1980/08/0580-960
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 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
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: Geroge P. Ferrone
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER MANAGER: George H. Edwards
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Mary Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to representatives of the American
Riding Club for the Handicapped and Anaco Ranch for their contributions to the
handicapped youth and for offering an outstanding equestrian program in their
behalf.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve hhe minutes of June 3, 1980,
subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
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 Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST 'THE CITY in the amount of $541,211.58, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
128: 1979-80 WRITE-OFF OF UNCOLLECTIBLE MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE:
Councilman Roth, noting report received July 30, 1980 from the Finance Director,
commended staff for the major reduction in the subject write-offs which indi-
cated that someone was watching those delinquencies closely.
Councilman Bay asked how many of the uncollectibles went to collection agencies
and to Small Claims Court.
Mr. George Ferrone, Finance Director, answered that none had been turned over to
agencies or filed with the court, but that did not mean that they wrote off the
uncollectibles permanently. They continued their collection efforts on the
80-961
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
accounts, and on those written off last year, they were able to collect some
$16,000 thereafter. The write-off was merely an accounting treatment for those
accounts more than two years old. He reiterated that they continued the collec-
tion process.
Councilman Bay noted there were three ex-Council candidates who did not apparently
pay their share of the candidate's statements which were mailed to voters in
the City. Although the total amounted to only $491.16 for all three ($163.72
each), he assumed that they still lived in the City and since they had been
unsuccessful in their collection efforts, that they could at least take them
to Small Claims Court. Also, in looking at some of the more sizable bills on
the list, he felt they should also be taking some of those to Small Claims
Court, if economically feasible.
Councilman Overholt questioned what it would cost to take a claim for $163 to
Small Claims Court; Mr. Ferrone stated it would involve staff time to take
the claims to court, and they tried to set those up where they could submit
several cases at once.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was also surprised to see one of them was an
attorney. She assumed ali three were concerned with their reputations,
since it involved a bad debt, and if that were indicated in the letter, she
would expect they would pay up; Mr. Ferrone stated they would keep after them.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, write-off of
uncollectible miscellaneous accounts receivable for 1979-80, totalling $44,550.33,
was authorized, as recommended in report received July 30, 1980 from the Director
of Finance. MOTION CARRIED.
153: CORRECTING SALARY SCHEDULE OF CLAIMS EXAMINER CLASSIFICATION: Councilman
Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-341 for adoption, as recommended in memoran-
dum dated July 30, 1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-341: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-289, NUNC PRO TUNC, WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COM-
PENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT, BY COR-
RECTING THE SALARY SCHEDULE OF THE CLASSIFICATION CLAIMS EXAMINER.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-341 duly passed and adopted.
103: REORGANIZATION NO. 51 - BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND ORANGE: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-342 for adoption, as
recommended in memorandum dated July 23, 1980 from Robert Kelly, Associate
Planner, consenting to the detachment of certain uninhabited territory from
the City and the annexation of said territory to the City or Orange, designated
as Reorganization No. 51, property located south of Nohl Ranch Road and east
and west of Villa Real Drive. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-962
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-342: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND CONSENTING TO THE DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY
FROM THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANNEXATION OF SAID TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
ORANGE, DESIGNATED AS REORGANIZATION NO. 51.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBER$:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-342 duly passed and adopted.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - CLEMENTINE STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT - FREEDMAN WAY
TO KATELLA: Account Nos. 13-792-6325-E2480, 12-794-6325-E4150 and 51-605-6329-
26280-76100. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-343 for adoption,
as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 30, 1980.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-343: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: CLEMENTINE STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, FREEDMAN WAY TO
KATELLA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-792-6325-2480 & 51-
605-6329-26280-76100 & 12-794-6325-E4150. (R. J. Noble Company, $139,583.80)
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-343 duly passed and adopted.
123/164: CONCRETE TESTING AND REPORTING - LENAIN TWO-MILLION GALLON RESERVOIR:
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Counci]mmn Bay, the City Engineer was
authorized to execute a letter agreement with Twining Laboratories in an amount
not to exceed $945, for concrete testing and reporting services in connection
with the Lenain Two-Million Gallon Reservoir, as recommended in memorandum
dated July 24, 1980 from the City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED.
149/124: OVERFLOW PARKING CONTROLS AROUND T~E ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER: City
Manager William Talley briefed the Council on report dated July 21, 1980 from
the Stadium, Convention Center, Golf Director Tom Liegler, listing the ad hoc
committee recommendations regarding overflow parking controls for City streets
around the Convention Center.
80-963
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. John Daugherty, 1116 Wakefield Place, speaking on behalf of the neighborhood
in the area of the Convention Center, stated that they had taken a great deal
of time to investigate the matter and the controls being proposed. He had
personally gone to different cities to investigate through their Police
Departments their findings on the workings of the particular type set-up pro-
posed, i.e., permit parking. They found no fault in it whatsoever and since
initiated, they received complete cooperation of the neighborhood and the people
in the area. It had worked quite well and that is what they wanted in their
neighborhood. They had three productive meetings where they met with the staff
of the Convention Center. Their case had been presented, and with him today
were some of the people from the neighborhood who had taken the time to be
present to show their interest in the project. Ten members of the neighborhood
were present along with Mr. Daugherty. He explained that they were quite rep-
resentative of the entire neighborhood and that they had approximately 30 to
35 on the committee formed from those living in the neighborhood. They strongly
recommended adoption of the motion approving the recommendations contained in
the report from Mr. Liegler.
Mayor Seymour, on behalf of the Council, stated how much they appreciated the
way in which staff set up the meetings with the neighborhood to permit the
people to decide what was in their best interest. The fact that the neighbor-
hood dedicated the time and made the commitment necessary in taking an inter-
est in their neighborhood, spoke well for the good citizens that they were and
the concern they had for their neighbors as well as themselves. That was what
made the City so great--people solving problems themselves, for themselves, in
their own neighborhoods. The Council applauded and commended them for their
efforts.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance to provide Permit Parking, Residents Only...Tow Away Zone, effective
24 hours per day, seven days per week, for certain designated City streets
around the Convention Center. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
174/175: APPLICATION FOR U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) INNOVATIVE RATE GRANT:
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the prepar-
ation of an application by R. W. Beck and Associates for a Department of Energy
Innovative Rate Grant, on behalf of the Public Utilities Department, was author-
ized, as recommended in memorandum dated July 30, 1980 from Public Utilities
General Manager Gordon Hoyt. MOTION CARRIED.
123/174: CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACT BG80-1 FOR DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Change
Order No. 1 to Contract BG80-1, demolition and site clearance at 1015, 1015½,
1040 and 1042 North Part Street, in the amount of $4,300, was approved, as
recommended in memorandum from Executive Director of Community Development
Norm Priest, bringing the original 'contract price to $8,700; L. Kelly Demolition,
contractor. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CONSTRUCTION OF TWIN PEAKS RESERVOIR - REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM
HILLS, INC.: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, a
reimbursement agreement with Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., was approved, at an
estimated cost of $700,000 for financing the cost of design and construction
of the Twin Peaks Reservoir, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board in
memorandum dated July 15, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
80-964
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au§ust 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
112/175: LITIGATION BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS AGAINST
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR: City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on
memorandum dated July 25, 1980 from his office regarding the subject. He rec-
ommended that the City enter into an agreement with NIMLO to handle the liti-
gation. They felt that the action by the Secretary of Labor was just the be-
ginning of a further extension of controls that could extend not only into the
generation and distribution of electric power which could adversely affect the
City's Utilities Department, but also in areas such as the Stadium and Convention
Center and the Parks and Recreation Department. The present action was the first,
and it should be stopped at the outset.
City Manager Talley suggested that inasmuch as the action involved the Utilities
primarily, it might be in order to include in the motion that the funds be allocated
from the appropriate Electric Utility account.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City
Attorney was authorized to execute an agreement with the National Institute of
Municipal Law Officers providing for the City's participation in litigation to
challenge the Secretary of Labor's ruling extending wage and hourly law provisions
on cities that engage in certain activities, such as generation and distribution
of electric power, and authorizing payment to the litigation trust fund of $7,500,
to be allocated from the appropriate Electric Utility account; and if further
funding is necessary, the City Attorney is to report same to the Council and
request that additional amount. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit sub-
mitted by Pyrotechnics on behalf of the Rams to discharge fireworks on August 11,
1980 and August 16, 1980, at 7:45 p.m. and at half-time, was approved, as
recommended by the Fire Department. MOTION CARRIED.
123: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CANAL-RANDOLPH ANAHEIM, INC.: (continued from the
meetings of June 24, July 1 and July 15 and July 29, 1980)
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Seymour, an office
lease agreement was authorized in the amount of $9,144 for space at the Bank
of America building, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, for Police Department use, for
the period of July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981, as recommended in memorandum
dated June 24 and July 30, 1980 from Chief of Police George Tielsch. MOTION
CARRIED.
168: STREET NAME CHANGE FROM LINCOLN AVENUE TO OLD LINCOLN AVENUE: Changing
the street name for that portion of existing Lincoln Avenue located between
Anaheim Boulevard and Topeka Street to Old Lincoln Avenue, effective August 1,
1980 (continued from the meeting of July 29, 1980).
City Clerk Linde Roberts announced that the Community Redevelopment Commission,
in their memorandum of July 31, 1980, and the Project Area Committee (PAC) in
their memorandum dated July 9, 1980, recommended that the subject portion of
Lincoln Avenue be named, "Old Lincoln".
Mayor Seymour asked if any member of the public wished to be heard relative to
the subject.
80-965
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Col. Earl Rhoads stated as Junior Past Chairman of PAC, he addressed a letter
to the Council recommending unanimous approval of the change to "Old Lincoln",
the reason was two fold--the businesses remaining in the downtown area had
suffered from setbacks due to Redevelopment, parking, etc. They discussed
the matter at great length and did not feel that those businessmen should be
obligated to go into additional expenses at this time. In the foreseeable
future with construction in area parcels 4A and 4B, the configuration of the
street might change. Therefore, they strongly recommended approval of the
change to "Old Lincoln". The PAC, composed of residents, citizens, property
owners and businessmen within the area and the people from the Community
Services Board, as well as representatives from the Northeast Industrial area,
all unanimously agreed upon the decision and further suggested that the business-
men circulate a petition on their own which he believed had been submitted to
the Council. It would be prudent and cost effective both for the Redevelopment
Agency and the people within the area to have the name changed to Old Lincoln.
Councilwoman Kmywood stated that they had new material which they received today
discussing two actions--to change the name to Old Lincoln at this time, and then
later changing it to Center Street or whatever.
Col. Rhoads explained for the Mayor that he was not aware of that, but they did
discuss at length the development of Parcel 4, if, in fact, there was actually
going to be a street in the area, or just an access road into the project.
Councilman Bay asked Col. Rhoads to elaborate on why the name of "01d Lincoln"
would be better economically.
Col. Rhoads answered that if they maintained the name Lincoln with just the con-
notation of the word "old" inferred, the advertisements of the local business
people, business cards, packaging, yellow pages, etc., would not be affected and
also people would know the location. If the street name were changed entirely,
people might not be aware of the situation and think that Jackson Drug Store,
for instance, had moved. It would cost the merchants a lot of money, and they
(pAC) felt they had suffered enough setbacks in the last two or three years with-
out giving them additional burdens.
Mrs. Cortez Hoskins, Hoskins Land Company, stated that her only concern was to
keep something open for the tenants of her building (owned since 1947) located
next to 01d City Hall. They were struggling as it was at the present time and
she was trying to maintain the property to the best of her ability. The tenants
needed access from both directions since they were being "choked to death". She
was trying to keep it open in as viable a manner as possible and also with a
name that would be suitable and recognizable as their place of business for many
years. Whether the street was named Old Lincoln, or First Lincoln, or Center
Street, did not concern her as much as keeping it open in some connecting manner
so that traffic could flow through. In answer to Councilman Bay, she reiterated
that access was her main concern, but concurred that either Lincoln or Center in
some manner should be maintained. "Oldtimers" still called it Center Street.
She did not know how serious changing the address on stationery would be.
Perhaps it would be a hardship, but that was not her concern.
80-966
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Cal Queyrel, Anacal Engineering (one of Mrs. Hoskins major tenants), stated
it would make quite a difference to change all that stationery. They did not
need the identity as much as the other business people, and he would prefer to
have Mr. Don Lee of Jackson Drugs speak for them. He (Queyrel) preferred to have
the name changed to Old Lincoln because the businesses needed all the identity
they could get.
Mr. Don Lee, owner of Jackson Drugs, noted that Col. Rhoads referred to the
petition passed to the businessmen in the area. In order to emphasize the
fact that those involved were not "fly-by-night" operations, he relayed the
names of the following businesses and the number of years located in the com-
munity: Ritz Cleaners, 25 years; Anacal Engineering, 25 years; Bill Ward The
Plumber, 34 years; Dirk Bode Insurance, 26 years; and Jackson Drugs, 58 years.
Ail had gone through a street name change in the past. From that point of
view and the economics of the businessmen in the community which was discussed
at length at PAC, they felt they came to the best decision for all concerned.
The street was not historical in the sense that it was going to remain intact
for the next 20 or 30 years. They would prefer to have the transition period
be as easy on them as possible. Perhaps in future years when the area was com-
pletely grown up and stabilized, they could rename the street if someone had a
better name that would be more appropriate.
Councilman Overholt asked if he felt there was some merit in the Redevelopment
Commission's suggestion that at some future date they may want to take another
look at the matter. ~
Mr. Lee felt that there was. The Master Plan of the Redevelopment Agency called
for no viable through street or it might even convert to a private road. They
were perhaps looking at three or four years before they would know if the street
would still be there.
Councilman Roth stated that they had an obligation to the merchants, some of
which as Mr. Lee mentioned, had been in the area for 25 to 58 years, and the
businessmen were the ones most impacted by Redevelopment.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 8OR-344 for adoption, approving changing
the street name for that portion of existing Lincoln Avenue located between
Anaheim Boulevard and Topeka Street to Old Lincoln Avenue, effective August 1,
1980, until such time as those merchants had been relocated and subsequently
consider a name change at that time. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-344: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CHANGING THE NAME FOR LINCOLN AVENUE TO OLD LINCOLN AVENI/E (BETWEEN ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD AND TOPEKA STREET).
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked how long that section would
be a street; Mr. Norm Priest Executive Director of Community Development stated
that in some form, he expected it would be a street or a throughway or a traffic
way perhaps for years to come. It might be a small street or privately owned
and maintained access to parking. At this point in time, it would probably be
a street, but in a somewhat different configuration and alignment.
80-967
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support the resolution and he was
glad of the opportunity given today for all interested parties to express them-
selves. He was certain there were citizens in the City who remembered Center
Street with great affection and perhaps when the immediate crisis of Redevelop-
ment completion was over, they could consider those viewpoints. He commended
Mr. Lee for polling the businessmen who were their main consideration at this
time.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was also concerned, with Anaheim having a unique
history, that they be mindful of it. All of the long-term merchants in the area
had previously gone through a name change from Center Street to Lincoln Avenue.
She wanted to keep the matter alive to the time when renaming might take place
after the merchants had been relocated. In looking at a map of the City, there
was a short distance of Center Street from West Street and also from State
College Boulevard. In drawing a straight line, Center Street would also run
through the dowtown area. Another concern in calling it Old Lincoln was that
Lincoln would be New Lincoln, and there would be at least as much confusion and
possibly more in the long range, although not in the short range. While she did
not object and also did not wish to impact the merchants anymore than they had
already been impacted, she was going to vote against the resolution so that the
record would show that something was alive and open to renaming Lincoln back to
Center Street, if that should be the way to go.
Mayor Seymour stated that he certainly supported the resolution and it was ob-
viously a temporary change. He was also certain that the entire Council was
sensitive to their heritage and would want to recognize that at the appropriate
time. He commended Col. Rhoads and PAC for their work and report and also Mr.
Lee, noting that they were aware of and could appreciate the position that he
and the other businessmen were in.
Councilman Overholt asked for clarification as to why Councilwoman Kaywood was
going to vote against the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered, so that the record would not reflect the unanimous
vote and if someone were to question it, she wanted the record to be researched
to ascertain why, if there was going to be another change, that it be changed
back to Center Street. She recognized the fact that it could take place years
later when there were different members on the Council.
Councilman Overholt noted that the change was a temporary one; Councilman Roth
confirmed that it was temporary until the present merchants were relocated.
It was not strictly a name change--there were conditions, those being when the
merchants were relocated and not impacted any longer, another name could then
be considered and whoever might be on the Council at that time, could make
the decision.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
0verholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kay-wood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-344 duly passed and adopted.
80-968
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
135: HEARING/WORKSHOP ON GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS:
July 29, 1980.
Continued from the meeting of
Councilman Roth moved to continue setting the date for a hearing/workshop on Golf
Course Operations for one week, as requested by staff, since there was insufficient
t/me to prepare a report. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked if that meant at the meeting
next week they were going to set the date of the workshop or hearing or whatever
they were going to have, or did it mean that the workshop or hearing would be
held next week.
Mr. Talley answered "no". Due to the allegation that was made and the enormity
of the funds involved, he wanted a complete report to the Council, with a staff
recommendation, and at that time Council could determine the policy. If they
wished to adopt the staff recommendation they could do so, or if they wished,
they could set a public hearing at that time. His understanding was that the
Council wanted to see where they were and what they were doing and determine
at what point they appropriately wanted public input.
Mayor Seymour stated that was not his understanding. His understanding was that
the Council agreed to a public hearing and the fact that they asked staff for a
report was only a matter of providing that report. If it was not clear that the
Council had committed to a public hearing prior to the process going any further,
then the Council ought to so state so that the City Manager knew what course to
take. However, the motion he' offered and, certainly in the spirit he offered
it, was to have a public hearing or public workshop with the Golf Course Commis-
sion, the public and the City Council before further progress was made on the
matter, but with a full report from staff. If that was not clear to the City
Manager, he apologized, but that was what was intended and what he believed the
Council voted for.
Councilman Overholt stated he would agree that they voted to have a public
hearing and postponed the matter for at least one week to determine when that
hearing would take place. The question was whether the City Manager wanted
to submit his report to the Council before they set the hearing or set a hearing
date today, at which time he would present his report, or prior to that time.
Mr. Talley stated it was up to the City Council. They were in the middle of an
administrative staff report that would be coming to the Council in an orderly
process. In that report, he was positive they would recommend that the Council
consider solicit{ng proposals and, in his opinion, at the time the Council had
alternatives available, it would be appropriate to discuss the matter publicly
as they did every other action. If in the meantime they wanted to interrupt
the administrative process, the Council had that prerogative.
Councilman Overholt then asked if that would mean they would have a public hearing
next week at the time the proposal was presented; Mr. Talley answered that would
be up to the Council. Councilman Overholt continued that his concern with that
was the fact that they would not have ample time to publicize the hearing.
80-969
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley stated that last week most of the principal staff people were not
available, as well as for a majority of the time between now and last week, and
thus it was impossible to present an adequate report.
Councilman Overholt stated the matter continued from last week was setting the
date, time, and place of a public hearing. If that was the present motion to
continue, he would support that.
Mayor Seymour stated that one week from today, they would then determine the
date of the public hearing. In speaking to that, he felt that the City Manager
had misinterpreted the motion he made, or he did not communicate it, or perhaps
the Council voted for something different than what had been suggested. He
thought the motion was very clear and did not understand the City Manager
suggesting that the Council would "interrupt the administrative process",
because he was not so sure how that process had reached the point it had
reached. He felt the City Manager was suggesting that there was a question
of whether or not a public hearing would be held in the very near future and
prior to the completion of whatever administrative process was taking place
or after that. As he read between the lines, the City Manager was going to
come back with a recommendation and say, now turn around the action you took
last week.
Mr. Talley answered that was not his intent and the Mayor was misinterpreting
his intent. Last week, statements were made by the Mayor, incorrect statements
as far as the action of the office. He thought he was asked to give the Council
a report on where they were and how they got there and the Council could decide
what they wanted to do as far as continuing in the present method or what he
considered to be an administrative process, not having a public hearing, stopping
everything and having a public hearing, or any other choice in between.
The Mayor stated it was obvious to him that he (Talley) interpreted the motion
other than he intended it and thus, he was going to vote against the motion
to continue until they could clear up when they were going to have the hearing.
He did not think it should take but another two to three weeks for the staff to
complete the report as to what had transpired thus far and that was all he in-
tended.
Mr. Talley stated that was all the report was going to say; the Mayor stated he
sensed the City Manager decided to go in another direction.
The Mayor then clarified for Councilman Overholt that his motion last week was
to carry over one week, the decision of when the public hearing was going to be
held. Because of what the City Manager had now said, he wanted to know from
the Council whether or not it was their intention to hold a public hearing prior
to the time the process was completed. It was his understanding that they were
going to hold such a public hearing and invite public input at this juncture
and not when the process was completed.
Councilman Roth stated the reason he made the motion to continue was due to the
fact if they held a public hearing, they needed data to go by. If they were
going to make decision at the hearing, they needed information from staff. If
the hearing was held before staff gave them a complete report, they would not
have both sides of the picture. He felt it was important to hold the matter
over one week so that they could receive and evaluate the data from the City
Manger and set a public hearing. He maintained that was the intent of the motion
offered last week.
80-970
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor suggested that they perhaps needed a transcript of that motion verba-
tim to know who said what. He asked for clarification of his understanding
that Councilman Roth's position was that next week or whenever a report was
submitted, they would decide whether or not a public hearing shoud be held
prior to the completion of the process or subsequent to that administrative
process.
Councilman Roth stated that the City Manager was going to provide them with
data next week. With that data, they could then set a public hearing.
Mayor Seymour again asked if they were going to set a public hearing before or
after the completion of the process. By his motion last week, he intended
that they would have that hearing just as soon as practical and prior to the
completion of the administrative process.
Councilman Overholt stated that he felt the record was clear that the Mayor's
motion which he seconded was that the Council would set the matter for a public
hearing which was a 5-0 vote. The Mayor's memory was not unclear. What they
were doing was confusing the City Manager's report with the so called process.
The motion on the floor today was that they continue for one more week the
matter of setting that public hearing and that was the only thing they were
voting on right now, and he would approve that. Perhaps by next week the City
Manager would have something to present, but that would not short-circuit the
public hearing which he felt and agreed with, as did the other Council Members,
that it should be held at the earliest convenient date.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour asked to amend the motion or offer the following
motion--to continue the decision for the public hearing for one week with the
understanding that one week from today, they would decide on a date to hold
the public hearing which would be prior to the completion of what had been
described by the City Manager as an "administrative process." The motion died
for lack of a second.
Councilman Overholt stated the reason why he did not second the motion was that
he believed it to be unnecessary and the jist of the motion was what they voted
the previous week--that they would hold a public hearing momentarily. Whatever
the completion of the "administrative process" meant, he did not know at this
point and by adding those words, it was unnecessary. Next Tuesday, they were
going to set the public hearing at the earliest possible date.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Roth to continue
setting the date for a hearing/workshop for one week. Councilman Seymour voted
"no". MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor asked the City Clerk for a verbatim transcript of the motion he made
at the previous week's meeting.
172: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT THE CANYON PLAZA
SHOPPING CENTER: Request by Harry S. Rinker for approval of an ingress only
from Imperial Highway and the restriping of two left-turn lanes on Santa Ana
Canyon Road, was submitted.
80-971
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Before proceeding, Mayor Seymour stated that he was going to abstain from dis-
cussion and voting on the subject matter because he was a tenant within the
Canyon Plaza Shopping Center. He thereupon turned the Chairmanship of the
meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem Overholt.
Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber. (2:40 p.m.)
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone was present to speak to the subject request.
Mr. Harry Rinker, ma~or partner in the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center, first posted
a plot plan of the shopping center on the Chamber wall, described the interior
traffic circulation, and gave a brief historical overview of its development
from inception to the present.
During discussion between Councilman Roth and Mr. Rinker, Councilman Roth asked
if the ingress that he (Rinker) was looking for from Imperial Highway was not a
Caltrans problem; Mr. Rinker answered "no" because it was prior to Caltrans
jurisdiction.
Councilman Roth explained that in viewing the situation that morning, it seemed
to him that almost ~mmediately after passing Santa Aha Canyon Road going north
on Imperial, a vehicle would start going into the on-ramp area to the freeway.
He was questioning if that would have any effect relative to Caltrans.
Mr. Rinker again answered "no" and that subject was fully covered in a very
comprehensive traffic report which they had prepared and which their Traffic
Engineer would elaborate upon.
Mr. Rinker then continued his presentation displaying a second plan merely
duplicating the first, but including arrows showing ingress off of Imperial
Highway and the resultant flow of traffic that would be afforded in the western
half of the shopping center and the piece of property to the north, the Schantz
property (Katella Realty), the latter property would be very poorly served by
having to travel along the back of the Canyon Plaza Center out to Via Cortez.
He continued that initially they were reluctant to buy the western-most portion
of the property on which part of the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center was situated
because they did not know if business could be done on that portion with access
all the way over to Via Cortez. Their worst fears had now materialized and
serious economic losses were being experienced by their tenants in the
western section (designated by Building B on the plan showing Griswold's
just to the north) because they had not been able to let traffic in to do
business. He then showed another diagram reflecting in red and green, the red
denoting those stores that had gone out of business and having defaulted on
their leases, and the green, those tenants paying their rent, but who had chosen
to close, rather than stay open and suffer the lack of business. In comparison,
the 38 stores in the long building located in the northeast portion of the
property closest to Via Cortez had only one vacancy.
Mrs. Lelani Robinet, Robin's Nest (located in the Building D wing), stated she
located her business there for the exposure it offered to Santa Ana Canyon Road
and Imperial Highway, but it had turned into sheer frustration. People would
call and indicate they saw her shop everyday but were desperate to know how to
get to her location. By the time they did get there, some were very upset,
80-972
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~u.st 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
especially older people. They worked very hard and long at their business and
did not want to lose it. However, if they could not get some traffic across
that area, they would have no alternative but to become one of the red or green
businesses. She went on to explain the sacrifices they made to buy and maintain
the business and to make it a success, but there was no way they could do so if
they could not get people into their store. Her lease was for a five-year period
with an option for five more.
Bettee Sanford, Vice President of Griswold's Hotels and Restaurants, explained
that they originally chose the location Mr. Rinker pointed out (located in the
western portion, north of Building D) because theirs was a family restaurant,
and they felt it was a family community. They depended upon the smorgasboard
to attract people of middle-class means, but they depended mostly upon volume.
They had found that the location, even with a greater density of population,
could not draw the number of people they needed to serve. Griswold's, Redlands,
served 8,000 meals a month, Clairmont, 7,500 and at the subject location, 4,000.
They were "stuck" because of the ingress and egress problem. She then explained
the difficulty in traffic flow to reach their restaurant and emphasized that
they needed help. They had lost approximately $177,000 in the past 44 weeks.
The biggest problem lay in the fact that if they were seen, they could not
be reached. She then asked their manager, George Ladipaw, to relay some of the
comments received from customers.
Mr. George Ladipaw then read a letter from a woman in Banning that had previously
been sent to the Planning Commission. The letter explained the difficulties and
frustration in gaining access to their restaurant in the Canyon Plaza Shopping
Center which was representative of the complaints they received. They needed
volume to serve a meal at a modest price. The only alternative was to lay the
situation at the mercy of the Council. They did not understand the Planning
Commission's negative reaction and hoped the matter would be cleared up today.
Mr&.Jean Lempkin, Grandma's Cupboard (located in the northern portion of Building
D), explained that when they first opened in a little shop in the northeast portion
of the center, they did quite well and were happy. However, the space was very
small and they felt moving would give them good exposure and perhaps they could
do better. Much to their disappointment, although potential customers did see
their sign, they could not find their business. Many people had explained their
frustration was finally reaching their place of business. They were doing badly
as far as their location was concerned, and it was hard for them to pay the rent.
She also stated that with Anaheim building up as at present, if there was not
some other entrance to the shopping center put in somewhere, somebody was going
to lose a life. The congestion was getting very bad, and it was very difficult
to get into the center. Traffic backed up on Santa Ana Canyon Road all the
way to Imperial because of people trying to make the left turn onto Via Cortez
and then into the center. Thus, the proposed ingress from Imperial would save
lives as well. She was registering her plea that such an entrance be allowed.
After presenting several questions to Mrs. Lempkin, Councilman Roth concluded
that the construction on a portion of the Diemer Intertie taking place along
Via Cortez was causing problems as well, and he asked that staff investigate
the status of that project to ascertain the hold-~p and also to look into the
width of the temporary street in that area which seemed to be causing traffic
difficulties.
80-973
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then asked Mrs. Lempkin if she felt a modification of the
left-turn access off Santa Arm Canyon Road would help her business.
Mrs. Lempkin answered that she felt the main thing was to get an entrance off of
Imperial Highway and that was about the only thing that would help. With that
entrance, everyone could do well and survive on that side of the center.
Mr. Rinker then introduced their Traffic Engineer, Steve Hogan of Nakamato
Engineering, the firm they engaged to prepare a very comprehensive traffic study,
after giving Mr. Hogan's extensive background in the field.
Mr. Steve Hogan, reported that his company had completed a study on circulation
in and around the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center and based on that study, he wanted
to restate some of the problems that had been broached by the preceeding speakers
in terms of access. The access to the shopping center, which was in excess of
150,000 square feet of commercial space, was inadequate. Access to the western
half of the shopping center that was developed later, was totally insufficient
and could not handle the type of volume that would be expected in that area.
He then presented some overhead slides showing the building in the center with
adequate and inadequate access, explaining that the main concern was ingress
rather than egress. Egress was adequate although not as good as it could be.
The only primary location was at Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Every
vehicle coming into the center must at one point or another travel through that
intersection (Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon Road). The other small access
location was located halfway between Imperial Highway and Via Cortez on west-
bound Santa Ana Canyon Road (discussed earlier which was installed in accor-
dance with City approved plans and as a result of conditions placed upon the
developer that such an access would be installed after the traffic load reached
a certain number on Santa Ana Canyon Road). That access counted for 10% of the
ingressing traffic to the center and the other 90% was made up of Via Cortez
traffic.
His company had done a series of traffic engineering studies relating to the
center--generation studies, distribution studies, and they had taken a number
of accurate traffic counts although it had been pointed out by the City Traffic
Engineer that they had faulty data. (Report--Canyon Plaza Shopping Center--
Circulation and Access Study--November 1979, prepared by Nakamato Engineering,
1050 Long Beach Boulevard, Lynwood, which contained a majority of the graphs
presented for illustration by Mr. Hogan, as well as data given in his presen-
tation). Based on those traffic counts, they generated the following figures--
66% of all traffic coming through the center came from the intersection of Santa
Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway or points beyond, and the other 30% from
westbound Santa Ana Canyon Road. There was an extremely heavy demand for a
left turn into the shopping center via Via Cortez. The problem of access in
the western half of the shopping center was very closely related to the
distance a person had to travel to there. He contended that the intersection
of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Imperial Highway was totally inadequate. They
had proposed a number of solutions to correct the problem, the three primary
ones as follows: (1) approving the internal circulation on the site by elimin-
ating any constrictions such as the one existing at the Via Cortez entrance and
removing any obstructions or protrusions existing in the aisles of flow to allow
better freedom of movement within the shopping center.
80-974
City Hall, Anakeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
(2) Relative to the intersection at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via Cortez, there
was a single left-turn lane into the center which presently handled in excess
of 3300 vehicles per day. They were proposing that an additional left turn be
added as shown in the slide presented. It would provide improved capacity and
eliminate a serious safety problem at the conflict point, which he pointed to
from the graph, with the through movement on Santa Ana Canyon Road. By virtue
of adding that second left-turn lane, they eliminated a free right-turn lane
presently existing toward south-bound Via Cortez. He maintained that right
turn did not need a separate facility and particularly from a safety standpoint,
it was much more important to emphasize the improvement of the left-turn and
avoid any possible conflict with through movements than to eliminate vehicles
making a right turn which was not obstructed by traffic. He felt that was a
good solution to part of the capacity problem existing in that intersection.
Presently there was a serious problem in that cars were backing up way beyond
the left-turn pocket which took place every day during peak shopping hours.
Councilman Roth pointed out that the City Engineer did not have any quarrel
with that, and he recommended approval; Mr. Singer confirmed that was correct,
with modifications.
It should be noted that during Mr. Hogan's presentation, there was questioning
and discussion between Council Members and Mr. Hogan for purposes of clarifi-
cation.
Mr. Hogan then stated that the modification being proposed was that the left
turn be moved into the median island, but there was a serious problem with that
due to the important grade difference in the middle of the intersection. Adding
a left turn in the median location would involve a major construction project.
It would involve reconstruction of the entire intersection, relocation of the
signals, and perhaps construction of a major portion of the entire street. That
would be a very serious expense and he did not think it was warranted under the
circumstances.
(3) A right-turn-in only off Imperial Highway. That proposed change would be
an improvement to access to the western half of the shopping center and that
accems could also be important to any development of properties to the north
of the center, the Schantz property. The proposed access improvements had
been designed with two things in mind--they wanted to minimize any impact on
the community and also improve access to the center. There was, however, a
better long-range solution and that would be the creation of a four-way inter-
section at the off-ramp from the Riverside Freeway and Imperial Highway, the
only problem being that it could take up to five years for negotiations involving
the various agencies, Caltrans, and the City.
In conclusion, Mr. Hogan stated their proposal was designed so that there could
be an ~mmediate solution to the ~mmediate problem although it was not a perfect
solution.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that their proposal would not be making anything
easier for someone travelling west on Santa Ana Canyon Road. As she recalled,
66% of the traffic was travelling south on Imperial and the only advantage she
could see was to someone going north on Imperial Highway.
80-975
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hogan stated, traffic going north on Imperial Highway or east on Santa
Ana Canyon Road, 25% of the traffic would have an interest in that movement.
They would make a left-turn on Imperial and into the shopping center by a
right turn.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she then saw a worse traffic problem than what
they already had. As well, anyone travelling south on Imperial and noting an
access would attempt a "U-turn" that did not exist at that intersection. She
did not know why they were considering the matter because the City did not have
rights to access on Imperial, since it belonged to Caltrans.
Mr. Singer confirmed that Caltrans did not have the right to access at that
particular point on Imperial Highway.
Councilman Overholt, referring to Councilwoman Kaywood's question as to who
woulR use an ingress point on Imperial, asked what he (Hogan) estimated the
traffic figure to be.
Mr. Hogan answered, 600 vehicles per day in 24 hours which represented approximately
13% of the overall access into the shopping center. It would also provide the
access to the Schantz property but that had not been calculated in the figure.
He did not know what type of development was planned on that property.
Councilman Roth asked the City Traffic Engineer if he had asked Caltrans for
their opinion on the matter.
Mr. Singer explained that they had correspondence with Caltrans some years back
and at that time, they expressed neither preference nor opposition. He also
wanted to point out one fact--he had written Mr. Hogan a four-page letter re-
questing certain information that was omitted or misstated in the circulation
and access study report prepared by Nakamato Engineering. In the report, Mr.
Hogan advocated, and Mr. Rinker did as well, that the right turn from eastbound
Santa Ana Canyon Road to Via Cortez be eliminated, that a double left turn be
introduced into the shopping center, and that a right-turn lane be introduced
from Imperial Highway. A curious point Mr. Hogan omitted was that the number
of vehicles making a right turn from Santa Ana Canyon onto Via Cortez was 660
vehicles, and Mr. Hogan projected that 600 vehicles would be using the proposed
access into the center from Imperial Highway. He was questioning why 660 trips
was any less significant in a residential neighborhood, as opposed to 600 in
commercial.
In concluding, Mr. Singer stated he felt very strongly that it would be a dis-
service to the citizens of Anaheim if any entrance would be permitted from
Imperial Highway, not only because of the subject location, but also because
the entire area would then be opened up. There were several other shopping
centers along Imperial between Orangethorpe and Santa Ana Canyon Road that
would all request access due to the precedent that would be set at the subject
location. He, therefore, recommended highly that the request not be granted
and if a dual left-turn lane was installed at Santa Aha Canyon Road and Via
Cortez, that consideration should be given to narrowing the median down pro-
viding for three through lanes and retaining the right-turn lane for a total
of six lanes eastbound.
80-976
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hogan responded that relative to the right turn to southbound Via Cortez,
in comparing the 800 vehicles using that turn to the 600 they project for the
right turn into the shopping center off Imperial, he maintained that was an
irrelevant comparison. The comparison should be made with the 3,350 vehicles
that were making the left turn at Via Cortez.
Councilman Bay stated he thought that Mr. Singer's point was in relation to the
double left-turn without cutting into the median.
Mr. Alan Rifkin, Traffic Engineer, representing the Schantz property, stated
that he had been retained by Schantz to look at long-term access possibilities
to the property. In that regard, he had been in contact with Caltrans regarding
the possibility of modifying the offramp of the Riverside Freeway, eastbound,
into a four-legged intersection with an access point into the vicinity at that
site. In connection with his work, he had made field observations. His obser-
vations of the traffic circulation problems confirmed what everyone else had
said, that there was a left-turn problem for southbound Imperial traffic at
Santa Ana Canyon Road and a left-turn problem at Santa Ana Canyon Road into Via
Cortez.
With regard to the Schantz people and their property, that would be their major
access point, as well as the major access point to the shopping center. Conges-
tion at that left-turn point would affect his client as well. He reiterated
that up to this point, their communication with Caltrans was the submission of a
possible plan for a four-legged intersection which would involve moving the east-
bound on-ramp to the Riverside Freeway. It was under close scrutiny by Caltrans,
but they did not have a feeling positively or negatively on that possibility.
That was a long-range solution to a long-range problem which affected the market
ability of the Schantz property. The more immediate solution was to mitigate
the left-turn problem at Via Cortez and his reactions to the proposal offered
were (1) that Schantz and he concur with the recommendation that Caltrans be
asked to do a feasibility study of the four-legged intersection at the River-
side Freeway and (2) that the double left-turn lane onto Via Cortez would pro-
vide extra capacity to store cars turning left to go into the shopping center
and the right-turn access off Imperial would afford an opportunity for some 18
cars to turn left at Imperial Highway and enter the shopping center. The double
left turn would be a very short-range solution and might not solve the problem.
There needed to be another access point into the center to remove the congestion
at Via Cortez.
Councilman Bay asked what was going to be developed on the Schantz property;
Mr. Rifkin stated, at this point, he had not been told what kind of development
was proposed. It might be residential or commercial depending on their accessi-
bility perspective.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, reported that approximately a
year ago there was a proposal before the Planning Commission for a combination
of commercial closer to Imperial, and for residential behind Mrs. Maag'sproperty.
At that time, circulation was discussed as being very inadequate in the area and
the plan was removed from Planning Commission consideration, and it was not
going to be brought back in until there was circulation to that area. At that
time, only Via Cortez was discussed. The General Plan designation was for
commercial similar to Mr. Rinker's property.
80-977
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Augnst. 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Rinker noted that Mr. Singer stated that to permit the access point off of
Imperial Highway would invite the opening up of applications all up and down
Imperial Highway. He submitted nothing could be farther from the truth. There
was no other shopping center in the County of Orange as large as Canyon Plaza
with the number of stores contained therein that had anywhere near the inad-
equacy of the access his center had. There were over 70 stores, 150,000 gross
leasable square feet, without counting the additional stores and businesses
that would be on the Schantz property, perhaps over 100 stores trying to be
served by one inadequate access. They deserved some relief.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she realized they had a very stiff sign ordi-
nance in the Canyon, but was wondering if a solution could be found by an
additional sign that would direct people where to go.
Mr. Rinker answered that although that was a constructive thought, the people
generally knew where the businesses were located, but the public would not
drive through that much of a maze and come back.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked Mr. Singer to comment on his precedent-setting
statement.
Mr. Singer explained that along Imperial Highway, there were three additional
shopping centers, one directly across the street from the subject location
with access only on Santa Ana Canyon Road. The Don Jose Restaurant very
much wanted right turn access from Imperial. Further north, there was the
Christian Brothers Market where access was severely restricted to a single
curb cut on La Palma Avenue directly across from Sutherland Lumber and they
would present quite a case for trying to obtain a right turn in and out drive-
way along Imperial Highway. They had also been contacted several times by Marie
Callendar's Restaurant at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial
Highway who were also being blocked because they were in the very far corner
of that center, not to mention the motel just south of La Palma Avenue on the
east side that would also greatly benefit from such access. Thus, such requests
could proliferate.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked Mr. Singer if he would care to comment on the
possibility of a four-way intersection being constructed at a future date.
Mr. Singer answered that since it was entirely within the State right-of-way,
Caltrans would have to make a detailed analysis of that situation although he
believed it would be feasible. However, it would be at the expense of the
queue that would accumulate south of that location onto Santa Ana canYon Road
because the right-turn movement westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road to northbound
Imperial Highway was very extensive, especially in the morning peak hours.
Properly designed, it could be accomplished, but it would require a great deal
of study and funding, plus the involvement of the State Highway Commission.
Miss Santalahti explained that there had been upwards of 20 zoning actions on
the two intersections, Imperial Highway at La Palma Avenue, and Imperial High-
way at Santa Ana Canyon Road. Access rights to all the properties were acquired
prior to any of the zoning actions being finalized and even annexation to the City.
Thus, every mingle zoning action included a statement saying that there shall
be no access from Imperial Highway. Thus, ground was not broken for any project
80-978
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~qst 5~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
without addressing that issue and the developers were reminded that circulation
on the property was a very serious factor. Therefore, nobody could say they
did not realize in the beginning what the problem would be because it was.fully
addressed originally.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was going to make the same comment as she
did re~ember what Miss Santalahti stated. It did not change the fact that the
people who were in that portion of the center now were suffering greatly because
no one could get to them. Also, when she made the suggestion regarding the sign,
the comment was made that people did know where the businesses were located, but
would not travel that far to get to them, which was contradictory to the other
statements that said people could not find businesses.
Mr. Singer stated that there was one other method of getting people to drive
more conveniently to the frontage along Imperial Highway. When driving into
the entrance to the shopping center at Via Cortez, the parking was laid out
in a method whereby it diagonally cut across the path of travel which he pointed
to from a posted diagram. If a direct route were constructed, there would be
hardly the problem that existed now.
Councilman Bay stated since he previously had nothing to do with the overdevelop-
ment of that corner, he had to consider the problem of the businesses located
there at present which were suffering due to the access. The problem was to do
something about that access. He heard differences of opinion from professional
traffic engineers and most were stamped with a dollar sign--that is, the economic
feasibility and how well the problem would be solved with the least impact on
traffic on Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road and the actual circulation
within the development. The City's Traffic Engineer indicated that by changing
the internal layout of the parking within the center and constructing proper
left-hand turns at Via Cortez, part of the problem would be solved. He did not
agree that they were going to solve the whole problem on the westerly extension
of the shopping center. What he wanted to know from Mr. Singer, forgetting
the possibility of the precedent action of making an opening on Imperial Highway,
what other impacts there would be on the actual traffic flow on Imperial Highway,
north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, if that opening were insaalled.
Mr. Singer then presented two charts showing the projected impact of that access
from Imperial Highway which would involve conflict when making a left turn from
Santa Ana Canyon Road (travelling eastbound) onto Imperial Highway and travelling
north on Imperial Highway to enter the on-ramp of the Riverside Freeway which
was a high speed location. That intersection at the present time had experienced
very few collisions, 14 or 16 over the past two or three years, and it was a very
busy intersection. There was a weaving problem in that location and that was
something he was very concerned about as a safety problem (going off on Imperial
Highway and maneuvering over to the freeway on-ramp).
Councilman Roth stated, in his opinion, it appeared that the only viable way
of doing that would be to signalize that intersection at the freeway at the
top which undoubtedly would be a Caltrans project; Mr. Singer confirmed that
the reconstruction of that would have to be a Caltrans project including the
signalization.
80-979
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay asked, on an interim basis, what was Mr. Singer's opinion on
allowing an entry point on Imperial Highway while the process was taking place
with Caltans which might take four or five years. ADT projections for 1990
were 52,000 vehicles, but he wanted to know what those figures might be for
1985.
Mr. Singer stated that they had not made that type of interpolation. However,
he would recommend against any temporary access to Imperial Highway for the
simple reason that anything temporary tended to become permanent and would
discourage solving the problem properly.
Councilman Bay asked what the solution would be without the ingress point; Mr.
Singer answered that frankly he did not have a solution except for the double
left-turn entry properly designed and executed and improving substantially
the internal circulation of the parking lot so that it would effectively permit
free travel between the one shopping center and the one to the west. He believed
it would be a disservice to provide a right turn on Imperial Highway.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to deny the request for access to the Canyon
Plaza Shopping Center from Imperial Highway, but approving the modification of
of the left-turn lanes on Santa Ana Canyon Road at Via Cortez, to be wholly funded
by the Canyon Plaza Center, in accordance with the City Traffic Engineer's recom-
mendation. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he felt the only sure
solution was a four-way signalized intersection on Imperial Highway. If the
Schantz property was to be developed effectively, that had to be a factor.
If they set a precedent allowing ingress off Imp~ria~ Highway, it would further
deter the possibility of a real solution to the problem. Mr. Hogan rightfully
indicated that one of the solutions was to rearrange the design of the property
which was a private matter and something over which they had no control. It
was his thinking if there were direct routes to the western section of the
center, the tenants at that location would have more traffic than at present.
He felt sympathetic to the tenants; however, they leased the premises knowing
there was no direct access from the adjoining lots. If eventually the four-way
intersection was constructed, there would be a sudden increase in traffic
flow immediately. It was not a good solution for the present, but he would
guess that in five years, they would have a safe Imperial Highway with a four-
way signalized intersection and that the tenants in the western section of the
center would have the kind of traffic flow they wished they had now.
Councilman Bay stated he could not support the motion on the basis that he thought,
without establishing a precedent, that the ingress could be opened on a temporary
basis specifically stipulating three years, no more and no less, and that it be
closed again within the motion, thus providing some ingress relief. The internal
circulation was certainly up to the owners, and he also agreed with the dual left
turn. The tenants about which Councilman Overholt spoke would be out of business
by the time the four-way signalized intersection was constructed.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated having seen "temporary" last for a lot of people's
lifetimes, she could not support ingress on a temporary basis.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that he disagreed as well and that temporary ingress
would become permanent. He was convinced there were many things the owner of the
center could do to funnel the traffic to the western portion of the center that
had not been done to this point.
80-980
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no".
Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth stated it was imperative that the Council go on record to insure
that rapid activities took place relative to the opening up of Via Cortez to
its normal capacity. Construction of the Diemer Intertie had blocked the street
restricting the traffic flow and he wanted to know the status of that project
to ascertain the hold-up. He also asked the Traffic Engineer to have someone
from his staff observe the fencing of the large hole on Via Cortez where the
blacktop had eroded to the point where cars could not travel two ways on that
street. He was sensitive to the merchants of that center and with the free
enterprise system trying to survive at that location.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that he would also encourage the Council to do whatever
they could to expedite Caltrans deliberations on the four-way signalized intersection.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (4:15 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:30 P.M.)
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - RECONVENED: Chairman Seymour called the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency to order at 4:24 P.M. for the purpose of conducting a joint
public hearing with the City Council to consider an agreement for a proposed
development within Redevelopment Project Alpha. All Agency Members present.
161.123: DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC.:
Proposed Disposition and Development Agreement and Parking Lease with King of
California, Inc., for the construction and operation of a 2,000-seat proscenium-
arch commercial theatre, to be located on a parcel of land bounded by Claudina,
Philadelphia and Broadway Streets, and the Civic Center.
Executive Director Norman Priest reported on Disposition and Development Agreement
for the construction and operation of the proposed theatre, and a Parking Lease
between the City and Leo Freedman, dba King of California, Inc., for theatre
parking, both of which had been executed by Mr. Freedman. He briefly outlined
terms of the proposed agreement, noting that the construction cost, exclusive
of land acquisition and landscaping costs, would be not less than six-million
dollars. Purchase price for conveyance of the 57,281-square foot site would
be $520,000, which would be evidenced by a Promissory Note and secured by a
trust deed on the property, with construction and long-term permanent financing
to be approved by the Redevelopment Agency. The Promissory Note would require
that the developer pay principal and interest at 1% above the Bank of America'a
prime rate, determined annually over a twenty-five year term, which would allow
the Agency to recover all costs of acquisition, relocation, and site clearance,
and administrative costs. Also noted was that the location of the theatre would
allow the off-hour use of 650 spaces in the City's parking structure.
Mayor/Chairman Seymour asked if there were any questions of the staff.
Council~n/Agency Member Bay questioned the parking charges, noting a statement
in the proposed lease that said charges shall be reasonable, to be approved by
the City Council at the time the charges are established.
Mr. Priest concurred, noting that any future modification of the fees would also
require approval.
80-981
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Leo Freedman, 468 S. Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California, addressed
the City Council/Redevelopment Agency advising that the parking fees would
correspond with fees charged for similar facility parking.
Councilman/Agency Member Roth questioned when construction would commence, should
the theatre proposal be approved, and what quality of productions could be antic-
ipated.
Mr. Freedman advised that construction could be expected to commence within 120-
180 days. He advised that he had been working closely with the Shubert Theatre
organization, and introduced Mr. Ed Parkinson, General Manager of the Shubert
Theatre, who was present as an observer.
Responding to further questions by Councilman/Agency Member Roth, Mr. Freedman
advised that the theatre would be completed within one year from the commence-
ment of construction. He complimented the Redevelopment staff on their profes-
sional assistance.
In reply to additional questions, Mr. Freedman stated that he would bring top
entertainment to Anaheim; that a cocktail lounge was included in the theatre
plans; and he expressed the opinion that the area in question needed additional
restaurant facilities. He could not foresee a satisfactory method of utiliza-
tion by local theatre groups of areas within the proposed theatre for rehearsal
purposes.
Mayor/Chairman Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the City Council/Redevelop-
ment Agency.
Mr. Newbury, 2058 June Place, Anaheim, asked if the question of parking during
week-day matinees had been considered.
Mr. Priest advised that this question had been considered, and it was doubtful
as to whether there would be any mid-week matinees, as this practice had been
generally discontinued by most theatres.
Mayor/Chairman Seymour asked whether anyone else wished to address the City
Council; there being no response, he declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman/Agency Member Roth offered the necessary resolutions authorizing
execution and implementation of the Disposition and Development Agreement and
the Parking Lease.
On behalf of the citizens of Anaheim, Mayor/Chairman Seymour stated that the
City was proud to have King of California as a part of the Redevelopment Pro-
ject; the theatre would bring something to Anaheim and Orange County that had
been missing; the development would give the downtown area a re-birth. He
called attention to the fact that while others are seeking methods of construc-
ting public buildings for these types of activities, Anaheim is turning to the
private sector and accomplishing the goal.
Councilman/Agency Member Bay complimented the Redevelopment staff on working out
a program for "front-end" financing at a fair market value.
80-982
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Council/Agency Members Kaywood and Overholt expressed their delight that this
first step towards a quality theatre was being taken.
Resolutions offered by Councilman/Agency Member Roth were re-stated. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTI~ON NO. ARA80-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA80-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., FOR THE SALE AND
DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY: APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF SAID REAL
PROPERTY AND THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO: AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-345: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOP-
MENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND KING OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT ALPHA.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-346: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., FOR THE
SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY: CONSENTING TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BY THE AGENCY: AND APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
Chairman/Mayor Seymour declared Resolution Nos. ARA80-26 and ARA80-27, 80R-345
and 80R-346, duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Bay moved to adjourn. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC .HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-41 AND VARIANCE NO. 3153 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application by Donald R. and Nancy A. Skjerven, for a change in
zone from RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200, to establish a two-lot subdivision on property
located at 1628 West Orangewood Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum lot width.
Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber. (4:50 P.M.)
8O-983
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-98 declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report and further granted Reclassification No. 79-80-41, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the onwer(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee,
in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting purposes along
Orangewood Avenue.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee,
in an amount as determined by the City Council, for street lighting along Orange-
wood Avenue.
3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
4. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appro-
priate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the
City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
5. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in theoffice of the Orange County Recorder.
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council for each
new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. That street lighting facilities along Orangewood Avenue shall be installed
as required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; and/or that
a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to occupancy.
8. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of Utilities
General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
9. 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
3; provided, however, that the maximum building height on the two lots shall not
exceed one-story.
10. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1, 2, and 7, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights
granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning
Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the
date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
11. That Condition Nos. 3 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-99 granted Variance
No. 3153, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 79-80-41, now pending.
2. 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 3.
80-984
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kmywood at the meeting of July 8, 1980 and 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.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was anything in the flatlands of Anaheim
where a 30-foot flag lot had been permitted.
Miss Santaiahti answered the zoning in the flatland areas always required filing
of a variance and the only instance she could recall were several condominium
projects where they put in a private street or had a few flag lots but not
RS-7200 that she could remember.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present
and desirous of being heard.
Mr. Don Skjerven, owner, stated that they did receive approval on the project
approximately 6 weeks ago, and the variance was generally accepted throughout
all of the developments in Orange County. They had been developing flag lots
in flatlands to gain access to inaccessible, blocked out lots and the ~bject
property was one of those lots. It was not a special flag lot, but a generally
accepted flag lot. Mr. Skjerven then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that
the depth was 115 feet, that he did not live on the property, he had never done
so, he did not intend to and he had owned it approximately one and one-half
years.
Councilman Bay stated he understood that Mr. Skjerven planned to keep the old
existing house on the front portion of the property. He wanted to know what
he planned to do with the other portion.
Mr. Skjerven answered, it was going to be used for the construction of a single-
family home. He then showed his plans to the Council. 'He further confirmed
that the property was being lived on at the presemt time by renters.
The Mayor Pro Tem then asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor in opposi-
tion. The following people spoke in opposition for the below listed reasons:
Mrs. Chaulare Nokes, 1634 West Orangewood, southeast corner Orangewood and Della.
She and her husband were the neighbors to the west. At the Planning Commission
hearing, the road that was approved was 145 feet long and 25 feet wide located
five feet from their retaining wall. Ail of the old trees would have to go
because they were ten feet from the retaining wall. Della Lane was located on
the west side of the property, Orangewood to the front, and with an additional
road on the east side of their home, they would be living in the midst of three
roads, something unheard of in a residential area, or.unusual anywhere. With
the proposed new road to the east within five feet of the property line, they
would have cars going back and forth day and night next to their bedroom window
bathroom door, vegetable garden and fruit trees. Upon occasions, moving vans,
police vehicles, delivery trucks, ambulances and fire engines would also be
using those roads, spreading their noise and pollution throughout their entire
house and backyard. At night, when dark, the road would virtually become a
80-985
City Hall, Anaheim, qalifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
long black alley. The Police Department would abhor it, and so would they and
their neighbors. They were concerned about the retaining wall because it was
not designed to be next to a road or to have cars parked against it. They bought
their home specifically because both their house and backyard were located a
good distance away from neighboring houses. The proposed development would
totally destroy their existing environment both inside and out. It would create
hardships on them and their property that were cruel and abusive. They would
then either have to sell or rent their home because they would no longer want
to live in it. Some other plan would have to be developed for the property
next door.
Mr. Doug Nokes, 1634 West Orangewood, presented pictures to the Council which
he hoped would assist them in understanding why they were trying to preserve
their fine neighborhood. He described some of the photographs which depicted
houses in the area showing the sizes of homes and properties. He also gave
some statistics relative to the size of lots and square footage of their homes
which he asked be compared to the statistics for the house Mr. Skjerven planned
to build. His had a proposed frontage of 30 feet, lot size excluding driveway
(~145 feet long, 30 feet wide) totalling 6,318 square feet, house size, 2,169
square feet including the garage.
In concluding, Mr. Nokes stated that the proposed plan for developing the subject
property was substandard in every respect for their neighborhood.
Mrs. Barbara Selleck, 2080 Della, directly north of the proposed project stated
that they selected the location of their home based on two important considera-
tions--they wanted to be near a good school and have a large home with a lot of
space around it. Moving to Della Lane satisfied both of those needs. Last
month she asked for a property profile from the title company for their property
and also a comparable sales analysis. She received the profile along with a
notation that there were no "comps" for their property. When there were no sales,
no "comps" were available, the point being that no one moved out of the area. It
was a stable, steady community and the quality of living in the area led to years
of residency. A moving rate for their neighborhood did not exist. They liked
the relative quiet, serene atmosphere, the large lots, and the custom homes. To
squeeze in a house by dividing a lot zoned for a single-family residence, would
open the door for them to become a type of area that was evident in other parts
of Anaheim, overcrowded and transient. The proposed plan was not compatible
with the neighborhood. She hoped that the trend of the City was not to have
wall to wall housing without regard to the human element. There was a basic
law in real estate--the highest and best use of the land is what will be done.
The proposed land did not meet that criteria.
Mr. Sheldon Goodman, 2124 Della Lane, just south of the proposed development,
stated they were asking the Council to help them preserve their neighborhood.
They did not need a flag lot. He viewed the property everyday as he jogged
by and what he saw were tree stumps and a house that looked like a "hunk of
junk." The Skjervens had owned the property for one and one-half years and
during that time, it still remained an eyesore and blight to the neighborhood.
He did not believe the house could pass Code, but their plan called for building
another house behind the existing one and leaving the eyesore as it was at
present. He was concerned about his friends, the Nokes, who had kept up their
property. He was opposed to a two-lot subdivision because it would disrupt the
80-986
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
way of life existing in the neighborhood. He would like to see the best use
of the lot which would be to build a single family home on it and to tear the
old house down.
Mr. Christopher Wharton, 2074 Della Lane, stated he was opposed to the proposal
before the Council. The creation of two small lots, one of which would be a
flag lot, was incompatible with the existing property in the area. There was
no reason to change the character of the neighborhood at this time. Horses
were kept on the two lots immediately east of the proposed subdivision. If the
subdivision were approved, pressure could be expected to eliminate the adjacent
area as one of the few remaining and suitable for keeping horses. This was not
a case where the lot under consideration could only be used if the request were
granted. The lot was very suitable for one single-family dwelling as at present
and as adjacent lots were currently utilized. He saw no reason to modify the
lot at this time.
Mr. Richard Waelde, 20810rangewood, (Della and Orangewood), stated that the
main concern of their neighborhood was a flag lot. More people would have been
present in opposition had the meeting been held on Saturday or in the evening.
He emphasized, they did not want the flag lot. He owned approximately half an
acre across the street on the corner. There were a number of things he could
do with his property as well, but they did not care to do so in their neighborhood.
They wanted large lots, a swimming pool and room to do what they wanted and that
was the reason they bought their homes. He assumed that building codes and
zoning laws were to protect the people so that things did not deteriorate. They
did not want the flag lot.
Mr. Henry Crawford, 2060 Della Lane, stated that he did not want the area chopped
up into a number of smaller lots. He had been a resident of the neighborhood for
25 years and the existing house on the subject property was there when he moved
in, and he suspected it was old at that time.
Mrs. Geraldine Elliott, 2142 Della Lane, staeed they moved into the area because
it was single-family, they liked their neighbors and there had been no change
in ownership of the homes on their street from their house to the corner in the
18 years they lived there, except for one. They were opposed to a flag lot. The
existing old house was as old as the house Mr. Hammatt hm~torn down and demolished.
Mr. Art Garnett, 2115 South Loara, stated that the old house was approximately 60
years old. He was a realtor in the area where he had lived since 1976. Ail were
prone to accept the house as part of the neighborhood, but if remodeled or upgraded
it would help considerably. He felt there were other things that could be done
because there were three contiguous lots adjacent to the property that were
large. If they were going to utilize the property to its highest and best
use, he suggested perhaps they may want to consider the three lots.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked what kind of use he would be suggesting; Mr Garnett
answered, instead of building one house and enlarging another, that probably a
total of five houses could be built on the lots with a total square footage of
anywhere from 2300 to 2800 square feet each. It would also keep the land cost
down. The cost for those houses would be approximately $150,000 to $200,000.
The existing homes in the neighborhood with the large lots would be valued at
approximately $200,000 with the exception of the older property. Relative to
the flag lot proposal, if a house were built behind the one existing, the house
80-987
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5,..1.980~ 1:30 P.M.
to the rear would not necessarily be a good market item and they normally sold
for less. In order to accomplish putting five houses on the three parcels, a
street would have to be constructed with a cul-de-sac, but with the three large
lots, that could possibly be done if the other owners wanted to do so.
Mr. Roberts Loman, 620 West Orangewood, adjacent to the east of the property
in question, stated that the existing house on the subject property was old
and it had been added onto along with having several "facelifts". The previous
owners complained to them about the poor wiring and plumbing in the house. Also,
the rear bedroom and garage flooded every time it rained and there were other
problems which he explained. Also, to the best of his knowledge, it was still
on a septic tank. They felt the house was of substandard quality and another
facelift would not improve it very much. It should be torn down and replaced.
They had no total opposition to having the property divided and having two homes
built on it. The houses, however, should be new single-story houses equal in
design and construction to other houses in the area. With regard to the rear
house driveway, it was optional to them which side of the property that would be
constructed on. Also, if surrounding property owners requested a fence to
protect their privacy, such a fence should be constructed. Mr. Loman then con-
firmed for Councilman Roth that he did not object to the lot split providing
that the existing house was torn down and two new houses of equivalent value to
houses in the area be built. He also would not mind having the proposed driveway
adjacent to his property instead of the Nokes.
The applicant then introduced his engineer to answer some of the concerns posed
by the residents.
Mr. John Rose, 770 South Brea Boulevard, Brea, stated that relative to Mrs. Nokes
statement concerning the driveway and trees, the driveway shown on the plan was
20 feet wide, and it was shown in the center of a 30-foot easement. That could be
easily reduced in width and moved farther to the east so that it could clear the
existing trees which were about 10 feet from the line. Thus, the trees could
remain and that could be a condition placed on them. Mrs. Nokes also expressed
concern about having a thoroughfare with all kinds of people driving up and down
the driveway. However, the driveway was going to serve only one residence and
there was an existing driveway at prement and the only thing that would happen
was that the existing driveway would be improved, the trees trimmed and the land-
scaping maintained. Concerning the surcharge on the retaining wall causing
possible failure to the existing wall, since the subject property was lower than
that of the Nokes property, there would be no road against the wall itself. The
only load that could be imposed would be the load from the upper level aHd that
was their own property. By having that difference in elevation, the Nokes were
three to three and one-half feet higher than the subject road~ which would give
the additional visual separation from the proposed project, which was only one
story. Thus, with a six-foot high wall on top of the three-and one-half feet,
the lower portion of the roofline would just about be covered.
He continued that the size of the Nokes lot was less than 70 feet and according
to his scale, it was approximately 65 feet. The new lot was 70 feet in width
and in the flag, 30-feet. The new residence would be in the back and out of that
view and thus it would be similar to a circular driveway which was the same as a
number of homes on the street. Also, the Nokes property was in the rear which
was less than 50 feet wide. Mr. Goodman's lot size was 11,250 square feet and
80-988
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
the area of the flag lot in question was 10,650 mquare feet including the drive-
way. Somebody made the statement that by taking the driveway away, it was less
than 6,000 square feet. He stated that was in error and that by taking the
driveway off would leave a minimum of 7200 square feet. Mr. Crawford stated
his lot was 85 X 144, but according to his (Rose's) map from the City, it was
71X 144. From the audience, a gentleman refuted the statement relative to
size of the lot and indicated that Mr. Rose's map was in error. Mr. Rose
explained that he was trying to point out that the neighbors were saying their
lots were 85 feet wide when they were 71 feet wide just as the lot they were
proposing was also 71 feet. Also, Mrs. Elliot's property was about the same
size. Mr. Garnett lived on Loara on the cul-de-sac and all the lots were very
small. Their proposal was definitely a 7200-square foot subdivision on that
street.
In concluding, Mr. Skjerven stated that having two homes on the subject property
with homeowners who would maintain the property would be advantageous to the
area rather than a home with a large lot that could not be sold to anybody at
the present time. Two homes on the property with two new buyers would definitely
add to the surrounding area.
Councilman Roth asked if his plans were for one or two stories and also if he
would,object to tearing down the first house completely.
Mr. Skjerven first answered that both would be single story homes and that he
would object to tearing down the old home cost-wise.
In answer to a line of questioning posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Skjerven
reported the following: relative to upgrading the existing house, he had
installed new cabinets, new floor coverings and painted. Improvements to the
exterior were awaiting approval of the subject request. He did not know,
relative to the plumbing, if it was hooked up to the City's sewer or on a
septic tank. Their proposal included hooking up the new housing and the
existing housing to the City's sewer system. To his knowledge, the plumbing
and wiring were the same. Regarding the six-foot wall as explained by Mr.
Rose, they had not proposed such a wall on their plan because the area was open,
but if it was made a stipulation, that would be agreeable.
Mr. Rose then explained that the proposed new residents who would be living on
the rear of the property would be considerably south of the Nokes home so that
the new home would not be anywhere near or adjacent to their home, but it would
be closer to a home ~mmediately to the south of the new development. They were
also considerably higher and a wall would completely blockthe view of their
new home. He noted that Mr. SkJerven previously stated that the wall would be
installed if it was a requirement.
For purpose of clarification, the Mayor Pro Tem allowed a statement from one of
the residents; Mrs. Nokes then clarified that their property was almost one-third
of an acre. The entire lot under discussion was almost one-half acre which was
proposed to be divided in half making two one-quarter acres. Of the one-quarter
acre where the new home was proposed, the road would take part of that so that the
house would be on approximately one-eighhh of an acre.
The Mayor Pro Tem then closed the public hearing.
80-989
City Hall, Anaheim,.~al~ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~us.t 5~..1.980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff if any permits were ever pulled on the old
house for any kind of improvements.
Miss Santalahti answered that the kind of improvements Mr. Skjerven discussed
did not necessitate permits. If permits had been pulled for any building work,
she would have expected they would have a sewer connection. If no such permits
were pulled, she would not be surprised to hear they were either on a cesspool
or septic tank.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would be concerned in having someone attempt
to chop up such a lovely and stable neighborhood. As well, it was only about the
third such area left in the entire City where horses could be kept. The old
house on the subject property had not been improved since the applicant owned
it, and she did not know why he should be entitled to any special privileges.
Councilman Bay stated his opinion of zoning was to protect the residents of
the area. He had always considered that all the expense and work they went
through to have zoning and control was to protect the majority of residents.
He viewed a request for a waiver or CUP or change of any kind, an exception
to the rule. His judgment factor hinged upon whether the change would make the
neighbors happy or angry. In this case, he drew a circle and put numbers on
the lots surrounding the subject area, and the general impression from the
people who attended the hearing was that they were opposed to the requested
waiver. His decision, therefore, would be to deny the request for waiver to
flag and split the lot in the way proposed. On the other hand, if there could
be some changes to the design or some of the stipulations that a majority of
the neighbors could accept, he would offer some possibility where there could be
some negotiation between the new owner and his neighbors.
In talking about splitting lots, and admittedly 18,700 square feet was a big lot
to him, looking at the two large lots ~mmediately east and knowing the pressures
to utilize land in the City for housing, he wondered if something could be worked
out between neighbors and the owner. If the present request were granted, he
did not think anything could ever be worked out because he felt it would be the
first flag lot of many more flag lots to come. He would prefer to see a plan
that involved more than one lot or perhaps there was a better plan for that
lpt that the neighbors could accept. Since many neighbors testified against the
waiver, he could see no way that he could go for the request under the present
conditions because it was an exception to which the neighbors were opposed.
Councilman Roth first noted that it was interesting that Mr. Loman, who would be
greatly impacted, did not object to the lot split or to a driveway along his
property. However, he was disappointed that the developers were unwilling to
tear down the existing structure. He felt the only compromise somewhere down-
stream was for the developer to review his plans again and resubmit them with
some type of two new single-family structures at a later time.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that he had no choice but to reverse the Planning
Commission findings and hope~that the developer would get together with the
neighbors and develop something that would upgrade the property, remove the
old house and do something that everybody would be happy with. He was familiar
with the area, and it was beautiful.
80-990
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~us~ 5~ 19.80~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of the negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject property for low density residential land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse envirnomental impact and is, there-
fore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-347 for adoption, denying
Reclassification No. 79-80-41 and Resolution No. 80R-348, denying Variance
No. 3153, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-347: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE IN ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN
AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-348: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3153.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-347 and 80R-348 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-17A: In accordance with application
filed by Larry Henderson, Community Center Authority, public hearing was held on
proposed abandonment of that portion of Convention Way from 1,177.78 feet east
of to 57 feet east of the centerline of West Street, pursuant to Resolution
No. 80R-311, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted
in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated July 3, 1980 and a recommendation by the Planning
Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being
no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-349 for adoption approving Abandonment
No. 79-17A. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-991
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August .5,.!980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-349: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DETERMINING THAT A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET SHOULD BE ABANDONED AND ESTABLISHING
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SAID ABANDONMENT. (PORTION OF CONVENTION WAY)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-349 duly passed and adopted.
169: REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL REGARDING NEW STREET LIGHTS: (Mills Drive,
Claudina Street and Philadelphia Street) Mrs. William Erickson, 301 East North
Street (Philadelphia and North) stated she wanted to speak about the new street
lights that had been installed in her area. Although she realized the lights
they had were obsolete, they had taken down three lights on her side of the
street and put up one in their place. Instead of installing the white lights
that relfected in the whole area, they installed yellow lights which did not
illuminate the whole surrounding area but instead reflected across the street.
As well, several were installed in the trees so that shadows resulted where
they used to have so much more light. They had just installed lights on North
Street that were all white lights and the bulb hung lower so that it lit up
the whole area. With the yellow lights, the bulb was set up in the fixture
thus causing shadows, and removing three lights replacing them with one did
not make for a well-lit street. The yellow lights were just installed and she
understood that they were also going to be installed on Clementine and Zeyn.
Councilman Roth asked that Utilities staff explain the difference between the
white and yellow lights and why they were being installed.
Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Engineering Manager, stated they just received
notice of Mrs. Erickson's request to speak to the Council today and, thus, were
not prepared to respond to all of the questions. He would prefer to research
the answers to some of the questions and subsequently prepare and submit a
report to the Council. However, he believed Mrs. Erickson was referring to
the'white light as either the old mercury vapor unit or the incandescent which
was a true white light. The mercury vapor was a bluish light. The yellow
light referred to was the high pressure sodium, the new unit they were instal-
ling. They had more lumens than the old lights. Lumens were a measure of light.
Their calculations showed that they were getting about six-tenths to eight-
tenths lumens on the pavement which was considered above adequate lighting for
a residential area.
Councilman Roth asked if there was more light now with that type of bulb than
with the old; Mr. Edwards answered that he did not know and would have to
check the calculations to determine the answer.
Councilman Roth explained to Mrs. Erickson that it was difficult for Mr. Edwards
to respond, without first knowing what her questions were.
80-992
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Erickson answered that she had three City men call her the day after to
ask what she was going to speak about, and, therefore, she did not understand
why Mr. Edwards only received word today.
Councilman Roth suggested that they give direction to the Utilities Department
to come back in one week with the answers to questions posed. The Council
wanted to do everything possible to illuminate the City's neighborhoods. If
they were going to work on and fight crime in the residential areas, an impor-
tant factor was good illumination. He asked that the item be agendized in one
week and that the questions be answered accordingly.
Mrs. Erickson stated she was speaking for all of the neighbors on Clementine
and Zeyn as well; however, it was not possible for her to be present next week.
She emphasized that it was not proper to take three bright lights away from the
street and put up what she called a "bug" light.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that they would ask the Utilities Department to
prepare a report and then she and the Council would receive a copy and if she
had any further questions, she could address those. He asked if that would be
satisfactory to her.
Mrs. Erickson answered "no". She also questioned why the new light shone in
an arc across the street.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated it was just such questions that a report would
answer and if there were more, she could come back to the Council and ask those
questions.
Mrs. Erickson stated that in the meantime, the new lights would be installed on
the other streets and she was trying to eliminate problems for all the other
people as well. She also did not think it was proper to install the light
where there was a tree and then cut the tree down.
Councilman Roth suggested that since Mrs. Ericks0n was leaving on an extended
trip, that she give Mr. Edwards the name of one of her neighbors so that person
could receive the report and subsequently communicate with the Council if
necessary.
179: JAPANESE THERAPY CENTRE - REQUEST FOR TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE
PERIOD OF ABATEMENT: Robert and Amy Harding, requesting a two-year extension
of time to the period of abatement set forth in Subsection 18.89.040 of the
Code relating to Adult Entertainment, for the Japanese Therapy Centre, 1733
West La Palma Avenue.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the requested two-year extension of time to
the period of abatement set forth in Subsection 18.89.040 of the Code relating
to Adult Entertainment for the subject Therapy Center. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if the Hardings were
present; Counci]m~n Roth stated they were present but had just left.
Councilman Bay asked if it was the first such request for an extension of time
under the new ordinance.
80-993
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney William Hopkins answered that it was the first one under the adult
entertainment ordinance requesting a full two-year extension.
Councilman Bay then asked why it was first and was it due to the fact that their
CUP was obtained on a certain date.
Mr. Hopkins answered "no". He believed they felt they should be given the exception
because they had a special type of therapy and did not consider themselves to be
a massage parlor. In any event, they were merely asking earlier than the other
people due to the nature of their particular operation. The ordinance provided
that they had until the end of the year to conform, but it was not possible for
them to do so because they were too close to a residential area. Either they
would have to go out of business or get an extension. He noted that Lt. Wilcox
was present who might be able to provide additional information.
Councilman Bay stated he had no question regarding the integrity of the business,
but was trying to figure the logic of their asking for a two-year extension at
this time, rather than at the end of December, so that it could extend three or
four months longer.
Mr. Talley stated he believed they were asking now and if not granted, they could
find a place to move the business.
Councilman Roth explained that the last time they moved was not too long ago,
and it took them six months. He continued that the center was probably the
most legitimate enterprise as witnessed by the Police Department and all the
other witnesses that were going to testify including the Mayor of Orange who
patronized the center for a medical reason. Their patronage was normally
through recommendations through Anaheim Memorial Hospital, and acupuncture
was a key function.
Councilman Bay repeated that he did not have any questions concerning the in-
tegrity of the business. He wanted to be certain they were not establishing
any precedent that could lay the City open or whether this might be the first
test case to set some precedent. That was his only concern.
City Attorney Hopkins stated to a certain extent, a precedent were to approve
but this was the type of organization that he did not think would cause the
City any problem.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that the request and recommendation was to approve
the uae until December 1982, and not two years from today.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked whether there was undue hardship and what showing had
there been of undue hardship.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he guessed that would be due to the fact that they
would have to go out of business on the 20th of December, 1980. As Councilman
Roth mentioned, it would cause considerable difficulty in finding a new location
because they would find it difficult to get their customers back and the letters
received substantiated that. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that the letters
received were letters of recommendation as to the service performed. He con-
tinued to question what showing there had been of undue hardship.
8o-.~94
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the letter addressed to the Council on June 24,
1980 indicated they were applying for the extension and they did not illustrate
any definite hardship as far as their financial status. He felt it was inherent
in the matter that moving and relocating their customers would create a hardship.
They may have talked to Lt. Wilcox, but he (Hopkins) did not talk to them person-
ally.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he had a real concern about the matter. The Japanese
Therapy Center was highly recommended and had a very high rating with the Police
Department and had created no problem whatsoever. Yet the Adult Entertainment
Ordinance provided that the Council was in a position to extend such an applica-
tion for two years where there was a showing of undue hardship. He did not
think there was such a showing. The Center was relying heavily on their rep-
utation, but that was not what was stated in the ordinance. His feeling was that
they may have other massage enterprises that felt equally as reputable and would
provide many letters recommending their activity. He felt that they should con-
tinue the matter so that the Hardings could testify.
Councilman 0verholt thereupon moved that consideration of the subject request
extension be continued one week for the purpose of receiving evidence of undue
hard ship.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Roth emphasized that there was a hard-
ship in closing down a man's business. Financial cost were involved and trying
to acquire another building took months to accomplish, plus getting the necessary
variances or whatever necessary to make the move. The next business would not
have the recommendations of the Police Department. There were also impeccable
individuals supporting the Hardings, most of whom were patients referred from
medical facilities and major hospitals. He could not understand, nor could he
accept the fact that they had to punish the good with the bad. He was a great
supporter of cracking down on prostitution and such adult businesses, but to
put an organization, such as the Japanese Therapy Center, through the knothole of
typical government bureaucracy was beyond his comprehension.
Miss Santalahti explained that the Planning Commission recently had such conditional
use permits come before it, the subject business plus another that was allowed to
relocate. When they did so, they were forced out of their previous location.
They were moving about the time the City began discussing the issue of the
Adult Entertainment Ordinance. In other words, they went through the effort
of the CUP and then spent the many hours on moving and subsequently received
the unpleasant surprise of finding out that the City was now going to regulate
in a manner that made their location almost 100% unacceptable. That was the
case for this business as well.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt reiterated the issue before them was not whether or not
the business was reputable or not reputable, but one of undue hardship, and they
should have that showing so that the next time someone else came in that did
not have that same reputation, they could not say that the Japanese Therapy Center
was given an extension without any showing of undue hardship.
Councilman Bay stated not only that, but those other businesses would walk the
City right into court and win the case. He then seconded Councilman Overholt's
motion for continuance.
80-995
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au.~ust 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned, from her interpretation, that
undue hardship was the unfortunate idea of being lumped in with something they
were not. In this case, the business provided genuine medical therapy and not
adult entertainment, and she would thus consider that undue hardship
Councilman Bay stated he personally felt they should be very careful with the
first such case because it would set the pattern for many more to come. That
was the reason he questioned why that was the first. Ail they were asking for
was for a one-week delay and for the City Attorney to take a close look at the
situation and give his advice as to how it should be handled. They could not
afford to make a legal mistake on the first one.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay and Overholt
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS; Seymour
City Attorney Hopkins explained that since there was a equal split vote, the
matter would automatically be carried over one week.
Discussion then followed as to whether or not a representative of the Police
Department need be present at the continued meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated his motion to continue was-to receive evidence
of undue hardship either in written or spoken form. He did not think it was
necessary for all the character witnesses to be present. He also did not have
a preference as to whether or not Lt. Wilcox was present at the next meeting.
From the audience, Lt. Wilcox stated he would be available in any case.
123/162: COMMUNITY PRIDE PROGRAM: Gene Beyer, Director, requesting funding in the
amount of $2,500 for the Community Pride Project.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt noted that Mr. Beyer was present earlier, but had to leave
and asked that the matter be continued and be placed first on next week's agenda.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the subject
request for funding for the Community Pride project was continued one week.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, 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 American Housing Guild--Los Angeles for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of accident involving a Sheldon Schiffer caused by condition
of street at the intersection of Camino Vista and Camino Grande, and subsequent
complaint filed against American Housing Guild--Los Angeles; date of accident
October 12, 1976.
80-996
City Hall, Anaheim, Califorqia - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Shirley Dzula and Farmers Insurance Group for property
damages purportedly sustained as a result of malfunctioning traffic lights at
Haster and Katella Streets on or about May 25, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Lupe Navarro for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of slipping in a puddle at Anaheim Stadium on or about June 27, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Martin P. Norton for personal injuries and pecuniary loss
purportedly sustained as a result of accident which occurred on or about June 11,
1980 at Anaheim Stadium.
e. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of claimant's underground facilities being struck and damaged by City
of Anaheim Water Department on or about May 7, 1980.
f. Claim submitted by Paula Ann Yarber for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of slipping in puddle of water at Anaheim Stadium on or about June 29,
1980.
g. Claim submitted by Margaret Gibbs for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of newly purchased mirror shattering due to road conditions on
Katella Avenue, just east of State College Boulevard, on or about July 14,
1980.
h. Claim submitted by Granada Square for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of unknown City employee shutting off electric meter in error on or
about July 1, 1980, at the Granada Shopping Center, La Palma Avenue and State
College Boulevard.
i. Claim submitted by Gladys M. Parlin for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained by Tammy K. Parlin as a result of fall from swing at Chaparral Park,
on or about July 15, 1980.
j. Claim submitted by Christie Turner for monetary damages purportedly sustained
as a result of food loss caused by no electricity on or about July 14, 1980.
k. Claim submitted by Rolland H. Wright for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of power line breaking and causing high voltage which blew the trans-
former in claimant's garage door opener, on or about July 2, 1980.
1. Claim submitted by Nicholas Alexander Christy, for personal injuries purpor-
tedly sustained during booking procedure at Anaheim Police Department on or
about April 12, 1980.
m. Claim submitted by Elling Jarold Severson for physical and psychological
injuries purportedly sustained as a result of his false arrest, handcuffing,
and booking in jail without legal or probable cause on or about May 4, 1980.
n. Claim submitted by Phoenix Club, Inc., for indemnification relative to an
incident which occurred in a hall operated by claimant on or about March 2,
1980, at which time security was being provided by Anaheim Police Department.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
80-997
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of July 16, 1980.
b. 105: Anaheim Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of April 23 and
May 28, 1980.
c. 148: Orange County Fair Housing Council--Quarterly Report for April, May
and June 1980.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of July 3, 1980 (unapproved).
108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Police, a Public Dance Permit was approved for the Anaheim Soccer Club, for a
dance to be held August 2, 1980, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention
Center. (Felipe Jesus Guerena, applicant)
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-350 and
80R-351, 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-350: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Van Horne, Ltd.;
Henry W. Ortlieb, et ux.; Lease-All La Palma; St. James Court; Joe Kerley, et ux.;
Donald J. Stolo, et ux.; The Prudential Insurance Company of America; Lincoln
Property, Anaheim)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-351: 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: TRIPLE CROWN
LANE-DERBY CIRCLE SEWER II~PROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-
790-6325-E0190; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFI-
CATIONS 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 August 28, 1980,
at 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-350 and 80R-351, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held July 14, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
80-998
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 3158: Submitted by Linda M.
Graham, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-1200, to construct a 4-unit
apartment building on property located at 1180 Cherry Way, with Code waivers
of maximum structural height and minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-112 and 113,
denied Reclassification No. 80-81-2 and Variance No. 3158, and denied negative
declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3157: Submitted by Terrance A. and Mary D. Strouse, to construct
a fence on RS-7200 zoned property located at 842 South Halliday Street, with a
Code waiver of maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-114, granted Variance
No. 3157, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2085: Submitted by Bank of America Nationfl
Trust and Savings Association, to retain an automobile detailing facility on
ML zoned property located at 3093 East Miraloma Avenue, with a Code waiver of
minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-111, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2085, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2089: Submitted by Gerard Lavelle Werner, as
Trustee of the Gerard L. Werner and Lois Bernice Werner 1976 Trusts, to expand
an existing concrete batching facility and operation on MH zoned property located
at 201 East Commercial Street, with Code waivers of minimum landscaped setback
and required enclosure of outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-115, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2089, and granted a negative declaration status.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
177: STATUS REPORT OF'FREMONT AND APOLLO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL: That the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council send a
letter to the Anaheim Union High School District Board indicating the City's
concerns relative to low cost housing and the Planning Commission's willingness
to participate in a joint meetin~ with th~ Community Redevelopment Commission,
Housing Commission and the School Board to discuss the future development and
land uses of surplus school sites.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of
the subject was continued one week for full Council action. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4150: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4150 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4150: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-5(1), RS-HS-10,000, Tract
Nos. 10408 and 10713)
80-999
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4150 duly passed and adopted.
127: ARGUMENTS AGAINST TWO NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURES: Councilwoman Kaywood
noted that there was a notice asking for someone to write the argument for the
items on the November ballot. She stated she would like to write the arguments
against the two issues--the method of electing the Mayor and changing the date
of City elections.
City Clerk Roberts stated that the deadline for such arguments was August 15,
1980.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-352 for adoption, authorizing Council-
woman Kaywood to write arguments against two of the November ballot measures as
articulated. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-352: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-120 RELATING TO A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-352 duly passed and adopted.
114: GENERAL MOTORS ENERGY ASSESSMENT: Councilman Bay reported that the
General Motors Energy Assessment team from General Motors was in town Wednesday,
July 30. At that time, they received a draft of the Phase I report which was
now under review. He also had a copy of that report. The next Regional meeting
was to be held in Detroit on September 3, 4 and 5. As of the moment, he intended
to attend with the Council's approval, but could request permission next week.
139: OPPOSITION TO AB 2464: Councilman Bay moved to oppose AB 2464 (Roos) on
housing element guidelines and that the Council go on record as being in opposi-
tion to that bill in its present form, since it did not clarify whether the
housing element guidelines were mandatory or advisory.
Before any action was taken, Cify Attorney Hopkins stated that a motion would
be sufficient if a letter was going to be sent, otherwise a motion directing
his office to prepare a resolution would be necessary.
Councilman Bay stated since he did not know what state the bill was in at
.present, he was not certain if there was time for a resolution. He suggested
a letter be sent through the normal channels.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the foregoing motion, with the understanding that
a letter would be sent to that effect. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
80-1000
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent the Council recessed into Executive
Session. (6:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (6:49 p.m.)
112: JOYCE MCKAY VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL: On motion by Councilman Overholt,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs
were authorized to accept the arbitration award and to settle Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 27-30-26 (Joyce McKay vs. City of Anaheim, et al) for
a sum not to exceed $3,900. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:50 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK