would decrease.
Mayor Seymour stated that confirmed his argument entirely. Where there were
more cars, there were more problems.
Councilman Overholt stated ne was going to oppose the motion because he felt
they should poll the other area and if the answer was the same, ~nere was no
need for a pilot program.
MOTION: Councilman Overhol~ thereupon offered a substitute motion that [hey
poll tne other proposed pilot area (Carri~os and Ninth) by mail and await a
response to see if there was a need for such a pilot program. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion.
81-660
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, a brief discussion followed relative to the area in
which the poll would take place. At the meeting of March 24, 1981, Mayor
Seymour suggested that a pilot program be implemented in three areas, the
first, Chevy Chase-Robin-Blue Jay, the second, the Orangewood-Haster area and
the third, Carritos-Ninth (see minutes that date). He preferred, therefore,
that polling take place in the Orangewood-Haster area at this time.
Councilman Overholt amended his motion that the Orangewood-Haster area be
polled and that the matter come back to the Council in five weeks as suggested
by the City Manager.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:25 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3203: Application by Vasile and Denise Kelemen,
to permit a free-~tanding sign on CO zoned property located at 700 South
Euclid Street, with a Code waiver of permitted number, size and type of signs,
was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-63, reported
that the Planning Director had determined the the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim guide-
lines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, there-
fore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further,
denied Variance No. 3203.
The decision of nhe Planning Commission was appealed by Vicou Kelemen, and
public hearing scheduled thi.~ date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and
desirious of being heard.
Hr. Vicou Kelemen, applicant and owner, 700 South Euclid, stated ne felt the
decision of the Planning Commission was discriminatory concerning his
business. There were many such signs on both sides of Euclid Street very
close to his building, one just across the street (corner of Alomar and
Euclid) on the same side, the Tax Crew. There was also a Soy Chirophractic
sign which was close to residential homes as he proposed, also Burger King,
Del Taco, Sir George's Smorgasboard, etc. He questioned why he could not have
the sign he proposed. He was a small businessman and wanted to know how they
determined which businesses needed a sign and those that did not; what was the
standard saying there were too many or too few signs. He needed all the signs
ne could nave legally. Anaheim was a growing City and houses were transformed
everyday into commercial or professional businesses. He emphasize~ that ,ne
needed the sign, it was not a luxury but a must.
81-661
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if upon buying the property did he ask anyone if he could
install a 75-square foot sign thereon; Mr. Kelemen answered "no," since he was
eager to have the property because of the location. He thought he could have
the same sign as the Tax Crew. He already had the sign in his gararge and
expected to receive permission to install it. He also reported upon Council
questioning that he had owned the property since March of 1975 and used to
live there but did not do so any longer. It was also not rented out to some-
one as a residence and only his business was located there.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposi-
tion to the requested variance.
Debbie Miller stated that she and her husband resided directly east of Mr.
Kelemen. T~ey were not in opposition to Mr. Kelemen having a sign, but felt
that a big sign, illuminated, was not necessary for the business. His was a
printing business and they felt people were not just going to stop by from the
street. Most would look in their telephone books and call to make an appoint-
ment. The proposed sign was very big, it was going to be illuminated, and it
would illuminate into the residential area and into the homes. They had been
living in their h~me for three years and were not residing there when the Tax
Crew put their sign up. Otherwise, they would have objected to that for the
same reason. They had talked with the Tax Crew people who only illuminated
their sign during tax time. The residents also asked them not to illuminate
the sign after a certain time at night and they did shut it off after that
time. They felt Mr. Kelemen could have a sign that would be sufficient enough
for people to see his business from the street since his business was also on
a corner. A 3 X 5 non-illuminated sign would be satisfactory. People could
see it down on the ground or on his building. It did not have to stand 15
feet on a pole. She repeated, they did not think a sign that big was
necessary.
There being no further perso.~s who wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mr. Kelemen
an opportunity to rebut.
Mr. Kelemen stated relative to the Tax Crew sign, it could be seen from her
(Mrs. Miller's) house. The sign he was going to erect which was not going to
be higher than the Tax Crew sign would not been seen in any manner from the
Miller house. The light could also be shut off at an appropriate time. It
would be a white "milk" light which would be much less bothersome than the
city street light. The sign he was asking for was the same size as the Tax
Crew or Soy Chirophractic and he needed that sign. He was not going to bother
anyOody--it would be impossible for the Miller's to see the sign.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Discussion then followed between Council and staff relative to the signing
allowed in that particular zone during which both Councilman Bay and Council-
woman Kaywood expressed their concern over setting a bad precedent resulting
in sign proliferation. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Bay stated
what staff was indicating, without settin~ some "horrible" precedent, they
could allow an S-foot square si~n at a maximum eight feet in height. It was
81-662
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
his inclination, therefore, to go with the Code after seeing the proliferation
of signs up and down almost every major street in the City. However, he would
like to hear from the Council if they would consider the 8-square foot sign
free-standing, limited to eight feet in height.
Councilman Roth stated he had no problem with the eight feet; Councilman
Overholt noted that was within Code and thus he shared Councilman Bay's view.
ENVIRONMENTAL IP[PACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Co,ancil ratified the
determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within
the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to
the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, cate-
gorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-205 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3203 in accordance with the City Planning Commission's action.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-205: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3203.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-205 duly passed and adopted.
Before closing, the Mayor explained for Mr. Kelemen that the Council had
denied his request for the 7'5 square foot free-standing sign but on the other
hand, he could install an 8-foot sign and if he wished, he could put it on a
pole.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-27 AND CONDITIONAL USE PER,MIT NO.
2188 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Richard and Lucy Anthony, for a
change in zone from RS-7200 to CO, to permit the commercial office use of a
residential structure on property located at 1200 West Ball Road, with Code
waivers of permitted location of required parking and minimum landscaped set-
oack, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, p~arsuant to Resolution No. PC81-57 and PC81-58,
declared that t~e subject project be exempt from t~e requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report p~arsuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Q~ality Act since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further,
denied Reclassification No. 80-81-27 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2188.
81-663
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Richard ~A~nthony,
owner, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Councilman Roth asked Miss Santalahti if she had seen the report from the
applicant relative to noise levels (see Section II of background material for
Reclassification No. 80-81-27 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2188 received
May 1, 1981--made a part of the record).
Miss Santalah~i, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated she was not aware a
sound study had been conducted, but the subject property was located on the
corner of two arterial highways.
Councilman Roth stated he was amazed relative to the amount of noise that
filtered in the mouse itself as evidenced by the decibel (DB) readings. There
was one statement in the report, "tests results indicated noise readings far
in excess of our City's acceptable DB residential levels of 65 DB external, 45
DB internal." He asked if she agreed with that.
Miss Santalahti explained that the Council Policy relative to sound attenua-
tion pertained to~ new construction and a developer coming in today would have
to comply with that. A provision was made a number of years ago that if a
person owned property fronting on an arterial highway, they could construct an
8-foot block wall in an effort to make their front yard and house more haOit-
able.
Councilman Roth stated he believed the applicant had such a wall, but there
was still a sound problem.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Ricaard fLnthony, Jr., 1200 West Ball Road, stated he held the deed to the
property. In appealing the Planning Commission's finding, he felt that they
did not have a fair chance to present their case. Later in the meeting, he
clarified that statement for Councilman Bay by explaining that Mr. John Swint
represented him at that hearing. There was quite a bit of discussion amongst
the Commissioners, but no opportunity for Mr. Swint to present any facts, some
of which were new and me had a very limited period of time to say anything.
?ne request was primarily denied on the basis of spot zoning.
Mr. Anthony then continued that he had a small office in the home and did a
lot of work there, but it had reached the point where he had to make a
decision. He had two businesses, one relating to consulting work and he was
also a Vice President for Sterling and Company in Los Angeles. He was
involved in a considerable amount of research work and he would have need for
service in the form of a secretary and research assistance. He then relayed
the historical background of the su0ject property which nad remained in his
family for 25 years from the time his parents purchased the home in 1957.
81-664
city Hall, Anaheim, ~.,alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
In November, 1973, Ball Road was proposed to be widened requiring land dedica-
tion. He thereupon submitted letter dated November 5, 1973 from the City
Engineer relative to the Ball Road ~treet improvement project and accompanying
documentation as well as letter dated January 8, 1974 from a rigat of way
representative (copies were made of Mr. Anthony's originals and made a part of
the record). He explained that a considerable amount of property was taken
away, more than the City indicated they were going to take. Now he was told
he did not have enough setback. That was due to the fact that it was taken
away, with their blessing. From the house to the street there was enough
setback, but from the wail to the street there was not. He also pointed out
that he did nave access from Ball Road to his home because there had always
been a garage there (see bill dated August 21, 1975 for removal and replace-
ment of a sidewalk and driveway, 1200 West Ball Road also made a part of the
record) .
When the street was finally widened in 1975, it resulted in an increase in
traffic volume as well as an increase in noise; both had also increased sub-
stantially since then. Further, according to the General Plan, Ball Road was
a commuter line r.unning east and west and one of the only two major access
streets for bus travel and commuters, the other being La Palma Avenue. He
also had a unique problem on that corner, since located on it was a major stop
light for two arterial highways--Walnut Street and Ball Road, resulting in
considerable noise.
Mr. Anthony then briefed the Council on portions of the noise study performed
by J. J. VanHouten and Associates for the purpose of clarifying the true
extent of the increasing noise problem. (See Section II of the background
material submitted). He further indicated that the report was understated in
that noises were found to be in excess of 95 DB's not 85 and noise levels were
exceeding in a single event situation between t0 and 15% of the time.
Mr. Anthony then briefed andfor read Section III of his background report
relative to Week-end Parkinj Access, Section IV, Vandalism and Burglaries,
Section V, Maintenance Upkeep and Section VI, a signature listing of resi-
dents, the latter indicating in the statement signed by nearby residents with-
in the immediate area that there was no objection to the property being
reclassified as Commercial-Office and giving the reasons why.
During his presentation, Mr. Anthony also noted that the street light was out
at Walnut Street and Ball Road; Mayor Seymour requested that staff investigate
and correct the situation.
Mr. Anthony then summarized his reasons as to why the need for the requested
change. Relative to spot zoning, it had occurred in the city over a long
period of time. Each case needed to be viewed on its merits. He then sub-
mitred paotographs of various examples of spot zoning (made a part of the
record) and he felt his residence was more attractive than the ones depicted.
His primary reason for wanting to convert to a Commercial-Office and
Professional building was due to the fact that he was left with two
alternatives, either converting his residence which already loo~ed li~e a
81-665
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
commercial building, or finding another building somewhere else. The resi-
dence could not be maintained any better than at present or look any nicer,
but it was deteriorating over a period of time. It had very low value as a
residence for the reasons articulated in his presentation. He would have no
recourse but to attempt to sell the home to someone and if unable to do so at
a fair price, he would have renters willing to live in the environment he
described. His would be strictly office use and he would be subletting a
portion thereof to others in a diversity of fields. The maximum would be four
other offices and then his office, totalling five.
Councilman Bay asked what kind of parking was he providing for those five
offices.
Mr. Anthony answered the Code required that for less than 2,000 square feet
that there be one parking spot for every 250 square feet requiring eight
spots. He had updated drawings which was an enhancement on the existing draw-
ing submitted reflecting only eight spots. The new plan now reflected nine
parking spaces. Further there was a better redesign of the sidewalk to allow
for better sloping for the handicapped. Staff had not seen the new drawing
with the nine pa~ing spaces. He then explained the ingress and egress points
stating that the design would be such that the property would be entered from
Walnut Street and exited on Ball Road and the exit on Ball Road would only be
for heading east.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Jean Gunther, .Administrative Assistant, Walnut Manor Lutheran Home, prefaced
the reading of her prepared statement by stating it was interesting to note
that many of the things said by Mr. ~nthony, she would have to agree with, yet
nhey came to the opposite feelings. She then read a prepared statement, the
highlights of which were as follows: They wished to go on record as Oeing
opposed to ~he zoning change~requested. Walnut Manor was a campus of the
California Luthern Homes an~ had been in operation at their location, directly
opposite the subject property on the southwest corner of Walnut Street and
Ball Road, since 1938. The request should be denied for the following
reasons: (i) Spot zoning would have a detrimental effect on the residential
neignbornood. They did not want the character of the neighborhood to change.
Eight of their residents slept within 15 feet of Ball Road; however, none had
complained to her of the noise as yet. (2) There was an eastbound bus stop in
front of the subject property used by a number of Walnut Manor residents each
day. Further, anything at all that would add additional traffic or confusion
to that intersection would be very hazardous and not in the best interest of
their 207 residents. (3) The request for a minimum landscaped setback con-
cerned them because the attractiveness of the neighborhood would be adversely
affected.
In concluding, Mrs. Gunther stated that they all knew that in the future there
would be changes as in every neighborhood and perhaps the next person after
]~ir. Anthony, should the request be granted, would be less conscientious. The
request for the reclassification and variance was very offensive to them and
they were requesting denial.
81-666
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth then posed several questions to Mrs. Gunther at t~e conclusion
of which, the Mayor gave Mr. Anthony an opportunity to rebut since no one else
wished to speak.
Mr. Anthony first noted that there were no objections at the Planning
Commission nearing. Relative to the setback deterring from the appearance,
the property as it currently looked was the way it would look and exist as a
commercial office building since there would be no external changes. At pre-
sent they parked on both the east and west side of the home where there was
concrete pavement and as far as additional parking spaces, t~e only spaces he
would Oe adding were four ~ehind the home. The only difference would be a
paved asphalt area instead of a backyard with parking and access. Relative to
retaining the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Anthony described surrounding
land uses which included a post office, gas station, the motel, restaurant and
tennis club. Regarding the noise problem in relation to the rest home, the
noise was extremely loud and perhaps if he had a hearing problems or as he got
older, the noise would not bother him as much. Relative to the hazardous con-
ditions, he did not feel that nine cars would add materially to the other
47,000 vehicles already traveling on Ball Road.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay then asked the Traffic Engineer's opinion regarding ingress and
egress on the two very busy streets in question.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that ingress from Walnut Street could be
accomplished because there was a separate left-turn lane available. If there
were to be any ingress from Ball Road, it would create problems since there
was no left-turn for westbound traffic and the vehicle would have to stop in a
traffic lane to make a left turn. He suggested that the access on Ball Road
be limited to cars exiting with a right-turn only.
Councilman Roth stated since there was a gas station with a car wash across
the street as well as the Conestoga Inn, post office, and Cattleman's Wharf,
he did not have any problem with the proposed use and conversion. Mr. Anthony
had also made an effort to contact his R-1 neighbors and he was supportive of
.~is request.
Councilman Bay asked Mr. Anthony if he would stipulate to ingress only on
Walnut Street, egress only and right-turn only on Ball Road.
i~r. Anthony stated he could do that with no problem and in addition, signs
could be posted snowing that cars would have to exit in a very prescribed
After questioning Mr. Anthony for purposes of clarification, Councilwoman
Kaywood stated that with the five offices proposed, there would be five people
and a secretary for each office resulting in more employees than parking
spaces and with people coming in, there would no place to park.
81-667
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Anthony explained that during the afternoons, parking was not a problem on
Walnut Street. The parking problems he referred to were weekend parking prob-
lems but there was plenty of parking across the street on Walnut Street.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was trying to ascertain the reason for the
Planning Commission's decision and then calling it spot zoning. She was
wondering, if the neighbors had realized commercial uses were going to mean
parking on Walnut Street, whether they would be in favor of the request.
?~r. Anthony stated relative to the signatures, in fairness to the Planning
Commission, those signatures were acquired and submitted after the Planning
Commission findings. Relative to parking, the parking he was referring to as
surplus parking would be that closest to the gas station and tree Conestoga Inn
on the west side of Walnut and not the east side. He felt that the number of
spaces provided (nine) would be sufficient.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that since the staff had not seen the plan with
nine spaces, they would have to keep talking about eight spaces and if there
was a way he could enhance the parking, staff would not object to that.
Councilman Roth stated he planned to ask Mr. Anthony to stipulate to nine
parking spaces; Mr. Anthony did so.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, however, that might cause a problem on the
property itself with regard to trash pick-~p or ingress or egress. She would
like to have professional staff look at the plan to see that it was proper.
~,[ayor Seymour stated he heard all the things Mr..~nthony said, but on the
other hand, somewhere a line had to be drawn if fairness was going to exist as
to what was going to be commercial and what was not. If the request was
approved, his concern was that immediately thereafter there would be similar
requests. He recalled being~approached by an individual six or nine months
ago who wanted to take the h'ouse at the northeast corner of Ball Road and
Walnut Street and the one immediately to the north and put them together for a
combined commercial venture for the same reasons Mr. Anthony gave today.
Those exact reasons would also apply to the residents to mis immediate west,
to a lesser degree to the south, then to the northeast corner and moving right
along on Ball Road. He reiterated, the line had to be drawn and where the
line was currently drawn was the appropriate area. He was opposed to the
request.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated this was one of those very difficult decisions to
have to make. S~ne was empathetic with a living environment as noisy as Mr.
Anthony's, but there was no question that it would be spot zoning. She agreed
wi~ the Mayor and there was no way they could say "no" to all the others, as
well as considering a housing shortage especially affordable housing. She was
going to oppose the request.
81-668
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated it concerned nlm that the Lutheran Home was the
only opposition to the request. He was sympathetic to Mr. Anthony's cause.
He also heard all the arguments against spot zoning but one corner was a gas
station, the other the Lutheran Home which provided a fine service to the
community. It was true that the subject property had been transformed by the
passage of time, progress, and the actions of the City into a property not
suitable for residential purposes. If the property on the northeast corner
came in, he might feel differently because the impact was not as great. If
the properties to the south were to come in, they were not located on that
busy corner; therefore, he had no trouble supporting the request.
ENVIRONbtENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environment-
al impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim
General Plan designates the subject property for low density residential land
uses com~mensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts
are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the peti-
tioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impacts; and is, ~therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-206 and 81R-207 for adoption, deny-
ing Reclassification No. 80-81-27 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2188, uphold-
ing the decision of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-206: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEI~M FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (80-81-27)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-207: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL ~SE PERMIT NO. 2188.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated even though he sympathized with
Mr. Anthony because he (Bay) also lived on a corner, if they granted the
request, they would have hundreds of applications to finish up something he
had never been in favor of--strip commercial all over the City. He did
.~ant to be a party urging that happening in the City to any greater extent and
ne felt ~e subject request would establish t~at precedent and he could not
support
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ?~EMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
Over,blt and Roth
No ne
The >layor ceclared Resolution No. 81R-206 and 81R-207 duly passed and adopted.
81-669
City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
111: HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL CObtMITTEE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING: Herb Leo,
requesting $500 additional funding for the TV Sponsorship of the 1980 parade
and appropriation of funds for the 1981 Halloween Festival.
Mayor Seymour stated he would like to inform the Council of a bit more history
than was included in the April 29, 1981 report from the Deputy City Manager
James Ruth. Somewhere late in the process of organization of the Halloween
Festival last year, he received a call from a gentlemen at Disneyland relative
to the cost of televising the Halloween Festival. He felt very confident at
that time that the cost of televising the Festival would be covered through
sale of advertising but in the event that they could not raise enough funds to
cover that cost, he wanted to know in his (Seymour's) opinion would the City
Council underwrite it to a limited extent. He (Seymour) indicated that he
thought the Council would. He assumed that based upon his feelings, the
Committee proceeded and did televise the Festival. That was the reason the
Halloween Committee had come back to the Council and thanked them for the
$3,500 in advance seed money but they were in a position where they felt they
must request an additional $500 making it a total of $4,000 invested by the
City Council in the Halloween Festival. Also, in his conversations with Herb
Leo relative to their request for advance funds for the 1981 Halloween
Festival, he asked Mr. Leo if it might not be acceptable to him and the
Committee if ~hey did not take action on that request until next fiscal year
or in early July. Mr. Leo indicated that would be acceptable.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour t~ereupon moved to approve the request of the
Halloween Festival Committee for the additional ~500, making a total of ~A,000
for the TV sponsorship of the 1980 Parade, while delaying action on the request
of the 1981 advance until early July. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour reiterated for Councilwoman Kaywood
what had taken place relative to the request for additional funds should that
become necessary. ~
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Paul Pink, Chairman of the 1981 Halloween Festival Committee, state~ he
would like to take issue in delaying the advancement of the seed money until
July. Unfortunately, they had no funds in their treasury for organizing the
event, in order to begin early organization, they would need some money in
or~er to begin putting deposits down on the various activities. He believed
that Mr. Leo had assumed they had money in ~he treasury, but they did not.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to reverse ~ne last vote as it
pertained to the advance of the seed money for the 1981 Halloween Festival,
with $3,500 being appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund. ,~uncilman
Overholt seconded ~he mo~ion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Pink stated that one of the highlights of the program this year was to
incorporate the Festival as a non-profit organization and they were in tme
process of doing that. The second thing was to create a patron program so
people could contribute to ~he Festival and support it financially. He was
81-670
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
hoping this was the last year they would have to come to the Council and
request seed money for the Festival because if their plans were fruitful, they
would become a solvent organization in the future. They were very apprecia-
tive of the support the City had given the Festival over the years, but they
were trying very hard to become self-sufficient.
149: PETITION TO ALLOW TENANTS ON THE 1600 BLOCK OF WEST DUDLEY AVENUE TO
PARK IN ADJACENT ALLEYS: The Mayor asked to hear from those present relative
to t~e subject request.
Gina Black, 1655 West Dudley, stated she was the person who submitted the
petition signed by 17 people. She explained t~e difficulties the resideL~ts
had in parking anywhere near their apartments because of the lack of parking.
During street sweeping days, they parked t~eir cars in the alley because there
was nowhere else to park them.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone from staff had taken a specific look at the
situation, walked the alley, with the eye to creating some parking spaces.
Paul Singer, Traf'fic Engineer, answered that they had and perhaps there might
Oe places where they could park off the alley on private property if some
fences fronting the alley were relocated. Unfortunately, i~ would be
encroaching on grass or play area. If parking were to be permitted in the
alley, they would have some very unusual posting because parking in alleys was
prohibited as a blanket ordinance.
Mayor Seymour stated he wanted to know if they permitted some parking in the
alley, even though limited, and a fire occurred, if it was physically impos-
simle for the fire truck to get down the alley.
Mr. Singer answered that was what the Fire Department indicated and he would
have to go along with that. ~A fire vehicle was within the legal range of 8
feet and the public alley wa~s 20 feet wide.
Mayor Seymour then asked if they roped off some parking spaces, one line on
one side of the alley, Now much room would 0e taken up with the typical width
of a big automobile.
Mr. Singer answered 8 feet; the Mayor then surmised that would use up 16 feet
and there would be a four-foot clearance, but he was certain there were other
problems.
Mr. Singer stated the one other problem was the fact that an alley was used
primaril7 for loading and unloading. If cars were parking on one side of the
alley and another car was loading and unloading and emergency vehicles had to
travel the alley, that would cause a problem. Ihat was ~he major problem. By
right, an alley could be used for loading and unloading. By parking on one
side, it almost precluded the use of the alley for w~at it was designed for.
81-671
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked what would occur if they were to limit the loading and unload-
ing areas, not permit unloading all they way down the alley, but only in
specified areas and in those specified areas, allow no parking in the alley.
Then, in the other areas where loading and unloading would be prohibited, have
permit parking.
Mr. Singer stated this was not a unique problem to the area and other requests
would snowball.
The Mayor asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak.
Lois Day, 1654 West Dudley, explained there was a fence between Mrs. Black's
building and the next building. They thought if cars parked across from the
buildings along the fence, not next to the buildings, and then further down
there was a sidewalk Between the two buildings, that would leave spaces in
Oetween allowing for two more cars to park per building off the street.
Mr. Singer understood what was being said, but if they permitted that type of
parking, the vemicles parked across the alley inside the garages could not
back out.
Councilman Roth asked to hear from the representatives present from the Fire
Department.
Mr. Garth Menges, Fire Marshal, explained that he personally went out and
looked at the property and there was a problem. If the buildings were built
now, they would nave fire protection (fire hydrants) going down the alley but
when they were built, they had fire hydrants in the street only. Thus, in the
residents' favor was the fact that the Fire Department would not have to go
down the alley to utilize the fire hydrant. However, he was not speaking just
for the Fire Department, consideration had to be given to Sanitation. He did
not know w~etner trash storage areas were in the alley or not, Out if so,
there was no way they could 'get their equipment down through the alley to pick
up the trash if cars were parked there. When he drove through the alley
areas, there were a multitude of garages with all doors down. He did not know
if they were being used for cars or not. It appeared that t~ere should be a
number of places they could put their vehicles. The Fire Department would
nave no oojections at certain times in certain areas to cars parking off
street, but for night-time or a permanent situation, they would have to deny
the request. He also confinned for Councilman Roth that there would mot
necessarily be a need for paramedics to use the alleys.
Councilman Bay left the Council Chambers. (5:30 P.M.)
Further discussion followed between Council Members and staff and also with
?1rs. Black and Day to clarify various aspects of the situation.
81-672
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Roth suggested that the
matter be held over and in the interim ask the %raffic Engineer to look at the
fence area the residents were talking about and subsequently submit a report
which might result in a few additional parking spaces. He thereupon moved
that the matter 0e continued for two weeks to give an opportunity for staff,
~-he Traffic Engineer, and the Fire Department to submit a report with further
recommendations. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour explained further for the residents that staff was going to take
a closer look at the matter, as well as Council Members w~o might have the
opportunity to do so, to see if it was going to be possible to make an excep-
tion. It would be the residents' responsibility to talk to the apartment
house owners and managers to inform them as to what they were trying to do as
welt. If the City said "yes" and the property owners said "no," they woold have
the same problem.
114: PAYMENT FOR RENTAL EQUIPMENT FOR PREMIERE SHOWING, "SINCERELY ANAHEIM":
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Conncilman Seymour, payment of
an invoice was authorized in the amount of $1,518.24 to be appropriated from
the Council Contingency Fund to C. Carroll Adams Enterprises, in connection
with the premiere showing of "Sincerely Anaheim." Councilman Bay was absent.
~OTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, 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 denied and
referred to the City's Claims Administrator and denied Application for Leave
to Present Late Claim: ~
a. Claim submitted by Ellias Leroy Rameriz for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of false arrest, false imprisonment, on or about January 24, 1981.
b. Claim submitted by Marian Audrey Fenton for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of fall over raised portion of sidewalk in front of 732
North Janss Street, om or about January 30, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by Gladys Miller for personal injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about
April 4, 19 81.
d. Claim su0mitted by Michael Ryan for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of water backup at 4716 Park Rose Circle, on or about February 11, 198tl
e. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas' Company (File No. C-120531-05-
BKW) for damages purportedly sustained as a result of electric service repair
operations at Carnegie Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road, on or about March 13, 1981.
81-673
City Hall, J~naheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
f. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Bradley Loyd
Hanson for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of accident
involving City employee in the vicinity of Brookhurst Street and Gramercy
Avenue, on or about December 22, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. t75: Public Utilities Board--~Minutes of February 19 and March 5, 1981.
b. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59818, in
the matter of the application of Western Travel Plaza, Inc., a California
Corporation, for a certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate
a passenger stage corporation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1031, et.
seq. of the California Public Utilities Code in the Counties of Alameda,
Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Matin, Fresno, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Orange,
Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma,
Stanisl~aus, Tuolumne, and Yolo.
c. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of April 20, 1981.
d. 114: City of 'Huntington Beach, Resolution No. 4988, recommending public
support for Police Departments and endorsing certain programs of police
officers.
e. 148: Orange County Fair Housing Council, Quarterly Report for January,
February and March 1981.
f. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of March 25, 1981.
g. 173: United States of America civil Aeronautics Board Washington, D.C.,
Order 81-4-41, determining the eligibility and defining essential air service
for certain designated areas in the State of California, including Anaheim/
Disneyland, California.
3. 108: APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Police, an ~nusement Devices Permit was approved for On Broadway Liquor
Market, 2174 West Broadway Street, for various amusement devices. (Robert
Louis Corona, applicant)
4. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11320, REVISION NO. 1: Submitted by Orange County
~blic Relations, Inc., to establish a 23-1ot, 22-unit condominium subdivision
on RM-3000 zoned property located on the south side of Ball Road, west of
?~agnolia Avenue. (Submitted in conjunction with Variance No. 3210 wmich will
appear on the May 12, 1981 agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar).
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative ~_~ract No. 11320, Revision No.
i, and a negative declaration s~atus had previously been approved.
81-674
City Hall, ~naheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11362, REVISION NO. 1: Submitted by Josephine M. and
Conrad J. Letter, to establish a l-lot, 6-unit condominium subdivision on
RM-1200 zoned property located at 1260 East La Palma Avenue. (Submitted in
conjunction with Variance No. 3209 which wilt appear on the May 12, 1981
agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar).
The City Planning Commission approved Tentatative Tract No. 11362, Revision
No. 1, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. PERALTA CANYON P~RK BUILDING AND HARDCOURT AREA, CONTRACT C~IANGE ORDER NO.
1: In accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, authorization
w~s approved for Contract Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $1,557, bringing
the original contract price to $110,781. (Bob N. Smith, contractor)
Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: A~MUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Application by James H. Buss and William J.
Goldenberg, Salty's, 600 South Euclid Street, for various amusement devices,
was submitted.
Mr. Robert Armond, Family Amusement Centers, the consultant firm building the
center described how the proposed business would be run on a day-to-day
basis: (1) it would be fully supervised and controlled at all times; (2) the
hours were to be from 12 noon to curfew time in ~naheim; (3) bike racks were
being installed on the inside of the store so as not to conflict with the
other businesses and so that the children could keep an eye on their bicycles;
-(4) they did not allow smoking in their centers or loitering, littering or any
abusive language; (5) they did not allow any food, beverages, sandwiches, etc.
served or sold inside the center; (6) they chose Anaheim for their center for
a number of reasons--it always nad been a City of entertainment 0otb for its
residents and tourists.
Councilman Roth asked the to'tal number of machines they expected to be
operating at the center and also the type of management that would be provided.
?ir. Armond answered there would be 25 machines and that the management would
be provided by two adults, both owners. It would be an operation similar to a
franchise although there were no franchise fees or royalties. It would be
independently owned and operated. Mr. Buss was very familiar with t~e enter-
tainment business and was connected with the Forum in Los Angeles and very
experienced in control and supervision of the subject type business. James H.
Buss was the son of Jerry H. Buss, owner of the Forum. James was in charge of
security a~ the Forum. He confirmed for the Mayor that James Buss and William
Go tdenberg were going no be the on-site managers day in and day out.
The Mayor then noted taere were other people who wished to be heard.
81-675
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. David Thompson, 616 South Arden, stated he had collected over 170 signa-
tures of residents who lived in and about the subject neighborhood where the
arcade was proposed. They had printed 500 of the petition letters wmich were
distributed last Saturday by children. People brought them back personally to
the pick-up point which was evidence of real concern by them. There was
another petition with an additional 70 signatures. He thereupon read the
statement on the petition: "We the undersigned object to the granting of the
above referenced permit based upon the following grounds: Several residential
backyards and alley streets abut the parking lot of the 600 South Euclid
property. It is felt that the amusement business will draw an undesireable
element in and about the neighborhood and especially the backyards of abutting
residences where young children will be playing. It is also felt that the
amusement business will draw a loud and boisterous crowd creating a nuisance
to the neighbors in the late evening. It is felt that such an establishment
will become a place of narcotics and drug trafficking. Such establishment
would make a neighborhood an undersirable place to raise a family and thereby
lower property values. It is felt that the close proximity of the amusement
0usiness to residential property creates many other conflicts, making it
dif'ficul~ to raise a family." He also read the statement on the letter peti-
tion as follows: "It is my understanding that an application for a permit to
open an Arcade-type business at 600 South Euclid has been made. As a con-
cerned citizen living in close proximity to this property, it is my feeling
that this type of estaOlishment is not compatible with the surrounding busi-
nesses. I also believe that it will increase the traffic of unsupervised
minor children before, during, and after business hours in the neighborhood
and surrounding areas, creating a policing problem, citing the above, I
believe this permit should be denied."
?layor Seymour interjected and stated that he had seen citizen involvement
before, Out theirs was qui~e an involvement. He assumed there was something
more to the situation than just the game machines. He asked Mr. Thompson to
elaborate. .~
Mr. Thompson stated they felt they had a unique neighborhood. Many of them
could afford to live in other places. They were concerned people and there
was a great deal of supervision of their children by the parents in the area.
They did no~ feel they needed an outside influence bringing other c~itdren
into the neighborhood and to create something they did not need. The
businesses in the area were light office type businesses and the proposed
business was not compatible with the existing establishment.
Mr. Bill Darlin, Darlin Insurance, stated his business was two doors south of
tme 0uilding in question. For the 10 years he had been there, vandalism and
loitering had been a very big problem because of the foot traffic going from
west to east. There was no way to get to Euclid except at the end of Alomar
Street or up to Broadway. If any fooc traffic wanted to ge~ to the proposed
establishment~ they would have to come down the alley and travel down about a
four-foot wide passageway between his building and the building next to the
amusement center to get in there or otherwise climb over the wall which had
0een rebuilt four times in the las~ 10 years. In going down the passageway,
81-676
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
they had fires, loitering, gambling, vandalism, a continuous problem for his
building, that next to him and their cars, just with the students who traveled
through there to use Burger King or any of the other facilities along Euclid.
The additional traffic the new business would create would be a tremendous
load on the alley, the wall and the passageway. That passageway was not an
easement and he could block it since it belonged to him and the ladies who
owned the Ouilding next to him. If they blocked that up, then the only other
way coming from the west would be over the fences through the yards of the
people abutting the parking lot. Also, the business was not compatible at all
with the offices on either side of the street and especially to the south.
The Burger King caused enough loitering and enough problems already and two
places like that would be unbearable.
Mrs. Dean Zager was present with her partner, Donna Turner. They owned and
operated the Data Processing Company, Orange County Keypunch at 606 South
Euclid which was started in 1962. They employed 30 full-time people and 10
part-time people. They worked two shifts with the day shift starting at 5:00
a.m. The second shift ended at 2:30--they were definitely opposed to the
proposed business. As to where the youngsters would eat food, they would eat
in their parking 'lot because they did so at present. They had a common drive-
way and shared a parking lot with the next door neighbor. She then pointed
out and named several similar establisaments located in the area at present.
Mrs. Donna Darner then relayed an event that took place approximately two
years ago at 6:00 a.m. when an attempted rape occurred--the girl was not raped
but badly beaten.
Since Mrs. Turner could not continue, Mrs. Dean did so and explained that they
were sued, but ~he reason given was that they failed to give the victim pro-
tection. The protection they gave their employees was well lit parking lots,
locked doors and all the security that any other office could provide, but yet
the incident still happened,~and they did not want that to happen again. They
wanted to go on record in bp'position.
5ruce Edwards, 605 South Alvy, stated his property directly abutted the park-
ing lot Oehind the proposed establishment and the keypunch business. As
explained, kids going back and forth across the parking lot was a current
prooiem. The Burger King not too distant created a lot of trash and debris
across his fence and into his backyard. Considering the activity that took
place around amusement establishments, he could already envision the trash
~-ha[ was going to build up, not to mention beer bottles. The parking lots
were behind the buildings and somewhat concealed and an easy spot for people
~.o loiter. It was also easy to say that there would be supervision but
whether it would become a reality was yet to be seen. He t~ad a four-year old
and a one-year old daughter playing in the backyard and the fence was less
than six feet high between the parking lot and his backyard. He would hate to
nave his daughters playing back there with the possibility of youngsters
patronizing the establishment being there for a continuous period of time.
Also, the existing businesses were very quiet and service oriented and by 6:00
81-677
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
p.m. it was very quiet and private. The proposed business, therefore, was not
compatible. If hours were until curfew, they would have people coming and
going until and after that time, creating noise and traffic.
Mr. Jay Strang, 600 South Alvy, directly behind the building proposed to be
used for the Arcade, stated that Burger King was located along side of him and
they spent some time out of their week-ends picking up debris in their back-
yard from that business. When events let out at Ball Junior High and Loara
High School, the students tended to gather at Burger King and/or Straw Hat.
The situation would become boisterous, the Police would come to stop it and
the kids would go everywhere. They were over the fence into his yard, into
Atvy and the alleyway between Alvy and Euclid. It had proliferated to a point
where Burger King and Straw Hat did not allow the students to go t~ere at
all. The proposed ousiness would share the parking lot with another business
and there were only nine stalls presently available. There was also the prob-
lem of drinking and smoking back there and if the Police did come, the only
place for anyone to go was over the fences. Further, if Mr. Buss was in
charge of security at the Forum, he did not know how he was going to be in the
proposed business full-time.
Since no one else wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mr. Armond an opportunity to
answer some of tlne objections that had been raised.
?ir. Armond first stated that ne had never seen such a response to a particular
business. In their business, which they had been in for four years, they
understood that there were problems but that was true of all businesses. It
was dependent upon how the business was run and that could only 0e determined
by actual experience. They were willing to work with the neighbors in any way
possible. There was virtually no public access to the homes directly bemind
the building. They spent a great deal of time looking for a location and
picked the subject because it was a complete free-standing building with park-
ing all around it even thoug~ in their business they did not use much parking.
It wou~ld allow them to eliminate any problems that they might have with busi-
nesses next door to them. Relative to the business being incompatible, an ice
cream parlor was located directly across the street, next door there was a
Burger King and next to that Straw Hat Pizza which presently had amusement
devices. He did speak to a few of the women before the meeting and aske~ what
he could do to help them also enabling them to get the permit. Their only
comment was that it was going to lower their property values. He (Armond) did
not believe that to be true because the area was commercially zoned.
Mr. Thompson requested permission to answer a statement made relative to the
ice cream parlor. He had five children and could not afford to take them
t~ere; however, c~ildren went to the parlor under supervision which would not
be the case with the proposed Arcade. He also asked if the Council did not
feel t~ey could make a decision in the residents' favor, because of their
concern, that they postpone their decision so that there could be a public
hearing on the matter.
81-678
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Turner then also reported, relative to the statement made that there was
parking around the entire building, that was not the case. One side of the
building was a driveway and the 'other side of the building was a driveway
joining with their driveway. Parking was only available in the back of the
0uiiding.
Mr. Armond stated they believed in their business and were running such
businesses in San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties. They had overcome
the problems the people feared. He did not blame them and he understood their
feelings. What they were asking for was a trial period so that they could
prove themselves. If not, they would move. They had a great deal of money
invested in the property presently.
Mayor Seymour stated he was very familiar with the area--Straw Hat, Burger
King--two of his children had worked at Burger King. He could conclude that
area and the ice cream parlor across the street was a place where kids loved
to congregate, particularly after a school event or the like. Thus, some of
~-he problems the neighbors talked about, he could attest to being true. He
did not have a problem with an Arcade, but loading a particular segment of the
City with that ty'pe of use was wrong--the type of use that attracted large
numbers of teenagers and young people. Adding an arcade to the area would
only insure an increase of such activity.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to deny the request for an amuse-
ment devices permit for Salty's, 600 South Euclid Street. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would be denying
the request in any event considering the amount of neighborhood participation
where there were cohesive residential neighborhoods. They were hard to find
and something that was a credit to the City. She would want to nurture such
neighborhoods. She would, t. herefore, go with the wishes of the people in that
area.
Councilman Overhol~ asked the City Attorney to advise them of their discretion
under the amusement devices section of the Municipal Code.
City Attorney William Hopkins state~ that the ordinance provided that the
Chief of Police would investigate and make his recommendation. In this case,
the Caief did recommend the permit be granted. However, if the Council found
it to be a nuisance and detrimental to the neighborhood, they would have the
discretion to take whatever action they decided on the permit. They were not
bound by the recommendation of the Chief of Police,
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay was absent.
?iOT ION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11482: Submitted by Laurence R. Leggett and Giloert
L. and Katnleen J. Nash, to establish a 9-lot su0division on RS-7200 zoned '~
property located at 1524-1532 West Orangewood Avenue. (Submitted in conjunc-
tion witch Reclassification No. 80-81-31 and Variance No. 3208 which will
appear on the May 12, 1981 agenda under Planning Co~nission Consent Calendar).
81-679
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11482 and granted a
negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the agenda indicated a 91 lot subdivision
instead of a 9-lot subdivision and asked that that correction be made.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth~ Tentative
Tract No. 11482 was approved. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 81R-203
and 81R-209, 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. 81R-208: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Shirley Nell
Huston; Ralph Gabriel Alexander, et ux.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-209: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LA PALMA
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, LIBERTY LANE TO EAST STREET, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-792-6325-E2770; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PRO-
FILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE C£TY CLERK TO PUBLISH
A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened on Ju_~e 4~ 1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
ORDINANCE NO. 4223: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4223 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4223: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (64-65-14{3), CG)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4223 d,aly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4224 THROUGH 4226: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No.
4244 through 4226, both inclusive for first reading.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4224: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A~NDING
TITLE i4, CHAPTER 14.40, SECTION 1/-+.40.080 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING THERETO SUBSECTION .085 PERTAINING TO SPEED LIMITS. (pertaining to
thirty-frye mile per hour speed limits for Cl.=.mentine Street, between
Mancmester .Avenue and Katella Avenue)
81-680
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4225: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.40 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 6.40.215
THERETO PERTAINING TO ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. (pertaining to fireworks
enforcement provisions)
142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4226: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 16~ CHAPTER 16.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION
16.05.100 THERETO PERTAINING TO ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. (pertaining to fire-
works enforcement provisions)
ORDINAINCE NO. 4227: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4227 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4227: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-46(12), PC, Tract Nos.
10585 and 10586)
105: COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD VACANCY: Councilwoman Kaywood reported a
vacancy on the Community Services Board due to the resignation by letter last
month of Joan Dean. Sh~ asked that the vacancy be advertised accordingly.
Mayor Seymour asked if any notification had been received from anybody report-
ing the vacancy.
City Clerk Linda Roberts answered that she had received nothing.
That being the case, Mayor Seymour considered it inappropriate to advertise
the vacancy, since no one ~ad received a letter. They could ask the Board if
they had received such a letter and, if so, that it be forwarded to the City
Council.
The City Clerk stated that s~e would check with the Board.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Seymour requested a Closed Session for
discussion of a personnel matter as wall as potential litigation.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. Co,ancilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Co,~ncilman Bay. (7~40 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Tuesday, May 12, 1981, at
10'.00 A.M., for a budget workshop session in the Co,~ncil Chambers. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION
CARRIED. (7 :g0 P.M.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CiTY CLERK
81-681
City Mall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 11:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned
regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESNET:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
LIBRARY BOARD MEMBERS: Schultz, Stanton, Pickler, Dahl
LIBRARY BOARD MEMBERS: McClain
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Wopkins
CITY CLERK: Linde D. Roberts
CITY LIBRARIAN: William griffith
ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR - RESOURCES: Ron Rothschild
LIBRARIAN - BUSINESS OFFICE: Berrie Vandiver
CENTRAL LIBRARY: Diane Mayo
Mayor SeFmour called the adjourned regular meeting to order for
the purpose of a budget session with the Library Board.
~nair~nan .marl Dahl called the Library Board to order.
I. Discussion o~ the Library Department budget for 1981-1982.
a. Proposed bookmobile outreach program.
Library Board Member, Elizabeth $chultz, stated that Diane Mayo, Weed of the
Central Library, was present and she was responsible for the subject program.
She first referred to an article in the Los Angeles Times in April reporting
that Anaheim now had over 38,000 of ¥ispanic origin in the community. Staff
had been busy looking at pockets in the community where people of that ethnic
background were located. Working from a map of the City, she illustrated that
such pockets were scattered throughout the community and the reason why they
~=1+ ~ha~
~ ~ ~ ~ using the booPanobile for such service would be ideal so that they
could reach all of those~peop!e. She also oresented an exhibit displaying
photographs of the many children of all ages who utilized the bookmobile. She
~e~o it wouli be personally gratifying for them to see first-hand how the
children enjoyed library service which would otherwise be impossible because
of transoortation problems in their families precluding their visiting the
branch libraries. Mrs. Schultz then deferred to Diane Mayo.
Diane Mayo, .Weed of the Central Library, then presented a chart showing ser-
vice ..distribution on the bookmobile for 1980-81. She explained that 40% of
the materials circulated off ~he bookmobile were circulated at what they
called, Wispanic stops, or four stops of 25, or 17~ in Wispanic areas, barrio
areas or areas serving minority communities, Asians as well as Wisoanics.
(See Bookmobile Outreach Program sheet with attachments which was submitted to
the Council as ~art of the first budget work session held April 28, !981--on
file in the City Clerk's office). Based on that information, they decided an
o~tion they would like to ~resent +o on~ Council was the idea of utilizing the
boo,chile to serve those people. Essentially what they would plan to do in
their service clan for next year was to run the bookmobile on road approz-
~+=~ the sa~= number of hours as +%~s year. ?here would be fewer sto~s but
!on, er stocs. At oresent, ~heir stops were not lon~ enough at the ¥ispanic
stops. They would antici~a-~e staffing with bilingual staff so that they could
offer full services to those children. They would be taking the
81-682
City Mall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 11:00 A.M.
the Central Library collection desk just as they did now, thereby precluding
the need for special materials. She concluded by stating they were suggesting
that they continue to use the boo~amobile at the same cost as in the budget,
but serving the specialized community who, because of language and cultural
problems, had difficulty in getting to the branches and utilizing those
services.
Councilman Overholt asked if they had some numbers on the bookmobile
expense--what it would cost to carry out the program as indicated; Mr. Dahl
answered, $67,888.
Mr. William Griffith, City Librarian, then explained that was the amount in
the budget: however, there were some figures included on the maintenance costs
which assumed replacement costs. We did not know if that factor should still
be included or not. That would be the maximum amount and in the budget
request that was submitted by his department.
Councilman Overholt asked if that was the most, what would the least amount
be: Mr. Griffith answered, perhaps about $10,000 less than that. The present
bookmobile had, been in service for 10 years and had very little resale value.
City Manager William Talley stated the assumption should not be made that the
bookmobile was written off. If they were assuming that the program would only
be instituted for a year, they could take the $10,000 amd then the bookmobile
would be surplused out. They were assuming that the program would continue
and thus they should provide for replacing it when and if it would go. They
should also assume that the bookmobile would terminate on a specific date.
Rates were based upon continuing a bookmobile.
Councilman Overholt stated, however, if they did not have the program, then
the bookmobile was not going to be functional; Mr. Talley stated he would then
recommend that the bookmobile be surplused and sold for whatever they could
get.
Councilman Bay asked if in the new Yeir Canyon Road .area where hear5~ develop-
meat would occur well in advance of that branch of the library, had the book-
mobile been considered for use in that area as was done in the canyon.
Mr. Griffith answered, that had not been considered: Councilman Bay stated
perhaps it should be.
City Manager Talley stated that would be a change in Council Policy. The
Library at one point with the Board stated when they built the last $1.5
~ ~,ow what they
million branch, that the bookmobile would chase out o~ service. ~
were doing was increasin~ library service over what was normally agreed to and
that was why it was not in the budget.
Councilman Bay stated he was not saying they were going to do it, but if they
were going to consider setting the bookmobile on a priority outside of the
budget, then they should consider all factors.
81-683
City Wall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 11:O0 A.M.
Mr. Griffith stated if it were continued, there would be no need to be out in
that location in the next year. If it were continued on the minority stops,
there would be no inherent reason why the bookmobile could or could not be
adapted later on for other uses.
b. Library Theft-Detection System: Chairman Dahl stated, relative to the
subject system, it was something they had looked at for a long time, but it
was difficult to see what it would do because they were dealing in a future
situation. They could all understand the significance of preventing crime in
many areas and the same applied to the library materials. The state of the
art was the best it had ever been, and they tried to consider a detection
system in all the plans of the new libraries. The initial expansion in
starting such a system was very important (see Library Theft-Detection System
sheet submitted to the Council at the April 28, 1981 budget work session--on
file in the City Clerk's office).
Councilman loth asked if they had an estimate of theft losses on an annual
basis.
Mrs. Bettie Va~ndiver, Librarian-Business Office, answered that they were in
the midst of taking a manual inventory of the reference collections in their
branch facilities at present, but they did not have any answer to the question.
Councilman loth stated he would be interested if in the future they could cal-
culate that to determine what the offset would be in relation to the cost of
the detection service. If the dollar amounts of loss were low and the cost of
theft detection high, they would be able to make a better value judgment.
Mrs. Mayo stated they ran a quick spot check of the circulating collection at
the ~Ouciid Branch Libra~y and discovered about a 17% loss rate over a period
of two years. They were paying approximately nine dollars apiece for books.
Mayor Seymour stated wha~ the Council would be interested in, if they were
going to make a capital investment of approximately $75,000 and that invest-
ment was going to protect a loss, what period of time would it take to return
that capital investment. From that point on, the system would be paid for and
,dividends returning. We asked that at a later date they be provided with a
financial analysis of what the impact of the system would be.
Mr. Pickler stated that they talked about the detection system for five
libraries at a cost of approximately $75,OOO. We understood that Buena Park
had a theft oroblem and installed a system to combat theft. He suggested oer-
haps that they try a system in one of the libraries to see what experience
they might have.
~?r. Talley stated they had absolutelv~ no statistics on a detection sszs+o~ ..... in
order to make a value judgment and that was why it went on the "wish list".
2 o ...... s P=vo~t On The Canyon Wills L~b~ary:
a. Yazardous Traffic Condition at _Yohl Ranc~ Road and Scout 'Trail: Board
~.~em~r Joanne Stanton stated they had ~iscussed the subject matter and certain
concerns had been -~'oiced from people out in tha+ area, as ,~1~ as the Board,
~s to accessibility of ~ne ~anyon Wills Libra_~y relative to the traffic
81-684
City Wall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 11:OO A.M.
problem on Nohl Ranch Road with Scout Trail having been extended to the
north. They were not only talking about pedestrian concerns, but also vehicle
concerns, because anybody coming out of Scout Trail from the Library was going
to have a difficult time making certain turns on Nohl Ranch Road. They were
talking about visibility and what should probably be monitored speed, as well
as the fact that there was very little turn access for left-turns from the
west going north. It was a combination of what they felt were some definite
problems at that location. The Traffic Engineer felt it did not warrant a
light, but she was wondering just what kinds of things they might want to
consider to help mitigate the situation.
Councilman Roth stated he had expressed his fears from the beginning relative
to the approach by cars coming from the west downhill on the curve. ~ghen they
had their preliminary budget hearing last week which included discussions on
the projection of signal lights in the future, he asked the City Manager if
that light was being considered, and it was not. Me felt it was a very hazar-
dous condition and further the left-turn pocket was not the most suitable sit-
nation.
Mr. Talley explained that the traffic signal budget had one major new instal-
lation for next year with a multi-year backlog. Even though it was a problem
situation, they had priorities and if they were to install that light within
the next two or three years, they would be bumping something already approved
unless more money was put into that aspect of the budget.
Mr. Griffith stated another dimension to the situation was the fact that there
were appreciable numbers of children coming out of Scout Trail crossing Nohl
Ranch Road at the hill.
Mr. Talley pointed out that situation occurred now and would continue whether
the library was there or not.
Mr. Dahl stated they wan6ed to go on record as recommending that light because
they believed it to be vital.
Councilman Bay asked Mr. Talley if the $460,0OO figure under traffic signal
installations on the "wish list" included a traffic signal in that area; Mr.
Talley answered "no"
Mr. Pickler asked what was going to happen to the traffic signal on Marbor
Boulevard at the Warbor Center entrance that was not going to be needed any
longer.
Mayor Seymour stated they were going to remove it.
Mr. Talley exolained that the components of that signal could be reused, but
whatever new installation was put in would require a complete new electric
system. ~e hardware was a significant but not a majority cost. It was then
~e~de~ on whether they woul~ move to the next aoproved instaiia~ion on the
oriority list or not.
81-685
City Mall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - May 5, 1981, 11:00 A.M.
Before concluding the issue, Councilman Roth recommended that the City Manager
advise appropriate staff to review signing and to consider signs that might
say--Caution--Pedestrians--or something along that line so as to alert people,
particularly as they were traveling down the hill, to make them aware there
were problems ahead.
b. Fund-raising Projects: Mrs. Schultz then reported on the various fund-
raising projects which were in process in the hill and canyon area.
=~. Other Matters: Councilman 0verholt stated having been a liaison member of
the Library Board for two years, it was his observation the relationship
between the Library Board and City staff was the best now than it had ever
been. We complimented both staff and the Board in having that relationship.
Me then comm~ented on other projects undertaken by the Library Board which were
most successful. Me felt that the Board was doing a "super" job and the staff
as well.
Councilwoman KaFgood stated that she met a lot of people from other cities who
were always amazed at the fact that Anaheim was expanding services when other
cities were cutting back. Budget decisions were very difficult--what they
would like to do and what they could do did not always mesh.
:{ayor Se~g-mour exnressed his particular thanks to the Libra~j Board and staff
for the outstanding day-in and day-out job that they performed. Relative to
their budget and requests, in going through the budget process, it was a
matter of setting priorities and he looked at the budget as a priority setting
business. We felt the ~o~nc~l oriorities had been very clearly stated in
the past r~lat_v~ to libraries. The entire City Council had total and com-
plete ~ ~
~upporo for the library system. Me would think, consistent with that
policy, that the libraries and library system would continue .as a high
oriority in the City.
Mrs. $chu!tz stated as a ~oard they were most appreciative of the time Council
gave to them and also they had a fine staff, from the City Librarian down to
the Pages who worked part-time. They were innovative, hard-working, and the
Library Board was appreciative of the long hours they put in.
ADJOURL~MENT: By general consent the Library Board adjourned. (12:O6 P.M.)
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed
Session to discuss potential litigation. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION C}2RiED. (12:07 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council ~{embers
being present. (1:30 P.M.)
ADJOURNME}~T: Councilman 0verholt moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:30 P.M.)
ROBERTS,