1980/05/0680-583
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met'in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James Do Ruth
PUBLIC WORKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thornton E. Piersall
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
CETA SERVICES MANAGER: Bill Hepburn
ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR: Ron Rothschild
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Yleverend Tom Favreau~ Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCI~iMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Medical Assistants Week" - May 12-18, 1980
"National Hospital Week" - May 11-17, 1980
Kim Kelbs accepted the Medical Assistants Week proclamation and Edwin Stuer,
Administrator of Anaheim General Hospital the National Hospital Week proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the statement she thought should
have been included in the minutes of the Council meeting held October 2, 1979
was actually made at the meeting of December 11, 1979, as follows: "Council-
woman Kaywood stated when he (Rose) phoned her, he said that he dropped $25 in
the pot for the recall. She asked if the pot was upstairs or downstairs.
Mr. Rose answered, down on South Anaheim Boulevard, by the Doller Radio Place."
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of October 2, 1979 with a copy
of the verbatim portion to be submitted to the Council and also moved to add to
the minutes of December 11, 1979 the foregoing statement. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood also requested that the tapes of the meetings held September 18,
October 2 and December 11, 1979 be saved.
80,5 84
CitZ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
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 ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST ~E CITY in the amount of $6,805,648.71, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
177: LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FOR APPLICATION FOR SECTION 8 "EXISTING" HOUSING
UNITS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
Mayor was authorized to sign a letter of endorsement to submit with application
for funds involving 89 units of Section 8 "existing" housing as recommended in
memorandum dated April 28, 1980, from the Executive Director of Community
Development Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED.
123: DESIGN OF PERALTA CANYON PARK IMPROVEMENTS: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by'Councilman Bay, an agreement with Saito/Sullivan and Associates, Inc.
was authorized in the amount of $2,500, for the design of the playground and
hardcourt improvements at Peralta Canyon Park, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 29, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager James 'Ruth. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney William Hopkins pointed out that the City Manager, rather than the
Mayor or his designated representative, would be the one to engage in the pre-
liminary discussions.
150: NAMING OF PARK - FORMER SANTA ANA CANYON PARK SITE II: City Manager
Talley briefed the Council on report dated April 29, 1980 from the Deputy City
Manager, recommending that the Council officially designate the former Canyon
Park Site II located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of
Quintana Drive, as "Toyon Park".
Deputy City Manager James Ruth explained that basically in the past parks were
named after shrubs or native plants, or, if next to a school, then the name of
the school. The shrub, Toyon, was native to the area of the park site and it
is an attractive plant.
Council discussion with Mr. Ruth followed regarding the selection and final
recommendation of the name "Toyon" and during the discussion other suggestions
were made by the Council. Specifically, Councilman Roth recommended the name
"Eucalyptus Park" noting that there was a large stand of Eucalyptus on the east
side of the park and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Ruth had no particular name
preference.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to name the park site "Eucalyptus Park" as opposed
to~"Toyon Park". Councilmar~ Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt expressed concern that there
might be a problem if the name ~*ere changed after the Park and Recreation
Commission had deliberate~ a~ s~bsequently recommended the name of "Toyon".
80-585
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Ruth did not feel there would be any problem; Councilwoman Kaywood noted
that she was at the meeting when the matter was discussed, and there was no
strong feeling that the name had to be "Toyon".
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
150: ORANGE COUNTY REVENUE SHARING FUNDS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution'
No. 80R-191 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 29, 1980, from
the Deputy City Manager, authorizing the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department to submit a funding proposal to the County to obtain Revenue Sharing
Funds in the amount of $13,612.80, to continue services of the Senior Citizen
Day Care Center. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-191: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR REVENUE SHARING FUNDS TO
CONTINUE SERVICES OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS' DAY CARE CENTER AND AGREEING TO CON-
TRIBUTE MATCHING FUNDS AND SERVICES THEREFOR.
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. 80R-191 duly passed and adopted.
158: SHORB-WELLS PROPERTY: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the
notice from the County via a Minute Order of the Board of Supervisors of Orange
County that they will not exercise their option to purchase the City-owned Shorb-
Wells property, located south of Esperanza Road, east of Imperial Highway, as
recommended in memorandum dated April 28, 1980 from the City Engineer. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if, relative to other uses, would
that include possible sale to the open market.
City Manager Talley stated that would be the intent, but it would be dependent
on how the Council would like to see the property developed.
Mayor Seymour asked relative to uses, if they had an opportunity to further
consider any industrial type development or housing, since those were the two
uses that would come to mind. As he recalled however, the terrain was rather
difficult.
Councilman Bay noted that it was also in a flood plain and further that they had
to keep in mind that there was a trail running through the area. He was also
concerned over the fact that he thought there were some plans for the money
from sale of the property for another park.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80 -5 86
City Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1.980~ 1:30 P.M.
115: OCCUPANCY OF ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize
the Mayor to execute a letter of occupancy prior to final acceptance of the Civic
Center, as recommended in memorandum dated April 25, 1980 from the City Engineer.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he understood the new Council
Chambers were not going to be ready by the first week in June; since many
invitations were being sent for the City Hall opening day ceremonies, he felt
it would be appropriate to have the Council meeting on that day held in the
new Chambers rather than having to switch from one building to another. He
asked if the Chamber would be ready for use by June 24.
Thornton Piersall, Public Works Executive Director stated he had confidence that
the contractor would be completed with the Chambers by that time since they were
diligently working on it and had been devoting overtime at their own expense.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: DETERMINING THE DISPOSITION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION FOR DONALD J.
WOHLT: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on report dated April 30,
1980 from the Safety Employees Disability Retirement Committee recommending that
the Council grant an industrial disability retirement to the applicant, Donald J.
Wohlt, to be effective the day following Council action on the matter, May 7,
1980.
Mr. Talley pointed out that Mr. Wohlt was hired as a Fireman on November 3, 1958
and experienced no work injuries until June 6, 1978 when he strained his upper
back while lifting a hose to place on a truck. On August 2, 1978 Mr. Wohlt
underwent a laminectomy and fusion and improved somewhat as a res6lt of the
surgery and in May of 1979 was released to limited duty. An administrative
decision was made to obtain further medical opinion regarding the nature and
extent of any permanent partial disability involved. On October 8, 1979, Mr.
· Wohlt applied for disability retirement declining overtures for rehabilitation
within the City work force in another employment category.
Medical reports were then obtained from two examining physicians by the City
and Mr. Wohlt submitted a report to the City through his attorney handling his
worker's compensation case. On November 14, 1979 a hearing was held on Mr.
Wohlt's application by the retirement committee. After listening to Mr. Wohlt's
testimony and reviewing all medical reports the committee decided there was
insufficient medical information on which to base a decision. Consequently it
was decided to obtain a further report from the physician who performed the
surgery, which was submitted December 19, 1979. A further hearing was held
on the application on January 9, 1980. Of the four medical reports introduced
into evidence on the question of disability, two indicated that Mr. Wohlt was
disabled, one indicated that he was not, and one report and its addendum was
equivocal on the question. He therefore did not process the application until
he had an opportunity to review it with the new Fire Chief, Bob Simpson. Inas-
much as Mr. Wohlt had over 20 years of service to the City, and would be eli-
gible for normal retirement in a short period of time, both past and present
Fire Chiefs recommended retirement, and the preponderance of evidence indicated
80-:587
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
that Mr. Wohlt was incapacitated. Therefore, it was his recommendation, as
well as that of the Chiefs' and the Safety Disability Retirement Committee that
the Council authorize by resolution the granting of the disability retirement
application of Donald J. Wohlt to be effective May 7, 1980. As well, the present
value of the applicant's premature retirement on disability was approximately
$14,329. If they were to proceed to any other type of settlement or option,
it would be his opinion that the City could disburse funds of that magnitude
even with a more favorable recommendation to the City.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-192 for adoption, as recommended in
report dated April 30, 1980 from the Safety Disability Retirement Committee and
based on the City Manager's unequivocal recommendation that the disability
retirement be granted. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-192: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT DONALD J. WOHLT IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE
POSITION OF FIRE ENGINEER I.
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. 80R-192 duly passed and adopted.
129: REORGANIZATION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT: City Manager Talley briefed the
Council on memorandum dated April 23,. 1980 from Fire Chief Bob Simpson recom-
mending approval of the Fire Department reorganization, creating two Assistant
Chief positions and one Fire Marshal position. According to Chief Simpson the
proposal was one of a series of management changes which would totally compen-
sate one for the other and by so doing would actually reduce rather than in-
crease the budget.
Councilman Bay stated that in looking at the change in the organization, not
only would it improve the possiblity of getting the Batallion Chiefs into
positions of being trained to replace the Fire Chief, but also he felt the most
important change in the organization was that it solved an obvious span of
control problem of one to eight which was an untenable situation at those
levels of management.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, reorganization
in the Fire Department through the creation of two Assistant Chief positions and
'one Fire Marshal position was approved as recommended in memorandum dated April 23,
1980 from the Fire Chief. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-193 for adoption, amending ResolutiOn
No. 79R-590, establishing a new classification of Assistant Fire Chief and rate of
compensation therefor effective May 6, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-193: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-590 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES
DESIGNATED AS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.
80 -5 8 8
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1.:30 P.M.
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. 80R-193 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-194 for adoption, establishing a
new classification of Fire Marshal and rate of compensation therefor effective
May 6, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-194: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION
FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
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. 80R-194 duly passed and adopted.
181: APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT-IN-AID: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-195 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 30, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm
Priest, approving submission of an application for Historic Preservation Grant-In-
Aid funds under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-195: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE APPLICATION AND THE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
GRANTS-IN-AID FUNDS FOR THE CARNEGIE MUSEUM PROJECT.
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. 80R-195 duly passed and adopted.
I56: AWARENESS WORKSHOP - DRUG PARAPHERNALIA: Councilwoman Kaywood reported,
for information purposes, that she met with Lt. Wilcox and Jim Armstrong recently
and they would be setting up an Awareness Workshop for PTA Council Presidents.
The purpose was to disseminate information to parents relative to drug paraphernalia
and to show them what such material looked like, the status of the situation in the~
City, and what could be done about such businesses.
80-589-
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~.~y 6~ 1980~' 1:30 P.M.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Application by John Paul Weeks and Roman A.
Dimeo, Pinball Madness, 530 South Knott Street, continued from the meeting of
April 29, 1980 to allow for the addition of partner's name and subsequent re-
submittal to the Police Department for review was submitted for Council consi-
deration.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject application including the names
of both parthers as required° Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that, but for an inquiry
made at the meeting last Tuesday, they would not have known there was a co-
owner of the business. Also, there was apparently no reason why a minor could
not apply for an Amusement Devices Permit. He asked, if appropriate, that the
City Attorney evaluate whatever governed the applications as to whether it might
be required that the owners of the business, or the equipment be reported and
also the appropriateness of minors operating such businesses. He wanted to have
all the information on one piece of paper when it was submitted to the Council
so that they would not have to obtain the information through interrogation.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that he would propose some wording to be
added to the ordinance to cover the aspect of minors and also to make certain
the owners of the equipment and partners were disclosed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there could be any problem because only a minor
signed the application.
City Attorney Hopkins stated they considered that but in the case of the subject
application, the applicant was going to be 18 years old on June 26, 1980. For
future reference, they would make certain that adults only were granted permits.
Mr. Talley noted that the Council had requested a report from the Police Depart-
ment relative to any law enforcement problems associated with these establish-
ments. However, they had not been able to complete the report and it would be
submitted to the Council next week in their mail.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: OFFICE SPACE FOR THE CETA SERVICES DIVISION YOUTH PROGRAM: Authorizing
a lease agreement with E. Ray Noxsel, dba Noxsel's Investment Company, for office
space at 1020 South Anaheim Boulevard, to house the Summer Youth Employment Program
CETA staff at $750 per month for the period of June 1, 1980 through May 1, 1981
(continued for the meeting of April 29, 1980 to determine if the operation could
be accommodated in the new City Hall--see minutes that date).
The Deputy City Clerk noted that report dated March 5, 1980 had been submitted
from Jim Armstrong, Assistant City Manager regarding the subject.
City Manager Talley also referred to report dated April 30, 1980 from the Human
Resources/CETA Services Division, and noted that both Mr. Bill Hepburn, CETA
Services Manager, and Garry McRae, Human Resources Director were present to
answer any questions.
80-590
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked if consideration had been given to utilizing the existing
City Hall, since office space would be available due to the move of offices to
the new City Hall. In discussing the matter with Norm Priest, he was told that
"old" Lincoln Avenue would remain for at least another year and thus access
would be available.
Mr. Bill Hepburn replied that he had not explored the possibility of using the
building because he was not aware it was still going to be used for additional
City offices and understood there would be a problem in so doing.
Councilman Roth expressed his concern that as soon as buildings were vacated,
such as had occurred in various schools, a great deal of vandalism took place.
If CETA Services was looking for a place to locate for a year and if "old" City
Hall was going to be available for that period on a caretaker's status, it
might be a good idea to utilize a portion of the building for others such as
the Parks and Recreation Department building.
Mr. Hepburn explained that the cost of relocating was one of the serious deterrents
to their making any move at all and it would require a substantial investment. For
a move involving only a year, they would recommend the least expensive option, that
being to remain in the current facility already established.
Mr. Talley stated he had requested a report from Public Works on the disposition
of all City facilities, once the offices were moved to the new Civic Center. This
will be forwarded to the Council with recommendations for final disposition.
He would hope that some of the buildings would remain in place for a year or so.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the building they were now in was considered
structurally unsafe.
Mr. Hepburn explained for the Mayor that the other problem in relocating at this
time lay in the fact that the move would occur on June 1, 1980 and they were
presently trying to put together a program involving 400 youths between now and
June 16. The move would come right in the middle of the program, which would
be very disruptive especially since all of the youngsters were now familiar
with where they had to repQrt, etc.
Councilman Bay asked if there was any chance of obtaining a six-months lease rather
than a yaar. By that tim~, they would know bett~r which buildings would b~ vacated.
· Mr. Hepburn replied that he could discuss that with the lessor accordingly, however
he was presently under a 30 day notification of renewal. He suggested that he
offer the lessor a six-month lease.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested six months but with an option for another six
months at the same lease price and not higher because she did not want them to
spend more money.
Councilman Bay moved to authorize a lease agreement with E. Ray Noxsel, dba Noxsel
Investment Company, to house the Summer Youth Employment Program CETA staff, at
$750 per month for the period of June 1, 1980 through December 1, 1980, or six
months instead of one year. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion MOTION
CARRIED.
80-591
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
139: REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF H.R. 6466: Request was made for the City Attorney
to prepare a resolution supporting H.R. 6466 to amend the Clean Air Act by
repealing requirements for State implemented plans to provide for periodical
inspection and testing of motor vehicles at the meeting of April 29, 1980.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the synopsis of H.R. 6466 Clean Air Act Amendment
attached to the Chamber of Commerce letter of May 1, 1980, recommending support
of the bill stated, "While this is viewed largely as a conflict between state -
rights and federal encroachment, it may be argued that this would be a setback
to the reduction of air pollution levels." She noted that 90% of smog was
considered to be coming from motor vehicles and thus there was irony in sup-
porting the bill while at the same time wanting clean air.
Councilman Roth explained that they were talking about 30 million vehicles in
the state and the legislators in Sacramento did not want to implement the Federal
mandate of yearly inspections for those vehicles. The deadline for .so doing passed
on January 1, 1980 and since then, sanctions had been placed on the State by the
Federal government especially with regard to construction and expansion of large
industrial plants. Such sanctions were wrong and thus they should support the
bill proposed which did only one thing, take the matter out of the hands of the
Federal government and put the responsibility where it belonged, in the State
Legislature. People were violently opposed to taking their cars in for a yearly
inspection and the people should have the right to make the decision. It was
a State's rights program and the State should have some control over it. If
they opposed such bills, they would be supporting the sanctions against the State
by the Federal government punishing it for not taking action.
The Mayor stated as he recalled when the issue was heard at an earlier meeting,
a representative from SCAG was present. The view was if the existing plan were
implemented, he estimated that the cost to Anaheim taxpayers alone would be
approximately $10 million a year. On that basis, the Council went on record
in opposition and thus he had no difficulty at all in supporting Councilman Roth's
position. He believed they all favored cleaner air, but at what price. If it
meant a more slowly phased-in program with a more reasonable price tag, he could
support that, but he did not agree with the Federal Government intruding on
state's rights.
Councilman Bay added that there had been no proof presented before the State
Legislature that the automobile inspection plan would reduce pollutants to the
extent claimed. He again referred to the fact that the Council voted against
the yearly inspection plan at the League of Cities Convention at San Francisco.
He agreed wholeheartedly with Councilman Roth's motion made the previous week.
When the Federal government started telling the states 'exactly what they were
going to do regardless of the cost or direct benefits to reducing pollution,
he felt it was a state's rights item and that was what they were voting on.
Councilman Overholt stated as Councilman Bay pointed out, at the League meeting
in San Francisco, he (Overholt) had the honor of reporting that Anaheim took
exception to the proposal. They had gone on record before as being in opposition
to the yearly inspection and he did not think there was any reason to change their
position now.
80-592
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ !:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon reoffered his motion made at the meeting of
April 29, 1980, directing the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supporting
HR 6466 to amend the Clean Air Act by repealing requirements for State imple-
mented plans to provide for periodical inspection and testing of motor vehicles.
Councilman Bay again seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
166: REQUEST FROM BRAILLE INSTITUTE FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS TO THEIR FACILITY:
Corners of La Palma and Dale Avenues; Lincoln and Dale Avenues; and Crescent
Avenue and Beach Boulevard.
Councilman Roth referred to report dated April 18, 1980 from the City Engineer
and asked staff why they recommended denial of directional signs at Crescent
Avenue and Beach Boulevard while recommending approval at the first two locations.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated the reason was due to the fact that Beach
Boulevard was presently, and would remain, a State highway and it was most unlikely
that they would be issued a permit for that location.
MOTION: Councilman Roth first commended Mr. Singer for a job well done and there-
upon moved to approve'the request for the installation of directional signals
identifying the Braille Institute in accordance with staff recon~nendations in
report of April 18, 1980. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt noted that when he spoke with Mr.
Singer originally he (Singer) expressed some concerns about establishing policy.
He wanted to know if he still had those concerns and was it necessary to estab-
lish policy.
Mr. Singer explained that in the past they had a number of requests for directional
signs for churches and various civic functions and Councils in the past had con-
sistently denied all such requests. Upon some research, they found that they still
did not conform to the California Uniform Code in directional signing for the
Braille Institute. However, the organization represented a unique function and
not a general function such as a church. It was unique and he did not feel or
hoped it would not be considered or interpreted as a precedent for other functions.
Councilman Overholt stated that he did not want his questioning to be misinter-
preted because he was 100% behind facilitating the subject request. Mr. Singer
apparently had some stronger policy concerns when he had spoken to him about
the matter and now they had found an exception to that with which he agreed.
Mr. Singer stated he hoped that the directional signs for the Braille Institute
if approved would not open up a whole row of similar requests because they could
become a maintenance problem.
Councilman Overholt felt there would be further requests and the reason he men-
tioned the YMCA earlier was when that building was built, there was a real concern
that it was off a "beaten path". He felt that was the same problem with the
Braille Institute and thus it might be well to see if they could articulate a
policy relative to the types of facilities that might be given that type of
treatment.
80-593
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt then asked Councilman Roth if his motion included the
recommendation that the signing, construction, installation and maintenance
would be at the expense of the petitioner as mentioned in the report; Council-
man Roth answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt asked Wanda Hale, Director of the Braille Institute who was
in the Chamber audience if that would be the understanding of the Institute,
that they would incur that expense.
Councilman Roth suggested that she submit a request to the Anaheim Host Lions
Club for the cost of the signs and he would follow up on that request.
Ms. Wanda Hale, Director, stated that as pointed out by the Traffic Engineer,
they were unique in the whole of Orange County since there were no agencies in
the County who performed the same function and provided the same service as the
Braille Institute. If they were formulating policy it seemed that the word
unique was the key to what might be a problem. She also confirmed that she was
aware the Braille Institute would be responsible for the expenses to be incurred.
Councilman Overholt felt it was a location problem, but as long as the institute
would bear the expense that was an important consideration because no taxpayer
funds would be involved while at the same time they were getting the identifi-
cation they were looking for.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
174: ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING: To consider
proposed administrative uses of Federal General Revenue Sharing funds for the
Fiscal Year 1980-81.
City Manager William Talley stated that under the current provisions of law, even
though the subject funds had not currently been enacted into law beyond September 30,
1980, they were assuming the program would continue and the hearing was based upon
the present provisions of the law anticipating that some form of revenue sharing
with units of local government would continue beyond that date. He explained
that following the hearing, the funds would be included in the 1980-81 Resource
Allocation Plan (budget) with final disposition of the funds to be determined
at Council budget hearings. He then deferred to the Assistant Director of
Finance, Ron Rothschild.
Mr. Ron Rothschild, Assistant Director for Finance, briefed the May 6, 1980 report,
"Federal General Revenue Sharing - Administrative Proposed Use Hearing" specifically
the information contained under the heading - Revenue wherein Federal General
Revenue Sharing receipts for Anaheim for the 1980-81 Fiscal Year were estimated
to be $1,830,000, and ~roposed Use listing eight capital improvement projects
totalling $1,843,470 upon which he expanded. At the conclusion of Mr. Rothschild's
presentation, Mr. Talley stated they would welcome any questions or comments by
the public.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to speak on the proposed administrative uses
of the Federal General Revenue Sharing funds for FY 1980-81; there being no
response he closed the public hearing.
80-594
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour then questioned Capitol Improvement Item 8, Payroll/Personnel
System Development, $119,682 asking if there had been any research at all
done to determine how that price compared, favorably or unfavorably, with a
software program to cover the same function that could be purchased off the
shelf.
Mr. Talley answered "yes". They had a Payroll/Personnel Users Committee as
part of the total MAFIS devalopment and the determination following Council
Policy was to attempt to find the most applicable private sector package and
tailor it to the City. Wang Industries was providing the package and they were
tailoring and incorporating it into the City. They were, in essence, buying a
private package and adjusting it to City needs and thus there was an enhancement
factor involved. The study that was made was to identify rather than develop
the most appropriate Payroll/Personnel system on the market.
The Mayor asked what part of the cost was for the Wang software program and what
part for the enhancement.
Mr. Garry McRae, Human Resources Director and Head of the User Committee explained
that the Wang system was purchased in the current fiscal year. The entire $119,000
was to complete the project next year and it was divided into two phases. One
phase would involve the installation and testing for the general payroll system
and the other would be the conversion of the existing event payroll system for
the Stadium and Convention Center. The Wang system cost $67,000 to purchase.
The monies in next year's budget would reflect Data Processing and user staff
time and effort to install the system to Anaheim's specifications and needs.
Mayor Seymour stated before he moved favorably on that aspect, he wanted to be
provided with a great more detail because the $67,000 represented quite an en-
hancement.
Mr. Talley stated it would be part of the Personnel budget proposal and this
merely defined the funding sources. If Council wanted to eliminate or reduce
that item, they would have another Revenue Sharing project to substitute for it.
The hearing today in no way approved any of the projects.
Councilman Bay noted that three-fourths of the receipts were from yet to be
enacted Federal legislation under Entitlement 12. If the Federal government
chose to cut back Federal Revenue ~haring they would then have to find a plac~
for the necessity items contained within the list in the regular budget.
Mr. Talley explained that the revenue shortfall would be approximately $1,400,000
and they would then reprioritize not just these projects, but the entire City
projects. They would subsequently submit that list to the Council indicating
the ones they were recommending be eliminated. He did not know when Congress
would make a determination regarding Federal Revenue Sharing funds.
The administrative hearing on Federal General Revenue Sharing funds was then con-
cluded with final disposition of the funds to be determined at subsequent Council
budget hearings.
80-595
C.~ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:10 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3122 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by
Angelo and Irene Manni and George G. and Linda L. Sadaghiani, to retain existing
duplexes and illegal garage conversions on RS-7200 zoned property located at 3403,
3403A, 3405, 3409 and 3411 West Thornton Avenue, with Code waivers of a) permitted
primary uses and structures, b) minimum lot area per dwelling unit, c) minimum
floor area per dwelling unit, d) minimum number and type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-47, declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further granted Variance No. 3122 in part,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the existing structures shall be brought up to the minimum standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
2. Plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance with
the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building,
Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City
of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any necessary work.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 5.
4. That the fence separating the two subject parcels shall be removed to
provide additional shared parking spaces and the area shall be appropriately
landscaped and maintained.
5. That Contdition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of April 1, 1980 and a public hearing scheduled this
date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Lester Cardin, attorney, speaking on behalf of the applicants, stated as
pointed out there were originally two duplexes on the property and according
to the records in the assessors office, the building permit was issued in November
of 1958 and the property first assessed by the County in March, 1959 prior to
annexation by the City in July 1959. The applicants were willing to make a
80-596
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
number of changes in the property--the removal of the fence would give the
parking spaces needed and Mr. Manni was willing to remove the hardtop that he
installed in the front of his duplex although it was done with the City's
knowledge and without their opposition at the time. With the removal of the
fence between the two properties, they showed eight parking spaces rather than
six as stated earlier by staff. They were eliminating the third unit on the
Manni property. Thus there would no longer be a triplex, but a duplex adding
one room from the third unit which they were doing away with to each of the
existing two units. They were asking for variance only and not a reclassification.
At the last hearing before the Planning Commission, the objectors present, through
their spokesman, represented that with the changes made as required by the Planning
Commission, there was no longer any objection to the way in which the property
was going to be changed by the applicants. Consequently, he respectfully re-
quested that the Council grant the variances to prevent a terrible hardship to
the parties concerned.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Cardin stated there was no objection at the
Planning Commission hearing in the way in which the property was going to be
changed. She asked for further clarification.
Mr. Cardin stated at the last hearing there was one spokesman, Donna Westbury,
who said she was satisfied with the requirements imposed by the Planning
Commission with respect to removal of the fence, the removal of the hardtop,
triplex, and so forth. If he misrepresented her and she was present, he would
be happy to hear from her.
Councilman Bay referred to Mr. Cardin's statement that the duplexes were put on
the property prior to annexation. He wanted to know if the garage conversion
occurred while the property was still in the County.
Mr. Cardin answered that there was no record whatsoever relative to the conversions.
In response to Council questioning, Mr. Cardin relayed the following. Each of
the garage conversions had been used as living quarters prior to the purchase
of the property by the applicants. The Manni's purchased the property in 1976
and the Sadaghiani's in 1979. At the time they were purchased, the Sadaghianis'
property was the same as it was now, but the Manni property was not. The. garage
had been occupied prior to his buying the property but it wa~ not ~nclo~d. Ne
removed the garage door and made into a third unit. They were taking that down
but blocking up the entrance to it from the outside. It contained two rooms
and they were giving one of those rooms to the southerly unit and the other
room and a bathroom to'the northerly unit with a solid wall between them.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to the variance; by a show
of hands, 13 people indicated their presence in opposition.
Mrs. Donna Westbury, 3434 Thornton Avenue, first clarified that when she said
they were agreeable, that was at the first meeting before the Planning Commission.
At that time, the Planning Commissioners were for them but at the next meeting,
80-597
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
she said that the residents were agreeable,to whatever the commission would
decide. When she told them that, it was then the Commissioners turned an about
face on them. Commissioner Tolar completely changed his views and only Commis-
sioner Bushore was for them. She added that Commissioner King and David had
their minds made up even before coming to the meeting and they were not for the
people.
Mrs. Westbury then continued if the applicants were granted the garage conversion
it would set a precedent for everyone else who wanted to convert their garages.
He (Manni) converted the garages in 1977 after he had already studied to become
a real estate agent and Commissioner Bushore did pose the question to him as
to his knowing the conversion was illegal. Mrs. Westbury then clarified for
Councilman Bay that what they wanted, and the solution to the problem would be
to restore the property the way it was before the conversions and everything else
took place.
Mrs. Grace Edwards, 3404 Thornton Avenue, directly across the street from the
subject property, a 30 year resident, stated that her home was for sale. Any time
someone came to look~ at it, they would look out the front and ask what the mess
was across the street. She was tired of it, it was a mess, and it looked like
a motel.
Mayor Seymour questioned Mrs. Edwards as to why it had taken her since 1977 when
the garage conversions took place to bring the matter to the attention of the
Council.
Mrs. Edwards answered that she did not oppose it before because the property was
kept neat. Now that the applicant had torn up the front, it was a mess and she
objected.
Mrs. Helen Buckles, 3400 Thornton Avenue, the next door neighbor of Mrs. Edwards
since 1962, stated that one day when someone came to look at the Edwards house
and they were not home, she showed the prospective buyers around. Although they
thought the house was nice they, too, questioned the property across the street
and wanted to know what was over there. The property did look bad. The fence
down the middle looked terrible and the place looked like a motel. She had seen
vehicles parked on the property and in the street.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mr. Cardin
an opportunity to rebut.
Mro Cardin stated that with respect to the conversion, one of the units had the
garage converted long before either of the present owners were involved. ON
Portion A now owned by the Sadaghianis, the conversion had been there for 17
or 20 years. He reiterated that they Would also be removing the hardtop and
the fence. By so doing, more parking would be available and that would get
the cars off the street.
Mrs. Westbury noted that Mr. Cardin indicated there was a hardship involved.
Mr. Manni was a real estate man and he also had a blo~ktop business. Mr.
Sadaghiani did not live on the property but rented it out for income purposes.
80-598
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The conversion on the Manni property was something that was done in the last
1½ years and she contended it did not present a hardship. He did not have a
number of children and thus did not need the extra rooms.
Mayor SeymoUr stated that the illegal conversion took place in 1977 and he was
trying to determine the concern relative to the garage conversion at this time
if it did not bother her before.
Mrs. Westbury stated they did not know about the conversion before. It was not
until the Zoning Enforcement Officer went to the property relative to the black -
top that they found out about the conversions. She emphasized that the major
point was the precedent setting involved. If the conversions were approved,
everybody could turn their garages into another room.
After further discussion between the Mayor and Mrs. Westbury, Miss Santalahti
explained that there were two duplexes apparently constructed on the property
with garages. Subsequently, the garages were converted apparently at two
different times with a fair amount of time in between, the latest being 1977.
Then something occurred which caused them to put up the fence between the two
properties and the need for more parking. When the front yard was paved, that
was when they received a complaint and the Zoning Enforcement Officer went to
the property and found a number of violations.
The Mayor stated as he understood, Mrs. Westbury wanted the garage doors back;
Mrs. Westbury answered that was right and that the conversion be made back into
garages.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it was just the Manni's property she was concerned
with; Mrs. Westbury confirmed that was correct because the Sadaghianis had been
there for some 20 years and there had not been a problem.
Mr. Cardin explained that the City Inspector did go to the property because of
the complaint about the hardtop, not because it was done, but because it was
installed all the way out to the street and consequently there was no place for
a sidewalk. The one duplex had been a duplex without a garage for about 20
years. The other one, while the garage was occupied by someone prior to the
Mannis, was not made into a proper~triplex until the Mannis moved in and re-
moved the garage doors and thus there were two different units.
Mayor Seymour asked if there was anything Mr. Cardin could say to convince him
that they should not ask Mr. Manni to put the garage doors back on.
Mr. Cardin stated that first it would be inaccessible to get into the garage if
they just put the one garage back. If they permitted parking down the middle
between the two duplexes where they were before the fence was erected, that was
the best place for the cars. If they did so, there would be no way to get into
the garage and he did not see any purpose to be served by parking two cars in
the garage. There would obviously be at least four cars with four units.
Miss Santalahti stated the way the drawing was set up, they could get more
parking between the two buildings with~ut the garage being used because of the
necessary back up space. If they went back to the garage use, they were actually
~losing more than two parking spaces.
80-599
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
After further discussion between the Council and Miss Santalahti, during which
they viewed the drawing of the property, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low density
residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ-
mental impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the Initial Study sumitted
by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse envi-
ronmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-196 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3122, in part, in accordance with the findings of the City Planning Commission
but excluding the approval of the converted garages on the Manni property, and
that the fence and blacktop be removed. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-196: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING, IN PART, VARIANCE NO. 3122.
Before a vote was taken, Miss Santalahti asked that another condition be added,
that the foregoing be accomplished within a 120-day period from the date of
approval of the resolution.
Councilman Bay asked if they force Mr. Manni to reconvert the garage back to a
garage, would that block out the parking that was planned and approved by the
Planning Commission for eight vehicles.
Miss Santalahti stated that they calculated by the Zoning standards that six
parking spaces would be available. From the drawing, she assumed there might
possibly be eight, two in the garage plus six others, or it could be as low as
S iX,
A brief discussion then followed between Councilman Bay and Miss Santalahti
relative to the logistics of parking if the garages were reconverted at the
conclusion of which, the Mayor asked Mr. Cardin if he agreed with the position
just articulated by staff that if the two garages were reconverted on Mr.
Manni's property vehicles would be able to back out of them; Mr. Cardin did
not agree.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated going back to 1977, the subject neighborhood seemed
to be into the City about every year with somebody trying to rezone or change
their neighborhood. They talked about preserving and saving neighborhoods and
she was committed to that. She was very much concerned that they would set
a precedent whether they wanted to or not and right in the very middle of a street.
They had no choice relative to something that came in from the County under annex-
ation and had been existing, but to build on and convert from there she saw the
neighborhood going downhill and she did not think the City could afford that.
Mr. Cardin stated he did not think it would be practical to use the garage on
the Manni property. Even if they removed the two parking spaces, it would be
difficult to drive between the parking spaces shown on the map as well as to
80-600
CitM Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
turn into the garage and to get out of it. He did not see that anything would
be gained by reinstituting the garage. There would be plenty of parking spaces
if they left the garage as is. That garage had been improved to the extent of
a bedroom and a kitchen. Granted it was built without a permit, but he did not
know if the punishment would befit the crime.
Councilman Overholt stated, in other words, they were additional bedrooms but
total units; Mr. Cardin answered "yes", just one additional unit. They wound
up with a triplex on the Manni property instead of a duplex.
Councilman Roth noted that conversion of garages to living quarters was nothing
unusual providing that there was adequate of~street parking.
The Mayor stated there were precedents set for that, but he did not know if Council
had ever approved such a use and then indicated they could get their off-street
parking by paving their front yard. He continued that he was going to support
the resolution because he felt the problem in this case was that they were trying
to squeeze too much out of the property. When bootlegging units into an older
neighborhood, they were causing a deterioration of that neighborhood and to that
degree, he was interested in preserving the subject residential area.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, clarified as follows: Variance
No. 3122 granted in part in accordance with the findings of the City Planning
Commission excluding approval of the converted garages; Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3
and 4 of PC80-47 all to be complete within 120 days; the fence to be removed;
the paved front yard on the east parcel to be removed and replaced with land-
scaping, and that the converted garage (two bedrooms) on the east parcel be
reconverted back to garages with no open parking spaces within the 25 foot backup
space.
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. 8OR-196 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2066 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Ronald D. and Mary T. Park, to retain an outdoor storage yard
on RS-7200 zoned property located at 115 North Coffman Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-57 declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further granted Conditional Use Permit No.
2066, subject to the following conditions:
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Coffman Street as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the Office of the City Engineer.
80-601
City Hall, Anaheim, California - CO~CIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
2. That all outdoor storage shall not exceed the height of the existing six (6)
foot high block wall enclosing subject property.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1;
provided, however, that redwood or cedar shall be installed in the existing
chainlink gate.
4. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections, or within a period of ninety (90) days
from the date hereof, whichever occurs first.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the property owners in
the Coffman tract.
The Deputy City Clerk read a letter that had been submitted by James E. Hundley
earlier in the meeting dated May 6, 1980 (made a part of the record) stating
that he had no objections to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2066.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Councilman Bay stated he drove through the area that morning and inquired as to
the status of all the storage yards, if staff was saying that only two of them
were legal.
Miss Santalahti stated one was legal under a conditional use permit and there
were two that were illegal as far as they could tell.
Councilman Bay then questioned staff relative to other storage yards in the
area and asked how soon the Council could receive a report on how many of the
storage yards up and down the street were illegal; Miss Santalahti answered
that they could have a report in two weeks.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard; no one was present.
The Mayor then asked how many were present in the Chamber regarding Conditional
Use Permit No. 2066; there were approximately 5 people present. He then stated
that since they were the ones who asked for the hearing, they had a right to
that, but he explained that the Council would be somewhat concerned about making
a decision without the property owner being present. He asked staff to try and
contact the property owner.
The Deputy City Clerk thereupon called the applicant, Mr. Parks, who indicated
that he did not receive the postcard notifying of the meeting.
The Mayor suggested that they set a date and time certain with Mr. Parks while
he was on the phone. After a brief discussion, it was decided that the matter
be continued one week at which time Mr. Parks would also be present.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2066 one week, May 13, 1980 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
80-602
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, a gentleman from the audience asked to be heard today
because he could not be present the next week.
Mr. Henry Pillarella, 1858 Norma Lane, stated he was the owner of the building
on 1911 East Center Street next to the subject property. He was opposed to the
storage yard because it was unsightly and he had lost tenants because of the
view they had when looking out from his professional building. He thereupon
submitted pictures to the Council illustrating the view from his building. He
spent approximately $30,000 to make his building look nice and a situation such
as the storage yard would depreciate whatever he was trying to do'relative to
improvements. He would appreciate the Council's consideration of the situation.
A vote was then taken on the motion for continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009: Request by Mr. Willard
Pool, that the Council consider setting a hearing on Condition Nos. 7, 8 and 9
placed on Conditional Use Permit No. 2009, relating to advertising and retail
sales in the industrial area.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned with Mr. Pool's interpretation of
the action that the Council took on April 15, 1980 (see minutes that date--Re:
Frederick R. and Ruth E. Sacher, Conditional Use Permit No. 1923). She personally
would deny a new hearing.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kmywood moved to deny the subject request for a hearing.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that Conditional Use Permit No.
2009 was Talbot Furniture on Ball Road. It was not in the canyon industrial
area and had nothing to do with the commercial island concept in the canyon
(see minutes'October 16, 1979--CUP No. 2009--Talbot Furniture). They were
picking up on the decision made on the Sacher property based on a real or
imagined precedent. Personally, he saw no reason to hear changing the condi-
tions imposed previously because they had not yet performed the studies of
that industrial area which were planned in the future. He did not think there
was any decision yet made by the Council in the canyon to support the logic
used in this instance.
Councilman Roth stated he had a problem with keeping Ball Road "pure" because
there was such a mixture of both industrial and commercial uses on that road
at present. He felt it was a hardship in having to hold to conditions No. 7,
8 and 9 of CUP No. 2009. They probably should have had the study first before
imposing the conditions. He favored granting the request for a hearing.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not opposed to granting a hearing and at that
time they could make the decisions Councilman Bay alluded to. If Mr. Pool wished
to appear before the Council on behalf of his client, they should give him an
opportunity to do so. He was going to oppose the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated as she recalled, the applicants originally stated
the business was completely wholesale with no retail sales and that they were
selling only to hotels and motels. She guessed that somebody told them the way
to get into Anaheim was first to get in and once established, no matter what
they did, they would not get "kicked out". She was also concerned over the
80-603
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
fact that the area was quite attractive, but from the time she noticed Talbot's bus-
iness, the large windows were painted very blatantly, "50% or 75% off," and a
"going-out-of-business-sake" had been goin~ on for several years. Even when
they were ordered to wash the windows, they never complied and their actions
had deteriorated the entire area. Since Talbot Furniture had painted their win-
dows, another company in the area who had never done so before had also painted
their windows.
After a brief discussion, Mayor Seymour stated that Mr. Pool was his personal
attorney but he (Seymour) did not have anything to do with the project. He
asked the advice of the City Attorney.
Mr. Hopkins stated that since Mr. Pool was merely his attorney, if he had no
financial interest in the law firm, under those circumstances he did not think
there was any problem unless the Mayor felt his personal relationship with Mr.
Pool would influence his vote.
A vote was then taken on the motion to deny the public hearing request. AYES:
Kmywood, Bay. NOES: Overholt, Roth and Seymour. Motion failed to carry.
Councilman Roth moved to grant the request for a public hearing on Condition
Nos. 7, 8, and 9 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2009. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED..
The date and time set for the public hearing was May 27, 1980 at 3:00 p.m.
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:
a. Claim submitted by April Clingman for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of window being broken by City truck in March, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Deborah Ann Darr for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of collision caused by City driver, on or about March 24,
1980.
c. Claim submitted by Frank Fabozzi for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of claimant's being dismissed from Katella High School varsity wrestling
team, on or about February 8, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Farmers Insurance Group (Barbara May, Insured) for
vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of improperly replaced
manhole cover on Imperial Highway between Nohl Ranch and Canyon, on or about
March 28, 1980.
e. Claim submitted by Charles D. Murray for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of collision with City-owned truck, on or about
April 16, 1980.
80-604
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
f. Claim submitted by Leonard V. Ramirez for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of defective design and conditions of intersection at
Katella Avenue and Walnut Street, on or about January 23, 1980.
g. Claim submitted by Mrs. Vernon L. Smith for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a. result of accident involving Public Works Department equipment
on roadway, on or about April 10, 1980.
h. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance Companies for vehicular damages
purportedly sustained as a result of accident at the corner of Nohl Ranch Road
and Avenida Faro where there was no stop sign for traffic on Avenida Faro, on
or about April 2, 1980. (Larry Smith, Insured)
io Claim submitted by Jeffrey and Saundra Szupello for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of utility service turn-off in error, on or about
April 18, 1980.
j. Claim submitted by Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 3173 for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of power line breaking at southwest corner of %rFW building,
on or about April 5, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of April 9 and 16, 1980.
b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 57763, in the
Matter of the Application of Mexcursions, Inc., a corporation, for a certificate
of public convenience and necessity to operate passenger stage tour service
between points in the County of San Diego and various points in Orange County,
and between the City of Anaheim and various points in San Diego County.
c. 105: Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of April 17, 1980.
3. 108: DINNER-DANCING PLACE PERMIT: In accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Police, a Dinner-Dancing Place Permit was approved for Le
Brochette, 1001 North Euclid Street, for dancing seven nights a week, 9:00 p.m.
to 2:00 a.m. (Charles Howard Badgwell, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
140: ANAHEIM HILLS BRANCH LIBRARY SITE GRADING~ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: City
Engineer William Devitt clarified questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood relative
to compaction of the fill.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, Change Order No.
1 in the amount of $4,228.52, Fuller Construction, contractor was authorized
as recommended. MOTION CARRIED.
161: DOWNTOWN PROJECT ALPHA - PHASE I~ CHANGE ORDER NO. 3: The City Engineer
clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay relative to item 6 of the Change
Order.
80-605
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, Change Order No.3
in the amount of $34,629.48, Steiny and Company, Inc. was authorized as rec-
ommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated April 24, 1980. MOTION
~ARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 80R-i97
through 80R-201, both inclusive, 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. 80R-197: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Mohamad A.
Darkhor, et al.; Sylvia Hammond~ James N. Wright; Benner Sheet Metal, Inc.;
Crocker National Bank, et al~ J.S. Fluor, III, et al. (2); General American
Life Insurance Company (2)~ Richard J. Zlaket, et al.; Crescent Park Ltd., et
al.; Van Horne Ltd.; Englehard Industries West, Inc., et al.; Eleven Fifty
Tustin; State Mutual Investors, Inc.; Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; Eugene E. Beck)
124: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-198: 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: CONVENTION
CENTER NORTH EXHIBIT HALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM UPGRADING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 01-262-6325-9510; ~PPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, 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 CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened June 5, 1980,
at 2:00 pom.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-199: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMJPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: REPLACEMENT
OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHTS WITH HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LUMINAIRES, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-677-6328-11090-37300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPEC-
IFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened June 5, 1980, at 2:00 p.m.)
169: RESOLUTION NOo 80R-200: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER~ AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: WEST STREET STREET IMPROVE-
MENT, W/S~OM SOU'TH STREET TO HAMPSHIRE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 47-792-6325-2560~ (Wayne Steven, Rentals)
80-606
City Hall, Anaheim, California -- COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-201: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CERRITOS AVENUE-STATE COLLEGE
BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-3110,
A.H.F.P. NOS. 941 & 942. (JoE.G. Construction, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-197 through 80R-201, both inclusive, duly
passed and adOpted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4123: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No 4123 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4123: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-31(7), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL ME~BERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordi~ance No~ 4!23 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO~ 4124: Councilwom~n Kaywood offered Ordiance No. 4124 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book~
ORDINANCE NO. 4124: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-41(4), ~-HS-!O,O00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4124 duly passed and adopted~
ORDINANCE NO. 4125 AND 4126: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Orcli~ance No. 4125
and 4126 for first reading.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4125: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PARKING. (Manchester Avenue, both sides, southbound Santa Ana
Freeway ramp, east of Harbor Boulevard, south to City limits)
80-607
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINU~ES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4126: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SECTIONS 4.9'7.020(a), 4.97.080, 4.97.100, AND 4.97.120, TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.97
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DANCE STUDIO. AND SOCIAL STUDIO ES-
TABLISHMENTS.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4127: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4127 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4127: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 18.02.060
TO CHAPTER 18.02 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(relating to adoption of a Statute of Limitations for court action in zoning
matters)
ORDINANCE NO. 4128: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4128 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4128: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-64(12), ML)
114: CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA - MAY 2-4, 1980: Councilman Overholt reported that
he attended the Cinco De Mayo festivities held last weekend and thoroughly
enjoyed the whole affair. He was present for the activities at 8:45 a.m. on
Sunday morning, May 4 and when he attended the fiesta again that evening, they
observed that the police had the whole area cordoned off. However, the incident
did not mar the day. He was pleased to be a part of the fiesta and was looking
forward to next year. He was proud that the City had a part in assisting in
the Cinco De Mayo Fiesta.
Mayor Seymour stated in relation to the unfortunate and potentially volatile
situation that took place at the fiesta on Sunday evening, when Councilman
Overholt called him, he, in turn, called the Watch Commander and subsequently
talked to the Police Chief who was on site. The Council received a report the
following morning relative to the incident. Accordingly, he felt that the
Council should recognize in some special way Sgt. John Mills and Sgt. Tom
Beardman for the outstanding job they did as well as the other officers involved
in controlling a situation that could have taken human life. He asked that the
officers be present at next Tuesday's Council meeting specifically Sgt. Mills
and Beardman, to commend them for keeping cool heads under very trying circum-
stances. If it were not for them, he was afraid that next year there might not
be a Cinco de Mayo Fiesta. He was certain that they were all supportive of a
continuation of that fiesta.
Councilman Seymour moved to recognize in some special way Sgt. John Mills and Tom
Beardman for their outstanding service in keeping control at the Fiesta as well
as all Police Officers on duty at the site. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114: CONSORTIUM CITIES MEETING APRIL 30, 1980: Councilwoman Kaywood reported
on her attendance at the subject meeting with the City's Man in Washington,
Bill Morgan. There was a request from Councilman Holland of Garden Grove that
an Energy Committee be formed, but there seemed to be a feeling that others
were not seeking additional meetings and committees. Councilman Holland sug-
gested at least two Councilmen from each city to form this Energy Committee.
80-608
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
There could be a potential conflict with the Man in Washington receiving
conflicting orders from different areas rendering him unable to act. Council-
woman Kaywood advised the group that if they would send a letter on it she
would bring the matter to the Council, but she had not received anything as yet.
It was felt that Anaheim had the expertise on staff to deal with the problem and
further, Councilman Bay was on the General Motors Energy Assessment Committee.
114: FAIRMONT BOULEVARD - IMPROVEMENTS TO SHOULDER: Councilman Roth commended
the Public Works Executive Director and the City Engineer on the report submitted
relative to their solution to the problem existing on Fairmont Boulevard wherein
they recommended grading of the shoulder. He felt that should be number one
priority.
105: VACANCIES ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (CSB): Councilman Roth asked
if they were going to discuss filling the two vacancies on the Community
Services Board at next Tuesday's meeting.
~e Deputy City Clerk stated that the problem in filling the vacancies was due
to the fact that the Council had not declared the posts vacant as yet because
notice had not been received from the CSB as to the vacancies.
The Mayor suggested that since the next CSB meeting was May 8, 1980, that they
receive notification from them on those vacancies and subsequently they could
act accordingly two weeks from today.
Councilman Overholt reported that he saw Fernando Galaviz at a recent ball game
and he asked Mr. Galaviz if he intended to resign from the CSB due to his non-
attendance at meetings. Mr. Galaviz said that he would not do so. He (Overholt)
felt that the action to be taken would be one of removal for nonattenance. In
talking with a member of the CSB, the Board was unclear as to whether they had
that power or whether they should recommend that action and he felt there should
be some clarification made.
The Mayor stated that he would investigate the situation.
131: FHWA FUN-DS RELATING TO nE I~k PAi~ AVENUE PROJECT: Councilman Bay referred
tO memorandum dated April 30, 1980 from the Public Works Executive Director to
the City Manager/City Council which discussed FHWA funds relating to the La Palma
Avenue Project containing a chronology of events leading up to why the project
was omitted from the obligation plan. H~ recommended that they send a letter
to Caltrans with a copy to the Federal Highway Department as to why the City was
omitted from that plan with a full explanation of what he considered a classic
example of an administrative foul-up within Caltrans as explained in the mem-
orandum.
119: PUBLIC APPRECIATION - ANAHEIM TENNIS CLUB CONTRIBUTION: Councilwoman
Kaywood noted that on March 26, 1980, they received a letter from the Anaheim
Tennis Club wherein they gave a sizeable contribution to the City of $10,000
for improvements to the Pearson Park Tennis facilities. They also indicated
that amount was a one time contribution but it was their intent to continue
yearly to provide a small amount for ongoing improvements related to tennis
80-609
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MaX 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
facilities in Anaheim. They were hoping to contribute $2,000 every year. The
funds were derived primarily from their entries in the Anaheim Junior Tennis
Tournaments sanctioned in Southern California. She wanted to see a certificate
of appreciation or something that was appropriate be presented to the Anaheim
Tennis Club on behalf of the Council.
Mayor Seymour reported that within a week of receiving the letter, he did cor-
respond with the Anaheim Tennis Club on behalf of the Council thanking them
for their generous contribution.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt a public appreciation would be in order and
moved that a public appreciation be given to the Anaheim Tennis Club for their
contribution of $10,000 for improvements to the Pearson Park tennis facilities.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:58 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present~ (5:19 P.M.)
112: HARBOR-BALL ASSOCIATES VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM~ ET AL: On motion by Council-
man Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney was authorized
to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 32-40-03 (Harbor-Ball Associates
vs. City of Anaheim, et al) for a sum not to exceed $2,000 and to execute a
mutual release agreement. MOTION CARRIED.
118: CLAIM OF WILLIAM F. HILDEBRAND: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney was authorized to settle the claim
of William Fo Hildebrand against the City of Anaheim for'a sum not to exceed
$1,750. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. for a joint meeting
with the Community Center Authority and the Anaheim Union High School District
at the Anaheim ConventiOn Center. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (5:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:30 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Henderson, Currier,
Hostetter, Williams and
Patterson
COMMI~NITY CENTER AUTHORITY MEMBERS: None
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES: McGee,
Barnett, Stanton, and Brown
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Haunfelner
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT: Cynthia Brennan
80-610
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CONVENTION CENTER GENERAL MANAGER: Thomas Liegler
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL MANAGER: Thornton Piersall
ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER: James Armstrong
ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR: Ron Rothschild
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Pam Lucado
124: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL FOR CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL TO BE
LOCATtD ADJACENT TO THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY: The
members of the respective boards present were introduced by the Chairman and
each board, having a majority present, was called to order.
Mr. Talley reviewed the events and negotiations leading to the recommendation
to be presented to the Joint Powers Authority this evening, as summarized in
his written report dated September 6, 1980 (on file in the office of the City
Clerk).
Briefly Mr. Talley explained that following rejection by the City Council in
November 1979 of proposals submitted from Hilton-Wrather, Hyatt and Portman-
Trusthouse Forte, he was directed to meet with the Council Liaison Committee
to assemble a negotiating team which would continue negotiations with the hotel
proposers. The team eventually consisted of Community Center Authority Pres-
ident Henderson and Community Center Authority Board Member Hostetter, together
with Members of City staff. The negotiations were undertaken under the auspices
of the Council Liaison team consisting of Mayor Seymour and Councilman Overholt.
The procedure used was to advise the three hotel proposers of the negotiating
team concept and to secure an indication of continuing interests. This received
immediate posit%ve response. A format was developed so that each proposal would
be submitted in approximately the same manner to fulfill or take the comparison.
The proposals received were then structured into a matrix to define the indivi-
dual elements of each proposal. Additional opportunity was then given each
proposer to answer any questions which might be remaining.
Following this, numerous economic pro forma were developed to compare the three
proposals by staff, and an economic consultant, Economics Research Associates
was then engaged to review the staff evaluations. Mr. Talley explained that
additional opportunities were allowed each of the proposers to enhance their
original package, each of the proposals was confirmed in writing as understood
by the evaluating team. All notes, work papers and official computations were
submitted to Economics Research Associates (ERA), which company, following their
independent investigation, concurred with the City of Anaheim staff estimate
"that the Hilton-Wrather Convention Hotel development proposal would perform
substantial and superior revenue generation function as compared to the final
offers made by Hyatt and by Portman-Trusthouse Forte."
Mr. Talley then summarized the analysis made of the Hilton-Wrather proposal
giving specifics of the building dimensions, construction time and estimated
cost. The project, projected for completion in 1982 would, at a cost of
$80 to $100 million provide 1,000 guest rooms in a 14-story tower; approximately
80-611
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
29,000 square feet of new food and beverage areas; 80,000 square feet of public
areas; a travel port containing space for 31 buses, 20,000 square feet for
transportation related business; swimming pools, tennis courts, jogging tracks,
game room, health facilities and discotheques.
Hilton-Wrather and the City have entered into lengthy discussions as to the
parking requirements to service this complex, and to date the City believes,
based upon the concept of design, a minimum of 2,100 spaces should be provided
to meet the City's code requirement; however Hilton-Wrather believes the City
Code counts their guests twice and has initially proposed 1,500 parking spaces.
Although this difference has not been resolved, Hilton-Wrather has agreed to
abide by the final decision of the City Planning Commission/City Council in
this regard. Hilton-Wrather has further agreed to replace, one for one, all
spaces currently used by the Inn at the Park as well as to replace all Conven-
tion Center parking spaces displaced by the new hotel.
As far as the ground lease terms are concerned, Mr. Talley explained that two
alternates were proposed by Hilton-Wrather, which were carefully evaluated by
the City team and after consultation with Bond Counsel and Bond Trustee, it was
determined that the straight lease payment option would be the recommended approach;
because of restrictions on any land sale proceeds which must be used to retire
bonds. The new proposal, containing percentages with gross revenues, rooms,
food, beverage, retail, public areas/group facilities and other, represented
a substantial enhancement over the previous offer. Based upon the economic
model year of 1987, the previous ground lease terms would have generated
revenue of $1,375,000 whereas the new proposal will generate~approximately
$1,870,000 for an increase of 500,000 per year. These amounts represent only
direct lease payments and receipts from transient occupancy and business license
taxes, sales and property tax revenues would generate additional funds estimated
for the model year at $2,590,000. In addition, Hilton-Wrather has agreed to
guarantee rentals to the City equal at least to the average rentals over the
past three years for the Inn at the Park, even if there is an impact on the
operations at that facility due to construction.
A feature of the Hilton-Wrather proposal which could not be duplicated in any
of the others, is that they have agreed to commit the first 500-room expansion
to the terms of the current Inn at the Park lease. This will provide revenue
nearly 60% greater than those proposed for the Convention Center hotel and
represents a significant improvement in the proposal.
As far as the transportation center is concerned, Mr. Talley advised that
Hilton-Wrather has met with Orange County Transit District and has agreed to
accommodate 20,000 square feet of offices and administration square footage
requirements, plus parking for 31 buses. All other OCTD requirements to
provide a complete travel facility will be incorporated into other areas of
the hotel. The only remaining requirement may be additional parking which will
have to be constructed by OCTD.
In summary, Mr. Talley stated that he recommended the Hilton-Wrather proposal
which in its completed phase will provide 3,500 rooms, which analysis indicates
that in 1987 dollars the additional revenue may be multiplied over 100% to es-
timate the final benefit possible from this entire project. It could be providing
80-612
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
in 1987 dollars in excess of $10 million to the City in new revenues. Hilton-
Wrather has agreed to submit a deposit in the amount of $150,000 upon the City's
execution of an exclusive right to negotiate agreement. Once the ground lease
agreement has been executed, Hilton-Wrather has agreed to increase this deposit
to $1 million to insure the completion of the project.
Mr. Talley concluded that it is with a great sense of pleasure in this accomplish-
ment that he makes this recommendation this evening; that the negotiating teams
and City staff worked many hours over the last six months to come up with some-
thing which he thinks will provide the City of Anaheim with a Convention Center
hotel which will greatly enhance Anaheim's reputation as one of the finer
convention destinations in the United States. He commended and publicly rec-
ognized the staff members who put forth many hours of effort beyond their normal
working hours-to bring this to completion: Tom Liegler, Convention Center
General Manager, Jack White, Deputy City Attorney, James Armstrong, Assistant to
City Manager, Ron Rothschild, Assistant Finance Director, Pam Lucado, Associate
Planner.
Mr. Jack Wrather addressed the group and recalled that he has been c~mmitted
and involved with the City of Anaheim since 1954. He voiced confidence that the
H±lton-Wrather joint adventure will negotiate successfully to completion to
provide the City of Anaheim with the finest convention hotel in the United
States, which will also be a structure of architectural pride for the area.
Mayor Seymour commented that back in November of 1979 he personally had strongly
felt that the Hilton-Wrather proposal would be the one to obtain the development
rights to this property because of certain economic aspects, but, equally important
is the reputation for quality of operation which Jack Wrather has enjoyed in the
City for many years. He thought that the job done in the last six months makes
this project look even better. He stated that Anaheim has always been a very,
very exciting City and now with the Stadium expansion and coming of the Los
Angeles Rams, and this new luxury convention center hotel, the City is on the
threshold of new era. He voiced his positive feelings that .it will not be long
with the help of the Community Center Authority, before the Convention Center
goes into its next phase of expansion, which will make it the third largest
Convention Center 'facility in this country. This proposed hotel will not only
enhance the City's image but will help to insure that the City has an active
share in the future market of conventions and visitors and would provide the
City with a platform for even greater economic growth. Mayor Seymour touched
upon the possibility of an automated transit system linking the Convention hotel
complex with other areas in an exciting efficient and effective way of moving
people. In conclusion he stated that it was his pleasure to be a part of the
Liaison team process and could also urge approval of the exclusive right to
negotiate agreement with the Hilton-Wrather joint venture proposal.
Mayor Seymour stated that since this is a public hearing, prior to asking for
Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees or Community Center Authority
comments, he would open the floor to discussion and/or questions from the public.
Mr. John Doherty, 1116 Wakefield, Anaheim, questioned what measures would be taken
to .protect the residents of the area surrounding the Convention Center from the
parking problem which they were already experiencing. He cited experiences with
people parking in his driveway and on his front lawn.
80-613
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour advised that the problem of parking by Convention Center guests
on residential streets is one which is well known to the City Council. There
are two approaches under consideration by the Council, one would be to alter
the traffic pattern by creating a cul-de-sac on this street; the other is to
issue parking stickers to residents. He advised that the Council is open to
any other suggestions the residents might have to alleviate the problem. Re-
garding the Convention Center hotel project under consideration, Mayor Seymour
recalled that Mr. Talley has explained there would be some 2,000 plus parking
spaces recommended by City staff. He speculated that the City Council will
"hang tough" on any requested waiver in an attempt to mitigate the problems
which have arisen in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. He assured
Mr. Doherty that the Council is willing to take the steps necessary to assure
privacy and quiet in their neighborhoods are maintained.
Mr. Doherty recommended that the Council impose parking restrictions, post
signs limiting parking and issue stickers to residents.
Mr. Kurt Sturker, also of Wakefield Place, Anaheim, stated that he and his
neighbors have complained about the parking situation in the past and he did
not think the Council was paying attention. He inquired as to the parking
ratio to be allowed in the new hotel complex.
Miss Pam Lucado, Associate Planner, read the recommended parking ratios for the
various activities at the Convention Center hotel as follows: one space per
two guest rooms--500 for the 1000 room hotel. Employee parking--one space per
10 employees or, equals 100 spaces; restaurant--one space per 125 square feet
equals 160 spaces; retail--one space per 150 square feet equals 350 spaces;
group facilities,-the ratio of 50 square feet--five seating capacities to one
space, plus thirty additional spaces required for maximum shift of employees.
This will total 2,386 gross parking spaces, calculated according to the City's
Municipal Code requirements, but the actual number required will not be deter-
mined until development plans are submitted. She also replied that the parking
will be situated in a three story parking structure.
Mr. Talley added that in sensitivity to the problems in adjacent areas, the
parking and traffic flow pattern is designed so that anyone using the hotel
would be totally unlikely to seek parking accomodations three to five blocks
away and walk the distance to the hotel. -
Mayor Seymour advised that it would be difficult for Council to assure the
residents that no problems will occur, but he could assure tham that to the
degree the City Council can mitigate these impacts, they will do so.
Mr. Sturker stated that he is satisfied the Council will do something, but
cautioned that it is the Council who will have to look after the residents'
best interests. They will need some measures to block off the streets to
maintain their privacy and property values.
Jack Winick, 2052 June Place, (Sherwood Village Complex), stated that one of
the major negotiable areas in this proposed contractual agreement is the parking.
He questioned whether there was any way this could be made a non-negotiable
section of the contract.
80-614
CitM Hall, Anaheim, California y C~UNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour responded that there is nothing more that could be done at this
point; that the City Manager has stated staff's position on parking succintly
that they would oppose any request for variance from the City's parking standards
He advised that he believes the Council will "hang tough" as far as parking
standards go, but on the other hand, there is no guarantee the Council can
give. He advised that this is the best assurance he could give at this juncture.
The Mayor asked if any other member of the public wished to speak, and, there
being no response, he opened the floor to the Community Center Authority and
Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees members.
Ms. Molly McGee stated that the Board of Trustees appreciates being involved
in this decision; that they are very proud of the Convention Center facility
and that this proposal which will be a great benefit to the City. She stated
the Council has the support of the Trustees in this endeavor.
There were no further questions or comments from the Anaheim Union High School
District Board of Trustees or Community Center Authority members.
Mayor Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-202 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-202: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGO-
TIATE WITH HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION/WRATHER CORPORATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Prior to voting on the resolution, Councilman Overholt stated that he had opposed
the Mayor's motion to approve the Community Center Authority recommendation in
November of 1979 because he had felt the procedure which had been followed
excluded City management from the analysis and evaluation of the bids; and now,
less than six months later, he is very pleased to report that he is absolutely
convinced that the taxpayers of the City of Anaheim have been represented to
the fullest by the Community Center Authority and City management and it is his
great pleasure to vote in favor of the resolution.
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. 80R-202 duly passed and adopted.
Prior to adjournment, Mayor Seymour congratulated staff members for carrying out
this task in the fashion they had. He also thanked Jack Wrather and the Wrather
Hilton venture for their patience in working this through with the City.
Mr. Henderson added his congratulations to the City management and liaison nego-
tating teams.
Mr. Currier stated that he is very glad this evening the Council has received
confirmation to the original Community Center Authority recommendation made six
months ago.
80-615
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6~ 1980,. 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hostetter expressed his appreciation for being a part of the liaison team
and being able to participate in deliberations with such fine people.
There being no further business to come before either the Community Center
Authority, Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees or City
Council, the respective Chairmen called for motions to adjourn.
ADJOURNMENT - ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Mrs. Joanne
Stanton moved to adjourn. Mrs. Barnett seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT - COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY: Mr. Henderson moved to adjourn. Mr.
Currier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8:45 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
DEPUTY CITY CLERK