1986/09/30Cit~ Hall, Anmheim, C-lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
P~S~T:
~S~T:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Leonard McGhee
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Don Halboth, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATES OF ACHIEVEMENT: The following
employees were presented with Certificates of Achievement issued by the
Employee Involvement Program Board of Directors along with monetary awards
ranging from $30 to $100: Richard R. Gonzales, Equipment Mechanic; A1
Ellenberger, Park Maintenance Worker; Sharon McCamon, Office Specialist;
Joanne A. Williams, Principal Engineering Aide; Dennis J. Urschel, Utilities
Dispatcher (not present).
Overall, the suggestions submitted would save City costs, improve service to
the public or prevent possible hazards.
Mayor Roth and Council Members congratulated each employee for their
contributions.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Deaf Awareness Week in Anaheim, September 28-October 4, 1986,
Crime Prevention Month in Anaheim, October, 1986.
Kathy Ivankay, accompanied by "Father Mike" accepted the Deaf Awareness Week
proclamation and Police Chief Jimm~e Kennedy, along with "Officer McGruff",
accepted the Crime Prevention Month in Anaheim proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilman Bay moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held S~,~nber 16, 1986. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Counc~o.~::manKaywood abstained since she was not present at that meeting.
MOTION CARRIED.
810
2'34;
City Hall, A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
WAIVER OF RFADING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,213,837.61, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 86R-426 through 86R-433, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (Claim No. JF646-0204) for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
February 24, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by American Seating Corp. for indemnity for a law
suit, sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 30, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Ringling Brothers & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows,
Inc. for indemnity for a law suit, sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about December 30, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by Yvonne E. Lane for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 1, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Ruth A. Pelham for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 8, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by George A. Miskam for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 6, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by Donald Robert Pyle for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 9, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by John S. Maier for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 15, 1986.
i. Claim submitted by Eugene Dalfonso for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 11, 1986.
811
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
J. Claim submitted by Philip M. Hermann for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 25, 1986.
k. Claim submitted by Angelo M. UaJe for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 2, 1986.
1. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company (File
No. N-185041-05-CLC) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about July 31, 1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Industrial Development Board, Minutes of May 14, 1986.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of September 3, 1986.
c. 114: City of West Hollywood, Resolution No. 205, opposing the
proposed La Rouche Initiative.
3. 123: Waiving Council Policy No. 401 and authorizing an agreement with the
firm of David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd., in an amount not to exceed
$5,000 for development of cost allocation plans and indirect cost proposal
assistance.
4. 123/106: Authorizing an agreement with the City of Orange at a maximum
cost per City of $60,000 to fund a study of I-5 alternative interchange
designs in the Anaheim Stadium area; and appropriating $60,000 from the
Stadium Area Assessment Fee Account to Program 263.
5. 123: Waiving Council Policy No. 401 and authorizing an agreement with
Pannell Kerr & Forster, Certified Public Accountant, to conduct a financial
feasibility study on alternative lease amendments proposed by Hotel Systems
International (HSI) to their existing land lease agreement for Inn At The
Park, at a cost not to exceed $13,500 with reimbursement by HSI.
6. 126/106: Authorizing the funding for the Event Communications
Demonstration Project in the amount of $133,000 from Program 799.
7. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to Agreement with Boyle Engineering
Corporation, in an amount not to exceed ~60,000 for architectural and
engineering services in connection with the addition of a two story office
building and the renovation of the existing Police Department building to
provide for shell building construction documents for the Detention Facility.
Councilman Bay voted no.
Councilman Bay explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that his no vote was
primarily with regard to the funding of the project with Certificates of
Participation where no revenue stream had as yet been approved by the Council.
8. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of $15,794 for one traffic controller and one police panel.
812
232
City Hall, Anaheim, C-1tfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $12,411.54 for nine
Honda Trail Bikes, in accordance with Bid No. A-4371.
10. 124: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-426: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE
4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1986, FOR THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER BOX OFFICE
ADDITION IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Account No. 24-964-7107)
11. 169: ~ESOLUTION NO. 86R-427: 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 WORK. (La Palma Avenue
Street Improvement, 1145 feet east of Sunkist Street to Sunkist Street,
Project Account Nos. 15-793-6325-E3170, 51-484-6993-00710 and
51-479-6993-00589, and opening of bids on October 23, 1986)
12. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-428: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(OLIVE STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, BROADWAY TO SANTA ANA STREET IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM). (Account No. 25-793-6325-E3020, Nobest, Inc., contractor, and
authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
13. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-429: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(MICROWAVE SYSTEM BETWEEN CIVIC CENTER AND 400 EAST VERMONT IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM). (Account No. 75-936-6421, Digital Microwave Corporation,
contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
14. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-430: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALI.Y ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
LABOR, SERVICES, EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND REMOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY
PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, AS DIRECTED BY THE CHIEF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ACCOUNT NO.
01-202-6320. (Accepting the completion of the Weed Abatement work during
Fiscal Year 1985-86, Account No. 01-202-6320, Edwin Webber, Inc., contractor
and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-431: A RE§0LUTION OF T~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES
HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (Accepting certain public
streets, easements and/or facilities heretofore irrevocably offered for
dedication, in connection with Parcel Map No. 84-233, Kaiser Development
Company, developer)
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-432: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN.
17. 137: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-433: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(ALLEY IMPROVEMENT, HAST-WEST ALLEY SOUTH OF BROADWAY AND WEST OF WEST
STREET). (Accepting the completion of construction of the Alley Improvement,
813
229'
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
East/West Alley south of Broadway, Account No. 01-793-6325-E3030, Nobest,
Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-426 through 86R-433, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
137: ANAHEIM GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS - SERIES 1986A: Authorizing the
issuance of General Obligation Bonds, Series 1986A, in a principal amount not
to exceed $10,000,000 for storm drain construction; calling for bids for
bonds, approving distribution of the Official Statement, Official Notice of
Sale and Official Bid Form and authorizing and directing certain actions with
respect thereto.
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, Anaheim, stated he does not dispute
the proposed Bond Issue but was interested in knowing on what projects the
funds would be used. The public should have some input on where the monies
will be designated.
City Engineer, Gary Johnson, explained that he will be sending a tentative
list of proposed projects to the City Council at next week's Council meeting.
The list basically came from a committee that was formed sometime prior to
1980 that addressed City-wide storm drain needs. The priorities have not been
changed and are still valid. There was considerable public input at that
time. It would be appropriate once the Council has seen the list at its next
meeting for the projects to be discussed at that time.
Mayor Roth urged that anyone who had an interest in the General Obligation
Bond Issue and the projects targeted for the monies contact the City Clerk's
Office to receive a copy of the project list amd/or contact Council Members if
they have a different priority.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 86R-434 and 86R-435 for adoption,
authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Bonds, Series 1986A,
($10,000,000) and for bids for bonds for storm drain construction, approving
distribution of the Official Statement, Official Notice of Sale and Official
Bid Form and authorizing and directing certain actions with respect thereto.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. NO. 86R-434: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1986A.
RESOLUTION NO. NO. 86R-435: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CAIJ,ING FOR BIDS FOR BONDS, APPROVING DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICIAL
814
230
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
STATEMENT, OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE AND OFFICIAL BID FORM, AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-434 and 86R-435 duly passed and adopted.
175/123: AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY -
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement
with Municipal Water District of Orange County in an amount not to exceed
315,000 to provide educational services in Anaheim schools on water related
issues, for a term of one year, as recommended in memorandum dated
September 22, 1986, from the Secretary of the Public Utilities Board, Gordon
Hoyt. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF A BASEMENT: Amending
Section 18.01.030 of the Code, amending the definition of basement, to be
effective retroactively to September 30, 1986. This matter was discussed and
continued from the meetings of September 9, 16 and 23, 1986, to this date.
Mayor Roth stated he had previously made his position clear that the proposed
ordinance (Ordinance No. 4764) to be effective retroactive to September 30,
1986 was the ordinance he preferred and the only one for which he would vote.
City Attorney, Jack White, stated at last week's Council meeting (see minutes
of September 23, 1986) two Members of the Council each introduced one version
of the ordinance, the only difference being one had an effective date of
September 9, 1986 as far as grandfathering in development and the other
September 30, 1986. Any Member of the Council individually can introduce an
ordinance to be voted on at the following meeting. After the two versions
were introduced at the last meeting, at the request of the Council, his office
prepared two urgency ordinances based upon each version as introduced. If
today one version receives the requisite vote and Council, by a four-fifths
vote, wishes to have it also apply as an urgency measure, the Council will
have that before them today.
Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, stated that Planning has had no other
submittals for plan check for any projects falling under the subject category.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon withdrew her offering for first reading of
Ordinance No. 4763.
Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4764 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4764: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING AMENDING THE
DEFINITION OF "BASEMENT" AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 18.01.030 OF CHAPTER 18.01 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
815
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4764 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4765, the Urgency Ordinance, for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4765: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE
DEFINITION OF "BASEMENT" AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 18.01.030 OF CHAPTER 18.01 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING, DECLARING THE
URGENCY THEREFOR, AND DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT
IMMEDIATELY.
Before reading of the Ordinance and a Council vote, City Attorney White
explained for Councilman Bay that the ordinance Just adopted would take effect
in 30 days. Projects will probably come into the Planning Department for plan
check or approval within the next 30 days but the ordinance will not be in
effect during that period. He, therefore, recommended that the Council adopt
the Urgency Ordinance which would take effect today (September 30, 1986).
Developers would then be clear relative to the effective date of the ordinance.
City Attorney White thereupon read Urgency Ordinance No. 4765 in full.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the Urgency Ordinance:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Urgency Ordinance No. 4765 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, John Garcia, Summer Hill Development, thanked the Council,
noting that they were treated quite fairly in the process.
179: CONGRATULATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA ANGELS: Councilman Pickler suggested
that a letter be sent to Gene Autry congratulating him on his team winning the
American League Western Division Championship.
Mayor Roth asked that staff prepare a letter be sent to Mr. & Mrs. Autry, as
suggested, and also urging and wishing the California Angels continued success
throu2~ the pennant drive and ultimately the World Series.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be
held to confer with the City Attorney regarding:
816
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
(a) Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; Union de
Commerciantes del sur de California vs. City of Anaheim O.C.S.C.C.
50-15-98; Durban vs. Buckley, O.C.S.C.C. 39-97-32.
(b) Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9bl.
(c) Labor Relations matters pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:17 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:36 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2823:
APPLICANT:
Leo and Alice Waldman, (Taco Bell),
813 Royal Way
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit an addition to an existing restaurant on
CL zoned property located at 3138 West Lincoln Avenue, with the following Code
waivers: (a) Minimum structural setback, (b) minimum number of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-198 denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2823; approved EIR Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Tim Lee, Agent for the applicant. This matter was continued from
the meeting of September 16, 1986, to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 4, 1986.
Posting of property September 5, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 5, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 21, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Timothy William Lee, 830 North Batavia, Orange Ca. 92668.
Their purpose is to add a dining room addition to the existing
facility requiring a waiver of a setback and the parking
variance. A parking study has been done which has shown there
will a 30 percent surplus at the time of the proposed addition.
An additional study was done at the City Traffic Engineer's
request at existing Taco Bells with the same square footage they
are seeking. It was found that there is adequate parking.
There will also be adequate parking at the subject facility.
817
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
The main issue is the waiver of the setback. It is a
requirement of Taco Bell, when renewing a franchise, that
certain improvements bemade. In order to stay competitive,
studies have shown a dining room or drive-thru or both is
necessary. During the past 30 years, they have deeded land both
to the City and state to where only 29 percent of the original
land is left on which they can build necessitating the waivers
which in itself is a good reason to grant the variances. (See
folders submitted by Mr. Lee prior to the public hearing which
contain data, photographs and maps illustrating some of the
details of his presentation). There are hardships and special
circumstances beyond their control. The most compelling reason
for granting the setback waiver is the fact that the City, in
the past, has granted McDonald's such a setback, which facility
is located 200 yards to the west of Taco Bell. Taco Bell is
asking for a 14-foot dining room addition with a 21-foot
setback. Ail they are asking for is that which has been granted
to their main competitors so that they too can remain
competitive in today's market.
In answer to Council questions, Mr. Lee reported the following:
Twenty-six parking spaces are required and 13 are proposed; the
most employees at one time will be 7, only half of which have
cars; since they are located on a corner, employees who do have
cars park on Topanga where no one else parks; hours of operation
are from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week; with the
14-foot addition, seating capacity is approximately 40 and that
capacity is not going to change.
STAFF INPUT:
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
A parking study was conducted at the location and also two other
similar Taco Bell facilities (Beach and Cerritos and Knott and
Ball Road). The demand for parking was counted. The average
was 6.6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. For the 40 seats
at the subject Taco Bell, there is a need for 10 parking spaces
and 13 are being provided. He does not see a problem relative
to parking. The survey conducted included vehicles parked by
employees.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The McDonald's setback was granted in 1972 and it was the last
one granted. A problem is created when infringing on the
setback area. It will be difficult to deny other such
requests. The Planning Commission suggested that the use be
818
Cit~ Hall, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
granted Just for Taco Bell and if someone else were to take over
it would not be permitted.
STAFF INPUT:
Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner.
The Planning Commission's main concern was the setback and not
the parking. The applicant is proposing a 21-foot setback and
35 feet is required. The present outdoor seating is at 21 feet
thus encroaching into the setback area. Open seating is not
currently permitted in that area.
Tim Lee.
As suggested by Councilman Overholt, they would be willing to
agree to a stipulation that if the franchise were sold and no
longer used as a Taco Bell, that the requested variance be
terminated.
City Attorney, Jack White.
Zoning, generally goes with the land and only on the rarest of
occasions can it be justified to limit the zoning. If such a
limitation is to be imposed, it should be in the form of a
convenant to be recorded against the property that would require
the removal of the addition upon the discontinuance of the Taco
Bell operation.
ENVIRONHENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-436 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2823, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission, but subject to all interdeparmental recommendations with the
requested setback variance of 21 feet vs. 35 feet and parking at 13 spaces
instead of the required 26. Refer to Resolution Book.
KESOLUTION NO. §§R-43§; A RESOLUTION OF THM CITY COtINGIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2823.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood
that he was not going to tie the approval to Taco Bell only even though the
applicant was willing to stipulate to such a condition. Should problems
arise, an Order to Show Cause hearing could be set.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She would like to see Taco Bell get the opportunity to continue
and if problems did arise there was a process whereby the permit
could be revoked.
819
223
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNClL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution including an
additional condition as recommended by the City Attorney as follows:
That a covenant be recorded against the property in the event the use is
discontinued as a walk-up restaurant, that the non-conforming nature of the
structure in the setback area would be removed at that time.
Tim Lee.
He agreed to the recommended condition.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-436 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2693--AMEND CONDITION OF
APPROVAL:
APPLICANT:
Alma E. Keller
2313 North Lion
Santa Aha, Ca.
92701
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To amend Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. 85R-364,
as it pertains to the block wall along the south property line, of Conditional
Use Permit No. 2693, to construct a convenience market with off-sale beer and
wine in conjunction with an existing service station and car wash on CL and CG
zoned property located at 201 South State College Boulevard.
HEARING SET ON:
Requested by Alma Keller.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQULTEMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 19, 1986.
Posting of property September 18, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 19,
1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated September 15, 1986 from Annika Santalahti, Assistant
Director for Zoning.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Alma Keller.
She is the owner of the small commercial strip center located at
201 through 225 South State College Boulevard immediately
adjacent to the subject service station and car wash on the
south side. A 6-foot wall, as required under Condition No. 14
of Resolution No. 85R-364 between the properties on the front 74
feet would work a hardship on her tenants and businesses. (See
petition previously submitted dated September 11, 1986 and made
a part of the record signed by all tenants requesting that the
82O
224
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
required wall be lower than 6 feet). It would cut all
visibility to the center from the north. Her property sets back
62 feet from the sidewalk and is between the Shell station and a
commercial building on the cormer of Broadway and State College
Boulevard which already obstructs their visibility. A 6-foot
fence would also reduce her property value by at least 50
percent. Shell Oil Company will also suffer loss of exposure
from the south side. Shell Oil agrees that a 6-foot wall on the
front 74 feet of the property would serve no purpose except to
cut off visibility and be a blight. Shell has constructed a
3-foot fence on the front portion of the property and then a
6-foot fence on the back portion. She then submitted recent
photographs of the wall as presently constructed. She is
requesting that the wall remain as is if it meets with Council
approval.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Don McDonald, Senior Project Engineer, Shell Oil Company.
He agrees with Ms. Keller's request. A 6-foot wall would serve
no useful purpose.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Discussion then followed between Council Members, staff and Ms. Keller
revolving around the recommendation in the September 15, 1986 staff report
relative to the footage determinations contained therein differed slightly
from the request. Ms. Keller confirmed that all she wanted was to have the
wall remain as presently constructed. It was already in place.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She suggested that the two photographs submitted showing the
present configuration of the wall be tied to the approval.
City Attorney, Jack White.
He suggested that there be a remeasure but the intention is to
retain what is currently in place and if there is any deviation
in the numbers, that the Council is adopting the amendment to
allow the wall to stay there as it currently exists and giving
staff the discretion in the condition to make those numbers
conform to that current condition.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86K-437 for adoption, amending
Resolution No. 85R-364 as requested. Refer to Kesolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86K-437: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2693 AMENDING CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she voted no on the
initial request for a CUP by Shell Oil Company (Re: Conditional Use Permit
821
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
No. 2693, granted August 13, 1985). Because of the triple use proposed. She
was going to vote yes on the subject request because it would not affect the
neighborhood.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-437 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-38 AND VARIANCE NO. 3571:
APPLICANT:
Martha Schumacher
P.O. Box 191
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from RS-7200 to CO (Parcel A),
to construct a 2-story office building on property located at 800 South Harbor
Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) Permitted business signs,
(deleted), (b) maximum number of small car spaces, (c) maximum number of
parking spaces, (d) maximum structural height, (e) minimum yard requirements,
(f) maximum wall height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-213 denied Reclassification
No. 85-86-38 and Resolution No. PC86-214 denied Variance No. 3571; denied an
EIRNegative Declaration status.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by W. Daniel O'Conner, President, Corniche Development Corporation.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 18, 1986.
Posting of property September 19, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 19, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 18, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Don Fears, 1260 Southeast Walnut, Suite 19, Tustin.
He is the architect for the project, the basic intent of which
is to develop an office building that is unique in the sense
that it is a blend of commercial and residential. He then
showed a rendering of the proposed project and a sheet
identifying the surrounding land uses. The site is surrounded
on three sides by residents. The proposal is a 17,250 square
foot office building 2-stories high. The latest plan includes
71 total parking spaces and a small car ratio of 23.9 percent.
At the suggestion of the City, they hired a consulting firm
(A.S.L. Consulting Engineers) to conduct a parking study. They
are running six cars short from the ordinance or 3.69 cars per
1,000
822
Ctt7 Ha!l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
square feet instead of four. He referred to Page 5 of the study
(see report dated October 10, 1986 from A.S.L. Consulting
Engineers - made a part of the record) and read the conclusions
portion at the bottom of Page 5 stating that, "...the proposed
onsite parking supply which provides 3.7 spaces per 1,000 SFGFA
should adequately support parking demands normally associated
with this type of land use." Another concern broached was the
type of use. He thereupon read a portion of a letter dated
July 25, 1986 previously given to the Planning Comm~ssion
(previously made a part of the record) in which they stated they
were prepared to stipulate to an exclusion of any professional
medical or related uses of the finished office building.
Further, ".,.the number of employees and/or visitors is not
expected to exceed sixty (60) at any one time. The hours of
operation are expected to be limited to normal 9 to 5, five days
a week and holiday free." When the original proposal was
submitted to the Planning Commission, there were six waiver
requests. These six waivers have been deleted, with comments,
i.e., the low monument sign, waiver of small car spaces, total
parking spaces, although there are now only six under the
required number, the glide slope problem to the residents to the
south of the property, the 10-foot side yard with parking in
that side yard area along the south property line near the east
and abutting residential property. The 1-foot of greenery in
that area, however, was au exception but the commissioners did
not feel that was of any consequence. The wall height along
Helena was revised to 3 feet the whole length along Helena
except it is higher along the trash enclosure portion.
Relative to the driveway exit from the parking area on the east
side of the building on to South Street, their latest plan shows
the east side of the driveway 27 feet 6 inches from the west
curb of Helena Street. Also per the professional Traffic
Engineer's report request, there will be a sign when exiting
onto South Street "Left-Turn Only", which will head the cars
toward the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and South Street.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Richard Lee Baney, 1412 Damon, Anaheim.
He is speaking on behalf of the project. It is the consensus of
the residents in the area that the sooner the problems occurring
on the vacant lot are resolved, the better. He also personally
welcomes any professional building that would be an aid to the
employment picture of Anaheim.
Dan O'Conner, President, Corniche Development Corporation, 1681
Loma Roja, County of Orange.
They had hoped to bring in a project that required no requests
for variances with the exception of the rezoning on the back
portion of the lot. It was brought to their attention by City
staff that the dedication of some 15 feet of right-of-way for
future proposed street improvements would be necessary on Harbor
823
21'19
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Boulevard. They were subsequently advised that an additional 5
feet of dedication of property for proposed future street
widening on Helena would be necessary. The 4,000 square feet of
property dedication to the City of Anaheim placed both financial
and physical constraints on the property. They plan an
approximate 25-foot landscape area in front of the building with
the first 15 feet dedicated to right-of-way widening at some
future date. The physical constraints narrowing the property to
20 feet in the east west dimensions the reason they are before
the Council with a request for a parking variance from 77 to
71. Because of the dedication and property limitations, their
original proposal was reduced by 750 feet in an attempt to
ameliorate the parking limitations. They are reducing their
considerations requested of the Council from five to two real
problems - the parking ratio and the accessing of the driveway
on South Street at the eastern most limit of the property. They
communicated with residents within a 300-foot radius by letter
and a follow up meeting and phone conversation. They have the
support of the community and are asking the Council's respectful
consideration of their request.
Jerry Grotle, property owner, 839 through 855 South Harbor Blvd.
He is in favor of the project. When they originated their
building on South Harbor Boulevard it was the intent of the City
to develop Harbor as a gateway to the City. He is proud to see
the type of development Mr. O'Conner is proposing for the
subject site. There were many problems with the other
developments proposed in the opinion of the surrounding
residents. He was impressed that the developers of the land
went out to the community to find out the problems involved.
The proposed project enhances Anaheim's image on Harbor
Boulevard.
Ken Halsaver, 819 South Helena.
His property is adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject
project. He complimented Mr. O'Conner on the way he approached
the community. Mr. 0'Conner visited his house, went over the
plans and explained the entire project. He is in favor of the
project as it is presented today. Previously he had objections
relative to the proposed driveway being placed on Helena Street.
Alice Anderson, 726 Harbor Boulevard, located on the northeast
corner of Harbor and South Street.
She attended all of the previous meetings relative to proposals
on the subject site that were ultimately turned down. It is
difficult to have to live across the street from an empty lot.
She does not understand why the Planning Commission is against
the project. She asked the Council to allow the project to be
built.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
824
City Hall, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-438 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 85-86-38 and Resolution No. 86R-439 for adoption,
granting Variance No. 3571, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission subject to all interdepartmental committee recommendations and the
following conditions:
That a covenant be recorded restricting the proposal from any medical office
use and subject to the revised plan submitted by the applicant (Revision
No. 2). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-438: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-38.
RESOLUTION NO. 86K-43~: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3571.
Before a vote was taken, Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated as he expressed
at the Planning Commission hearing, he has a problem with the driveway being
right on the curb return. A driveway that close to the corner is a serious
traffic problem. Also shown is a wall on the corner of South Street and
Helena that blocks the view of oncoming traffic that complicates the location
of the driveway even further. He believes the wall should be removed even
though it is only 3 feet high. He would like to keep sight clearance
especially with the proposed driveway so close to the corner.
Dan O'Conner, Corniche Development.
The neighbors immediately adjacent on the east side of Helena
had indicated their desire for a wall at the subject location
whereas they generally would not construct a wall. They would
be glad to remove the wall in exchange for heavier landscaping.
He reiterated the neighbors were concerned relative to a wall
borne out by minutes of previous meetings. They could give
special attention to the landscaping to provide low and lush
vegetation permitting a view but still have landscaping that
might have some elevation to it.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He would be happy to work with the applicant to resolve the
problem. He is still concerned about the driveway.
825
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~/NUTES - September 30~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay.
He would still like to see some portion of the wall remain.
Dan O'Conner.
He would be glad to work with staff on that issue.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL H EMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-438 and 86R-439 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. for a Joint Powers
Authority meeting of the City Council, Anaheim Union High School District
Board of Trustees and Community Center Authority in the Anaheim Room at
Anaheim Stadium to discuss the possible expansion of the Anaheim Convention
Center referred to as Betterment III. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:12 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:30 p.m.)
PRESF~NT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
President Christian Thierbach
Joanne Barnett
Joanne Stanton
"Cappy" Brown
Cynthia Grennan - Superintendent (non-voting)
Lee Kellogg - Assistant Superintendent (non-voting)
Tom Daly
COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY:
Burr Williams
Bob Hostetter
William Currier - Chairman
Steve Schacht
Pat Patterson
None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CONVENTION CENTER GENERALHANAGER: Lynn Thompson
CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR: Alan Murphy
Mayor Roth welcomed those in attendance and called the Joint Powers Authority
Meeting with the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees and the
Community Center Authority to order, all Council Members being present. (7:30
p.m.)
826
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
President Thierbach called the Anaheim Union High School District Board of
Trustees to order.
Chairman Currier called the Community Center Authority to order.
Mr. Lynn Thompson, Convention Center General Manager, explained the purpose of
the meeting is to consider the needs of the Convention and Trade Show Industry
as well as the Consumer Show Industry and how they impact the City of
Anaheim. Design alternatives will be presented by the architects who were
involved with the Convention Center's previous expansions. The results of a
marketing feasibility study will be presented and staff will discuss what
steps the' City is taking in the Convention Center area to address parking and
traffic. Finally, an action plan will be presented covering the next few
months which will allow the Convention Center to move forward with the study
process.
Bill Snyder, President, Visitor and Convention Bureau, then gave a
presentation (supplemented by slides) first giving an historic overview of the
Convention/Trade Show Industry in the City of Anaheim, an industry which did
not exist 20 years ago. Today there are over 16,000 hotel/motel rooms in
Anaheim with the largest Convention Center on the west coast. In 1985, the
City had a record 875,000 delegates to Convention and Trade Shows. Two
important issues to be considered at this time are the growth in size of the
competition and the growth within the Convention and Trade Show industry. The
latter is occurring at such a rapid rate that significant numbers of their
best clients and prospects are growing beyond the ability to handle them. The
span of time between the original Center and the last expansion was 15 years.
The growth in Convention and Trade Show business increased from 63,000
delegates in 1967 to the 875,000 figure in 1985 or an increase of 1,300
percent. Projections are that growth in the Convention Center business will
not only continue but accelerate during the period 1982 to 1991. Projected to
1993, the necessary net square footage will be 373,000 square feet. Today the
Convention Center is lagging behind industry growth by approximately 105,000
net square feet considering the needs in the year 1991 and-by approximately
163,000 net square feet by 1993. The Convention Center will need an
additional 150,000 gross square feet of space now to remain competitive and an
increase over that to continue to be competitive into the mid 1990's.
Ron Aarons, Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff (HNTB), Los Angeles Office,
then gave a presentation (supplemented by slides) relative to his
recommendations for a possible expansion of the Convention Center. He
explained that several options had been developed in their study of the
expansion. (1) Plan A providing 150,000 square feet of exhibit hall space
with parking available underneath the hall due to the sloping grade south of
the present third hall. Should additional parking be required, another level
of parking could be constructed over the parking area to the south of the
facility. (2) Plan A Prime also providing 150,000 square feet of exhibit hall
space, however providing for a 14-foot high ceiling in the parking area
underneath the exhibit hall allowing that area to be used for future
exhibition hall purposes. In HNTB's opinion, this option is a sound
investment for Anaheim's future. (3) Plan B (A Prime finished off) would
establish the two finished floors of 150,000 square feet for each exhibit hall
827
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL I~NUTES - September 30~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
use providing 300,000 square feet of total area with a parking structure
provided to the south of the hall with each level allowing for up to 400
parking spaces. HNTB is not recommending Plan B at this time as part of
Betterment III. It is an option should exhibit space be needed in the
future. It is their conclusion that all the options be further studied to
determine the most advantageous design.
Bob Lyons, HNTB, explained that working with the Visitor and Convention staff
they identified the Center's largest event, the March, 1989 NEPCON show as the
target event to build a schedule around. It is proposed that the preliminary
architectural design take place while the EIR is being prepared and that the
construction be divided into two packages to allow site preparation work to
proceed before design is complete. Without this overlapping, it would be
impossible to execute the 10 month design process and the 20 month
construction process. Therefore, work must proceed on the schematic design
immediately. Upon approval, HNTB proposes to execute a two month study that
will give specific direction to possible expansion plans. When reporting
back, HNTB will have completed a master plan which examines the Center's
long-range development needs. In addition, the schematic design will describe
the operating features of the proposed facility and provide accurate cost
data. Further, a modernization plan will outline refurbishments to the
existing facility required to maintain its competitive edge; the analysis
developed by the traffic consultant in connection with the EIR will identify
those improvements to the Transportation System and parking capacity required
by the expansion, and financing alternatives will be developed by City staff.
Mr. Thompson then prefaced his introduction of the Economics Research
Associates (ERA) representative by explaining that in order to examine the
economics of expanding the existing facility, the Community Center Authority
(CCA) directed that a feasibility study be preformed to evaluate the impact of
the various scenarios presented. ERA presented their findings at the
September 15, 1986 CCA meeting.
Mr. Dave Wilcox, Environmental Research Associates, then highlighted the
findings of the feasibility study presented to the Authority. Three possible
scenarios were compared - no expansion (option C), A plus A prime and B which
he briefed. Relative to the financial impact, Plan A or A Prime would result
in more than $9 million in general fund contribution; Plan B, a net
contribution o~ more than $10 million, and failure to expand would leave
revenues returned to the City at $6.2 million. The findings of the economic
study substantiated that the Convention/Trade Show business is a rapidly
expanding industry, that a Convention Center expansion is needed to keep pace
with industry and that the additional debt service and operating cost incurred
as a result of the expansion would be more than offset by increased tax
revenues resulting in a substantial increase in the contribution to the City's
general fund and millions of additional dollars and thousands of Jobs pumped
into the economy of Anaheim.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, then explained what the City was doing at the
present time to address traffic and parking in the Convention Center area.
The City's innovative 5-Year Plan now in the second year will proceed with or
without Convention Center expansion plans. It combines capital and
828
City Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
operational improvements to manage traffic and parking to more efficiently
move people in and out of the area. If the next step in the study process is
to be taken, over the next two months his staff will take a comprehensive look
at the issue of traffic and parking in the area to determine the needs. The
results of such a study will be part of the Environmental Impact Review
process. Specifically they will look at the impact of consumer shows, trade
exhibits and conventions on parking and traffic. The results of the study
will come back for review along with the results of the entire Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).
Mr. Thompson then explained the steps necessary to be taken this evening to
begin the preliminary evaluation process should the Joint Powers Authority
elect to proceed. It would be necessary for each agency to approve the
two-month work plan outlined (see sheet entitled - Work Plan -Anaheim
Convention Center Betterment III); that the City Council appropriate the
$400,000 for the preparation of the EIR, the traffic and parking study and the
architectural process including a master plan and modernization plan and for
the Community Center Authority to approve the contract with the architect HNTB.
Following the conclusion of the foregoing presentations, questions were posed
to either members of City staff, the representatives of HNTB, ERA and Mr. Bill
Snyder for purposes of clarification and additional information relative to
certain aspects of the proposed expansion, first by Members of the Council,
then the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees and subsequently
members of the Community Center Authority. During the question and answer
portion, Alan Murphy, Assistant Director of Finance, clarified that under the
newly proposed Federal Tax Plan the bond issue would still remain tax exempt
as long as no more than 10 percent of the bond issue is for private purpose
type activities.
Mayor Roth then asked if any member of the public wished to speak relative to
the proposed expansion of the Convention Center.
Mildred Nespur, 2061 Eugene Street, Anaheim.
She lives in the group of homes adjacent to the Convention
Center and behind the Thrifti-mart. She explained the great
difficulties the residents had to contend with now relative to
traffic, without additional expansion. The residents have been
subjected to other problems as well. Their television reception
is horrible because the Marriott Hotel blocks signal reception.
Mr. Schoning.
He is also a property owner in the neighborhood Mrs. Nespur
described. His concern is that two times in the meeting it was
mentioned there would be an acquisition of property. Theirs is
a low density residential area. They want to know whether the
38 homes are going to be part of the Convention Center
expansion. If so, the property owner should be informed.
Lynn Thompson, Convention Center General Manager.
The discussion that took place relative to expanding to the
south was to expand southward only within the Convention
829
~.Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Center's existing borders. It does not contemplate acquiring
additional land. The master plan of development that Anaheim
will be working on over the next couple of months will indicate
where the development will go. It may require additional
property but that is not known at this time.
Mayor Roth assured Mr. Schoning that there was no plan that he
has seen that proposes acquiring that residential property. In
any case, any such acquisition would require public hearings.
Mrs. Naspur then questioned if something could be done relative
to other people parking their cars in her residential
neighborhood when attending activities at the Convention Center
such as instituting no parking during certain hours; Mayor Roth
stated if their neighborhood was not now included in the permit
parking process which is in place in other areas around the
Center, he asked that Mr. Thompson contact her relative to the
permit parking procedure.
ACT!.ONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND
THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY:
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the City Council approve the two-month
worP plan which includes a schematic design, master plan, modernization plan,
traffic and parking study and financial alternatives. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he did not have any problem
with funding and starting studies but is concerned if studies were going to be
limited to the concept of A Prime, there should then be a plan on the next
step right after this one. One of the things they were going to have to know
was whether or not to use any of the existing land contiguous to the existing
Convention Center for parking stalls and whether they should be looking at the
alternatives of off-site parking with some form of people mover. He did not
want to see them proceed and start building parking structures that would
eventually have to be torn down to build the next expansion or the one after
that. He favored the A Prime concept because it would leave some alternatives
open without building any parking structures on what may prove to be a dire
need for further expansion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated with A or A Prime, the parking area would be
underneath the exhibit hall and A Prime could be converted to a second exhibit
hall. There was no discussion about acquiring additional land anywhere.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CAR/tIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION: Board Member Thierbach moved that the Anaheim Union High School
District Board of Trustees approve the two-month work plan as proposed. Board
Member Barnett seconded the motion. Board Member Daly was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
830
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - September 30~ 198~ 10:(~.0 A.M.
MOTION: Authority Member Schacht moved that the Community Center Authority
· approve the two-month work plan as presented. Authority Member Hostetter
seconded the motion. Authority Member Currier voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Koth moved that the City Council appropriate $400,000 /.rom
the General Benefits fund to the Convention Center fund to be administered by
the Community Center Authority. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated as long as it is understood
that the ~400,000 is an advance for the study which will be repaid back out of
the bond funding.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Authority Member Williams moved that the Community Center Authorit~
approve the contract with the project architects Howard, Needles, Tammen an~
Bergendoff. Authority Member Patterson seconded the motion. Authority MemDer
Currier voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
By general consent, the City Council adjourned.
By general consent, the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees
adjourned.
By general consent, the Community Center Authority adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT: (9:05 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
831