1985/12/10City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
ABSE~:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
DIRECTOR - PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES: Chris Jarvi
COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER: Steve Swaim
SERGEANT, VICE DETAIL: James Brantley
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING: Norman J. Priest
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
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: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Charles H. Roth,
father of Mayor Roth, on the occasion of his 93rd Birthday (December
1985). Each Council Member congratulated Mr. Roth individually who expressed
his thanks and appreciation for the thoughtfulness shown him.
119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council, the
Intergovernmental Relations Office (IGR) and the City, presented Mr. Michael
J. Arnold, the City's Legislative Advocate in Sacramento, with a plaque in
appreciation for his outstanding service in providing staff with timely
information enabling IGR to respond to proposed legislation that could
adversely affect the operations of the City as well as being instrumental in
the passage of legislation primarily introduced for Anaheim.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
"Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness Week in Anaheim," December 15-21, 1985.
Lt. Thalman accepted the Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held November 26, 1985. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
916
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December l0T 1985, 10:00 A.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pickler 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 Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,068,889.55, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 85R-502 through 85R-509, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book. Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4675 for first
reading.
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 #4H546-0624) for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20,
1985.
b. Claim submitted by Marteza Sabokbar for property damage and personal
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
September 25, 1985.
c. Claim submitted by Hale's Self Serve, Inc. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 2, 1985 thru
September 10, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Elaine Fife for personal injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 9, 1985 thru
September 17, 1985.
e. Claim submitted by Colonial Insurance Company (Insured: Robert
Ostroski) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City
on or about April 27, 1985.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of September 25, 1985.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of October 17 and November 7,
1985.
917
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
c. 114: City of Orange Resolution No. 6504, expressing opposition to
Assembly concurrent Resolution No. 90 which seeks to create the
Legislative Advisory Commission on the Governors Mansion and further, to
allocate ~25,000 from the Contingent Funds of the Assembly and Senate to
study and evaluate possible relocation sites for the Governor's mansion.
3. Approvin& the following applications in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. 108: Public Dance Hall Permit, submitted by John M. Shaver for
Kartoon's & Kaper's, 951 South Knott Street, for dancing on Thursday,
Friday and Saturday, from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
b. 108: Dinner Dancing Place Permit, submitted by Sophie Lucille Shaw,
for the Alpine Chalet, 502 South Beach Boulevard, for dancing Thursday,
Friday and Saturday, from 7:00 p.m. to 12 Midnight, and on Sunday from
4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
c. 108: Public Dance Permit, submitted by Jesus Munoz Frias, to hold a
dance at the Anaheim Convention Center, on December 31, 1985, from 6:00
p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
4. 106: Authorizing an appropriation increase from SB 300 Funds into Program
No. 793 in the amounts of $1,624,124 for the 1985-86 R.A.P., and $577,362 for
the 1986-87 R.A.P. for additional transportation financing resulting from
recent State Legislation.
153/155: Authorizing the employment of two part-time Engineering Aides during
1985-86 for approximately six months in the Public Works-Engineering
Department to assist in the design of the additional projects~
5. 175/123: Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the Firm Power Sales Agreement
with Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative extending the term for an
additional three years for the period of January 1, 1992 through December 31,
1994 at the same rate.
6. 123: Amending a letter agreement with Price Waterhouse for EDP Audit
Training, to accommodate use of the expertise of an additional staff member
and directing the audit to fixed assets accounting rather than utility
billings.
7. 170/123: Approving the assignment of interest in reimbursement agreements
for special facilities (pumps and reservoirs) with Robin Hill Development
Company/Cupertino Gardens/Patio Homes and American National Corporation to
Municicorp and reassigned to Frank Chilson, relating to Tract Nos. 10407 and
10410 in the Anaheim Hills area.
8. 170/123: Approving a reimbursement agreement with Gramercy Park in the
amount of $195,856 for water special facilities constructed to serve Tract No.
10973 in the Anaheim Hills area.
918
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
9. 139: Receiving and filing the City's State Legislative Plan for the 1986
State Legislative session.
10. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anahelm Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $475,017.80 for one 95
foot aerial ladder truck with platform.
11. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-502: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: PONDEROSA AND LA PALMA PARK RESTROOM/RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM. (Account Nos. 25-818-7105-18060 and 16-827-7103-2712d and 27160,
Allport Construction Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice
of Completion therefor)
12. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-503: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-269 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT.
(creating the classification of Management Intern, XSR00, effective
December 13, 1985)
13. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-504: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-268 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY.
(creating the classification of Civil Engineer - Water, XSR08, effective
December 13, 1985)
14. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-505: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-506: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(R/W #3500-1AND R/W #3500-3)
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-507: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
~"ITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(R/W #3500-11)
17. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-508: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(R/W #3500-63)
18. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-509: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY 0F ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FORAN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(R/W #3500-78)
919
City Hall~ Auaheim~ Calffornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
19. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4675: (FIRST READING) Adding Chapter 14.49 to
the Code, to prohibit trucks on Fairmont Boulevard between Canyon Rim Road and
Santa Aha Canyon Road with the exception of any truck making deliveries and
recreational vehicles.
20. 175/123: Authorizing an amendment to a contract with the State Department
of Water Resources, for leak detection grant, extending the term from December
15, 1985 to March 31, 1986.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-502 and 85R-505 through 85R-509, both
inclusive:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-503 and 85R-504.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-502 through 85R-509, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
173: AT&T COMMUNICATIONS' APPLICATION FOR RATE INCREASE: Councilwoman
Kaywood referred to the subject application (No. 85-11-029) filed with the
California Public Utilities Commission on November 18, 1985. She stated since
the break up of the telephone companies, citizens found their telephone bills
doubling and tripling. Although she ielt objecting to the proposed increase
of 7 percent would be fruitless, it should not be allowed to occur without any
comment. She wanted to register her no vote on the proposal. The City could
send a representative to the hearing before the Commission or send a ~rritten
objection.
Councilman Pickler felt it would be best for the citizens themselves to write
letters which would have more of an impact; Councilman Overholt agreed with
Counilwoman Kaywood that as elected officials, they should encourage a return
to sanity in the telephone communication field. He asked the City Attorney
what they could do to register extreme concern over what was happening in that
field.
City Attorney, Jack White explained that the Council could adopt a resolution
taking an official position of the City and forward it to the Commission which
would be considered at the hearing. If they wanted to do something stronger,
a representative of the City could appear at the hearing and register the
City's complaint.
920
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth felt a resolution would be appropriate indicating the Council's
concern over the effects of such increases accompanied by a deterioration of
service on Anaheim citizens; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a letter signed
by Council Members would be more effective than a resolution.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that a letter be sent to the California
Public Utilities Commission signed by all Council Members protesting rate
increases as well as a deterioration of service provided by AT&T. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay stated even though he voted for the motion, in reading the
data, there were areas he was not opposed to. One of the issues driving up
line costs with AT&T was over use by personal computers and various computer
hook-ups tying up lines. He was not opposed to increases in those levels if
that was one of the prime causes of increased rates.
108: APPLICATION FOR DANCE HALL PERMIT - JACK MURPHY'S: Submitted by Wesley
Hayes Demarest, for Jack Murphy's, for dancing 7 nights a week from 9:00 p.m.
to 2:00 a.m., 1233 South Brookhurst.
Councilman Pickler did not feel that dancing should be allowed until 2:00 a.m.
in establishments surrounded by residential. He would prefer a 1:00 a.m. time
limit on this application as well as the previous application (Kartoons and
Kaper). A 2:00 a.m. time limit would be acceptable in areas such as the
Convention Center/Disneyland area where entertainment was a major factor.
Mayor Roth stated even with a 2:00 a.m. limit, he believed that most such
businesses started winding down at 1:00 a.m. or 1:30 a.m.
Sgt. James Brantley reported the experience has been that dancing and service
usually ends at 1:00 a.m. and perhaps 1:30 a.m. the latest. Alcoholic
Beverage Commission laws allow service until 2:00 a.m. It would be the
Council's prerogative to adopt some type of guideline that would limit those
businesses to a 1:00 a.m. time limitation.
Councilman Pickler felt that with a 1:00 a.m. time limit, dancing would stop
and perhaps drinking. There was a great deal of discussion about drunk
driving and many victims of vehicle accidents were those killed by patrons
coming out of bars. If dancing stopped at 1:00 a.m., it would possibly limit
that trend. He would like the Council to vote a 1:00 a.m. curfew on dancing
at those businesses located in residential and commercial areas.
Mayor Roth questioned who was going to make a determination of the areas that
would or would not be affected. He suggested that the Council act on the
subject application today and subsequently give direction to staff to submit a
report to the Council with recommendations for consideration of a change in
the overall current policy.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the public dance hall permit
submitted by Wesley Hayes Demarest, for Jack Murphy's, for dancing 7 nights a
week from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., 1233 South Brookhurst. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
921
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth asked that Sgt. Brantley coordinate with the City Attorney relative
to the issue of possibly setting a different time limit for dancing in public
places.
123: POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY: Councilman Pickler
wanted to know if all the companies who submitted proposals were listed in the
November 19, 1985 staff report from the Human Resources Department.
Human Resources Director, Garry McRae stated there were a number of companies
who called and inquired relative to the request for proposals but subsequently
declined to be included. The seven listed in the attachment to the report
were the formal proposals which were considered.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the agreement with Nash and
Company, Inc., to conduct a position classification and compensation study for
all service, maintenance and skilled craft job classes, at a cost not to
exceed $42,950, as recommended in memorandum dated November 19, 1985 from the
Human Resources Director. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
150: CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS FUNDING OF GERONTOLOGY CENTER - CALIFORNIA STATE
UNivERSITY FULLERTON: City Manager, William Talley referred to memorandum
dated December 3, 1985 from Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, recommending that the Council determine a position on
contributing funds towards construction of a gerontology center at Cal State
University Fullerton. Staff believed this was strictly a policy issue since
it was not a project which the City previously contributed to.
Mr. Gordon Shaw, Fundraising Committee of the Gerontology Center, first
narrated a slide presentation with regard to the request for funding dealing
with the activities being carried on presently, the facilities being used and
the proposal for the new Center to be totally funded by private groups or
individuals as well as City support and funding from the County of Orange. Of
the needed 51.7 million, 1.3 million had already been raised. California
State University Fullerton was providing the 2.3 acre site for the Center and
would also provide the ongoing maintenance of the facility. Utilities would
be a part of that maintenance. (See letter dated November 13, 1985 from
Leo S. Shapiro, Co-Chair of the Fundratsing Committee, Gerontology Center
Fundrat~tn~ Drive, Conttnutn~ L~arnin~ Rxp~ri~nea (CIA) California §tare
University Fullerton, with attachments which explained the program in detail,
the specifics of the funding request, the services provided, list of major
contributors, campaign funds report, and a drawing of the proposed Center -
previously made a part of the record).
Mr. David Mohr, Fundraising Committee, assisting Mr. Shaw, described the
balance of the services provided. He also pointed out that of the 51,300,000
already raised 5500,000 of that had been pledged among the present 300 members
of the program. They were hoping for a May, 1986 groundbreaking.
Mr. Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services then
elaborated on the discussion presented in his memo of December 3, 1985.
Anaheim had one of the strongest programs in the United States with its
922
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
existing senior citizen program. However, there was presently only one
out-reach and research type university conducting comprehensive research into
all social and physiological aspects of the aging process, that being the
Andres Gerontology Center located on the Campus of USC in Los Angeles. The
proposed Center at the Cal State Fullerton Campus would provide a tremendous
opportunity to be able to work with a research outreach center to combine and
utilize the best of the university world with the best in terms of senior
citizen programs at a nearby location.
Steve Swaim, Community Services Manager, answering Councilman Overholt, stated
that he did not believe the Anaheim senior citizen groups knew of the proposed
project at this point. He also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that he saw
the program as an exciting opportunity to do some joint programming.
Councilman Overholt stated he would feel more comfortable if the Council first
obtained a recommendation from the Senior Citizen Commission and the Anaheim
Senior Citizens Group since they were the people who knew the "pulse" of the
the senior community. He would prefer to hear a recommendation from them that
the program was something that would be valuable in enhancing the fine program
already established in Anaheim.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the requested determination of a
position on contributing funds towards construction of a Gerontology Center at
Cal State University Fullerton be continued to January 7, 1986 and that staff
be directed to ask for a recommendation from the Senior Citizen Commission and
the Anaheim Senior Citizen Club. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
181: IMAGINATION CELEBRATION: Request for funding forwarded by Elizabeth H.
Dugan, Coordinator, Orange County Imagination Celebration, at the request of
Norma Hertzog, Mayor of Costa Mesa, that the City make a donation to the
Orange County Imagination Celebration to be held March 8-15, 1986, an
educational program of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
This matter was continued from the meeting of December 3, 1985, to this date.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve $2,000 from the Council Contingency Fund
as a donation for the Imagination Celebration. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion.
~efore a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that it was a great
coup" for the Kennedy Center to have chosen Orange County as a site for the
program which would provide a variety of arts experiences for young people and
their families helping to build a new audience for the Arts in Orange County
that would have a lasting effect not only on the County, but also Anaheim.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
144: APPOINTMENT OF BOARD REPRESENTATIVE - ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL
DISTRICT: Gilbert L. Challet, District Manager, Orange County Vector Control
District, requesting re-appointment of Judie De Perry or a successor, as
representative on the Board of Trustees for a two year term of office to
923
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10p 1985, 10:00 A.M.
December 31, 1987. Submitted was letter dated November 22, 1985 from Mr.
Challet.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood requested a continuance of
one week on the appointment. The Council had never received a report since
the appointment of Ms. De Perry in 1977. She wanted to at least receive a
semi-annual or annual report and a copy of the minutes of meetings held which
were no longer submitted. She wanted an opportunity to speak to Ms. De Perry
in the meantime.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the appointment of a
representative to the Orange County Vector Control District Board of Trustees,
to December 17, 1985. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
162: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF HELICOPTER RIDES - GRACE ~APTIST CHURCH: Frank
Morgan, Grace Baptist Church, requesting approval to provide helicopter rides
in connection with a planned church activity at the Grace Baptist Church,
located at 2530 West La Palma, on December 31, 1985, from 8:30 p.m. to
10:30 p.m. Submitted was report dated December 5, 1985 from the Planning
Department/Zoning Division recommending denial of the subject.
Mr. Frank Morgan, Church Activities Director, Grace Baptist Church, explained
his request as outlined in his letter dated November 17, 1985, an activity to
take place on New Year's Eve providing an exciting alternative for youngsters
of high school and junior high school age when many people would be out
drinking and driving. In reading the recommendation of denial from the
Planning Department, the objection was directed to the proximity of the
activity to residential properties. Mr. Morgan thereupon presented for
Council perusal an aerial photograph of the residential block involved showing
the house number of the residences in the photograph, which numbers
corresponded to the numbers on the petition he was submitting signed by those
living in the affected residences that they had no objection to the proposed
activity. He went to every house within 300 feet of the proposed landing site
and everyone was excited about it. Further, the proposed helicopter approach
did not go over any homes or apartment buildings but only commercial. The
company with which they were dealing was Boyd Aviation, the same company who
performed maintenance on the Anaheim Police Department helicopters, a highly
reputable firm. He urged Council approval of his proposal.
City Attorney, Jack White stated in reviewing the matter with Planning staff,
it was his opinion that helicopter landing sites, even on a temporary basis,
constituted a use of property which would bring it within the regulatory
provisions of the Zoning Code. There were no provisions in that Code that
would authorize temporary helicopter landings without determination by the
Planning Department initially that this was what is called an unqualified use
under the Zoning Code thereby authorizing the applicant to file a conditional
use permit for that use even on a temporary basis. Since it was his opinion
that a CUP would be required, there was no procedure legally authorized under
the law to grant a CUP other than going through a public hearing process.
That process could not legally be waived by a petition even if signed by 100
percent of the people within the 300-foot radius.
924
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated that what Mr. Morgan was proposing was commendable but as
explained by the City Attorney, the Council could not grant a CUP without
going through the public hearing process and there was no time for such a
process to take place before the date scheduled for the activity. He
suggested that Mr. Morgan work out of Fullerton Airport where such an activity
might be permitted.
Additional discussion followed wherein Councilman Pickler expressed his
concern in any case flying helicopters in residential, commercial or even
industrial areas and the potential of liability involved.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the request for approval to provide
helicopter rides in connection with a planned church activity at the Grace
Baptist Church. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ILEQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - VARIANCE NO. 3409: Submitted was report
dated November 25, 1985 from the Zoning Division, recommending that a
retroactive extension time be granted.
David S. Collins, Realtor, explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the project
was still viable, the problem being to find someone to operate it when
completed.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve a one-year, four month
retroactive extension of time on Variance No. 3409, to expire August 21,
1986. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
000/101/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4655 - ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM FEE FOR PURLTC
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER: Adding Chapter 17.30 to
the Code, establishing an interim fee for public improvements in the Anaheim
Stadium Business center. This matter was continued from the meetings of
November 26 and December 3, 1985, to this date (see minutes those dates where
extensive discussion took place and input received).
Mr. Douglas Ring, attorney representing Stadium Business Park, 10960 Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, explained that two meetings had taken place with staff
since the last Council meeting (December 3, 1985). He first wanted to commend
staff for their willingness to rearrange their lives and schedules in order to
meet with developer~ and had nothing but the highest praise ~or them. He
emphasized that the City should be proud of the quality of its staff as well
as the spirit, enthusiasm and commitment which they brought to their work,
attributes that were not typical in the staff of many other cities with which
he had been involved. His primary reason for being present today, however,
was to withdraw the objections he registered a week ago relative to the
interim fee proposal and its impact on his client.
Dennis Abramson, Hanover Real Estate Associates, 1200 East Katella Avenue,
Anaheim, also recognized the outstanding Job done by staff. He had appeared
at the meeting of November 26 and December 3, 1985. He reiterated the
following - that his company had received responses to their EIR, they have
been busy with their applications since October of last year when they first
started working with City Hall, the Anaheim Area Study work book acknowledged
925
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Hanover Real Estate Associates as having 1.235 million square feet in that
area. In the interim, they met again with staff but once again there was no
ability or willingness on the part of staff to come to any conclusion on his
application. Staff had problems committing themselves to any opinion on the
matter which might have been favorably acted on on behalf of his company
largely because of the precedent staff might have been setting in the
circumstances of the application just withdrawn by Mr. Ring. He requested
that the Council either pass the ordinance and exclude Hanover Real Estate
from it or allow them to work out an amicable agreement. While they
acknowledged the need for the ordinance, pleased that it was going to be
passed, and supported it in all its parts, somewhere a compromise should be
reached with respect to his company.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if any other company was in the same position as
Mr. Abramson's.
Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, stated that others were similar.
There was a distinction inasmuch as Mr. Abramson had initiated his notice of
preparation and commenced work on his EIR. However, staff felt the program,
as it stands, was sound in terms of the tiering and the benefit allocated to
the representative groups. The project was different from those within the
tiering system since it was general planned and zoned industrially and there
were a number of other such projects that had similar ambitions of being
included within the General Plan Amendment areas. For that reason, staff's
recommendation had been continually the same. The project should pay the
standard fee.
Mayor Roth noted that having met with staff, Mr. Abramson did not find that
those meetings came to a successful conclusion. If the ordinance was adopted
today, he wanted to know if there was any possibility of continuing
discussions or any way for the Council to amend the ordinance or take the
issue into consideration at a later date.
Jack White, City Attorney stated if the ordinance was adopted today, it would
take effect in 30 days. At any time after the adoption of any ordinance the
Council had the prerogative to amend the ordinance if facts so warranted. The
Council could make changes to the fee schedule during the 30-day period but he
did not see that any change made would be capable of being adopted as an
urgency ordinance which would change the ordinance 20 days hence. Any change
made would be effective 30 days after the adoption of the ordinance that made
the change. There would be a time frame, if the Council adopted the ordinance
today, when the ordinance would be in effect prior to making any changes.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4655 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4655: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 0FANAHEIMADDING CHAPTER 17.30
TO TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM FEE FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER.
926
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that Mr. Abramson did not
want to see the door slammed on his ability to continue to have dialogue with
staff to try to work something out more palatable to his client but the
Council was going to vote on the ordinance today. He asked Mr. Priest his
suggestion that might give Mr. Abramson some light at the end of the tunnel.
Mr. Norm Priest, Director of Community Development and Planning, explained one
of the difficult parts was the fact that he (Abramson) felt by taking
environmental actions, he should be entitled to a reduction in fees. Staff
had sought to define tiers, and not offer tailor-made treatment for every
parcel of land. Staff understood Mr. Abramson's point of view that by filing
the environmental documents and undertaking that report would entitle him to
some reduction. They did not look at every parcel to see where, on a scale,
that parcel fit but that the tiering originally recommended was appropriate as
it was today. Staff was recommending that the Council go forward with the
ordinance today. No matter where the tier was established, someone would be
just above or below it. Staff had no problem working with developers. He
urged that the Council pass the ordinance and if staff arrived at some other
approach, would make a recommendation to the Council.
Mr. Abramson reiterated they were not Just another developer amongst others
but they have been serious developers working in a serious climate of
development. The preparation of the EIR report by Phillips Brandt and Reddick
cost them $40,000 or 550,000. It was not in its preparatory stage but was
complete and filed with the Council, read by the Council's officials (staff)
and reported on by those officials. They were prepared to accept a lesser fee
than $4.00 and a greater fee than the 52.00. From his point of view, there
could be no coming back to the Council and a 54.00 fee today would be a 54.00
after today. They were on record in the Council and in documentation and
analysis that had gone before the Council. He asked again that they be
excluded from the ordinance.
Councilman Bay stated as Mr. Abramson explained, in his view, if the ordinance
was passed and became effective in 30 days, there was 4o appeal system raising
the question of whether or not an appeal procedure should be built into the
ordinance. He asked if it was possible to modify the ordinance to include
such an appeal system.
City Attorney White stated legally it would be possible to incorporate an
appeal process but it would have to be tied to certain standards of review as
to the basis for the appeal and what was to be considered on the appeal. He
would have some difficulty if the appeal process were meant to be a way in
which the fees could be adjusted on an individual case-by-case basis based
strictly upon hardship or some subjective criteria. If established, it should
be of a type that would allow the hearing body to determine if the property
had been properly categorized in one of the tiers or whether or not that
determination based upon the standards in the ordinance had been made
incorrectly. He did not feel it would be proper as a taxing ordinance for the
appeal process to simply build into it a manner in which fees could be
individually set on properties subjectively.
927
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay questioned whether it was possible to define objectively
criteria to put it to an appeal section; Mr. White felt it was possible but
that the criteria would have to be determining whether or not the
determination was properly made as to which of the tiers the individual
property fell.
Joel Ftck, Assistant Director for Planning, stated in order for the integrity
of the program to remain intact, it was necessary to continue to examine the
benefit received corresponding to the tiers established. Staff did not
believe that the benefit of the fee program they believed was so critical to
the industry could be drawn or modified solely on the basis of having
submitted an EIR or any other Planning document. They felt it very critical
that the benefit of the tiering as it corresponded to the properties that fell
within the respective groups remain intact. That was the difficulty they had
in making any other recommendation on Mr. Abramson's property.
A vote was the taken on the foregoing ordinance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4655 duly passed and adopted.
Mr. Priest noted as part of the staff report of December 2, 1985, two
resolutions were recommended, one dealing with a statement of intent relative
to assessment districts and the other relative to anticipated development in
the City of Orange.
Mayor Roth expressed concern that the report was just submitted to the Council
prior to the meeting not allowing an opportunity for analysis of the request;
Mr. Priest suggested a one-week continuance.
Councilman Pickler stated he had real concerns about what was happening in the
City of Orange south of the Anaheim Stadium Business Center and its ultimate
impact in Anaheim. It was imperative to let the City of Orange know as soon
as possible o~ Anaheim's concerns over the development proposed in that area
urging that they work with the City.
After further discussion on the issue, Mr. Priest suggested that the matter be
trailed until the afternoon Council session to give the Council an opportunity
to review the documentation and subsequently act upon the resolutions since
time was of the essence.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to trail consideration of the proposed
resolutions to the afternoon Council session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:05 p.m.)
Later in the meeting (2:35 p.m.) Mr. Priest explained for Councilman Overholt
that action was expected by the City of Orange on December 26, 1985 and as
928
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
they prepared their environmental documents, it was important that Orange have
the advantage of any comment they could get as soon as possible. There was no
specific time deadline. He confirmed that after the resolution was passed
today, Orange would be immediately notified and they were already informed
that comments would be forthcoming.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 85R-513 for adoption, relative to
anticipated development in the City of Orange and 85R-514 for adoption,
declaring its intention concerning future possible assessments or fees. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-513: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RELATIVE TO ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF ORANGE.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-514: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION CONCERNING POSSIBLE FUTURE ASSESSMENTS OR FEES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-513 and 85R-514 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4672 - COMPLIANCE WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED STANDARDS FOR SAI.R
OF BEER AND WINE AT GASOLINE STATIONS: Amending Subsection .020 of Section
18.87.023 of the Code, relating to requiring existing businesses to comply
with the newly adopted service station regulations for sale of beer and ~rine.
This matter was discussed and continued from the meeting of December 3, 1985,
to this date.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to vote yes on the ordinance but was
still opposed to dual and triple uses with gasoline sales. Councilman Bay
stated he was going to vote no because he felt the ordinance was overly
restrictive.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4672 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4672: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.020 OF SECTION 18.87.023 OF CHAPTER 18.87 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE R~.~TING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickier and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4672 duly passed and adopted.
929
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
105/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4673: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4673
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4673: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
1.04.915 TO CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RRTATING TO
THE YOUTH COMMISSION.
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. 4673 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4674: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4674 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4674: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRTATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 83-84-24, C-R, 2430 East Katella Avenue.)
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. 4674 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4676: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4676 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4676: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 84-85-36, C1, 1830 West Lincoln Avenue)
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would
be held to con£er with the City's attorney on the following matters:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Company, O.C. Superior
Court Case No. 40 92 46; Oprian vs. City of Anaheim, O.C. Superior
Court Case No. 42 76 92 and City of Anaheim vs. Southern California
Edison - U.S. District Court Case 78-08-10-MRX.
b. 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 CAR/LIED. (12:10 p.m.)
930
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:04 p.m)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2730 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
American Medicorp Development Co.,
1 River Front Plaza
Louisville, Kentucky 40201
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To construct a 100-unit senior citizens' retirement
facility on property located at 631 South Beach Boulevard, with Code waiver of
minimum number and type of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-233 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2730 and approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of November 19, 1985.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 27, 1985.
Posting of property November 28, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 27, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated October 28, 1985.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Item No. 16, Page 4 of the staff report states at least one
occupant in each unit be 55 years of age or older and the
covenant shall be recorded. The senior citizen age in the City
of Anaheim is listed at 62. The City is pre-empted by the State
on projects of 150 units or more. The subject project is only
100 units allowing for a 62 year age limit. She asked if the
applicant would specify a 62 year age limit for both occupants.
The units are smaller with less parking than regular senior
apartments.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED:
Manny Aftergut, Agent, Goldrich Kest and Associates, 10233
Ventura Boulevard.
He is agreeable to the 62 year age limit. In the case of a
married couple they would have to mak~ sure both were age 62.
In their extensive experience, the typical covenant states in
the case of a married couple, at least one of the partners must
be 62. Considering the type of facility proposed, such an age
restriction would not be an imposition since the average age in
their existing facility is 82. He was, however, concerned over
the precedent setting effect in terms of the City. He would
abide by the City's wishes.
931
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
STAFF INPUT: Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
The specific regulation is in the senior housing apartment
projects. There are several congregate care facilities and all
had age restrictions similar to the State regulation - that one
occupant can be 45 years of age; Councilwoman Kmywood. That
provision involved projects of 150 units or more. The City's
ordinance was passed prior to the State law and after a great
deal of discussion, the minimum age was set at 62.
Jack White, City Attorney.
The Senior Citizen Housing Ordinance adopted within the last
year was based upon a recently adopted provision in the Civil
Code providing that no covenant could be enforced as to any real
property involving senior housing which would be more
restrictive than to require one of the occupants to be at least
62 years of age if the project was less than 150 units, or
require that the occupant be less than 55 years of age if the
project was 150 units or more. The City's ordinance was adopted
based upon that same standard contained in the Civil Code. The
subject project is under the Senior Citizen Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the Council had leeway as to the age but, in his
opinion, could not be more restrictive than the State law
mandate providing that only one resident be 62 years of age.
The 55 comes through other channels and is not in compliance
with the Senior Citizen Housing Ordinance adopted but would be
appropriate legally if Council wanted to make it 55 because they
are not seeking the type of relief that the Senior Citizen
Housing Ordinance allows. He reiterated the State law provision
stating that covenants restricting the age of occupancy on
rental property cannot be more restrictive than to require one
of the occupants be 62 years of age. It was his opinion the
City would not be able to enforce it as to the second occupant.
It was his recommendation that that restriction not be imposed.
The second occupant was required to be either 45 years of age or
providing the sole assistance and care to the one 62 years of
age or older. It cannot be just a convenient co-habitation but
that the younger person is providing physical care to the senior
citizen. He also clarified if the 62 year old passed away, the
younger person would still be able to live there and take in
another partner as long as that person was 62. The original
draft of the City's ordinance provided both had to be 62 but
while it was in the drafting stages, the State law was passed
providing only one be 62.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Manny Aftergut.
He also clarified that staff parking was included in the total
of 44 spaces. They had approximately 14 such facilities in
operation with approximately 1500 rooms, the oldest one having
been in existence 12 or 15 years. They have a long track record
and a good one. They are the operators of La Palma Royale in
932
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Anaheim and they have never had problems with parking or with
being a burden to the neighborhood. The proposed facility is
the same type of facility as La Palma Royale but with an even
higher parking ratio.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR : None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL CONCERNS:
On age limitation, one of two people sharing the same unit must
be 62 years of age or older.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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. 85R-510 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2730, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions and relative to the age limitation that one of two people sharing
the same unit must be 62 years of age or older. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-510: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2730.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Aftergut referred to one of the
conditions imposed (see Condition No. 3 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 85R-233) relative to payment for in-lieu park
fees prior to issuance of a building permit. He sent a letter
to Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community
Services, explaining the type of development they were planning
pointing out that any impact from their facility on Parks was a
positive one. They were taking elderly people away from parks
and senior citizen recreation centers and providing park
amenities within their own facilities. He asked that
consideration be given relative to whether congregate care
facilities offering 5,000 square feet of amenity space and a
$50,000 annual budget for supervised recreational facilities
ought to pay the full fee that would otherwise be chargeable to
933
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
apartment units without age restrictions. They could live with
the condition on their proposed project but wanted the Council
put on notice that they felt it was fair for the Parks
Department and Planning Department to try to work out a fair and
reasonable fee considering the positive impact of their facility
in draining people from public facilities.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Parks and Recreation is looking at congregate care facilities as
possibly potentially being a fourth level in-lieu fee amount but
at present there was no such level in the ordinance.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
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. 85R-510 duly passed and adopted.
177: PUBLIC HEARING - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HOUSING POLICY REPORT: To
consider and review the Redevelopment Agency Housing Policy Report, which
involves the Agency policies in connection with housing, development, and
low-income assistance to be followed in issuing single family Mortgage Revenue
Bonds. Submitted was report dated November 27, 1985 from the Community
Development Department, recommending that certain actions be taken regarding
the subject Housing Policy Report.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 25, 1985.
STAFF INPUT:
Norm Priest, Director of Community Development and Planning.
On this item and the one following, Council had already taken
action at the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority today.
The public hearing is a legal requirement. Should the City wish
to issue bonds next year, this is a procedural stage.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
934
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Bay.
He noted in the documentation that Certificates of Participation
were included as a potential financing method along with
mortgage revenue bonds.
Norm Priest, Director of Commuity Development.
It is a possibility that Certificates of Participation will be
used but every issue would have to be considered by the Council
individually.
Counci]mmn Bay.
He had no problem with State bonds or County bonds but with the
City issuing Certificates of Participation for any purpose. He
wanted his vote clear that he was in favor of the policy
relative to bonds, but not Certificates of Participation.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-511, approving the Housing Policy
Report under Internal Revenue Code Section 103A and directing the publication
and filing of said report with the Internal Revenue Service by the City
Clerk. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-511: A RES0LUTIONAPPROVING HOUSING POLICY REPORT UNDER
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 103AAND DIRECTING ITS PUBLICATION.
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. 85R-511 duly passed and adopted.
177: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSING AUTHORITY HOUSING POLICY REPORT: To consider
and review the Housing Authority's Housing Policy Report, which involves the
Housing policies in connection with housing, development, and low-income
assistance to be followed in issuing single family Mortgage Revenue Bonds.
Submitted was report dated November 27, 1985 from the Community Development
Department recommending that certain actions be taken regarding the subject
Housing Policy Report.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
935
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 10~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay.
His previous comments applied on this issue as well, i.e., that
he was opposed to the use of Certificates of Participation.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-512 for adoption, approving the
Housing Policy Report under Internal Revenue Code Section 103A and directing
the publication and filing of said report with the Internal Revenue Service by
the City Clerk. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-512: A RESOLUTION APPROVING HOUSING POLICY REPORT UNDER
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 103AAND DIRECTING ITS PUBLICATION.
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. 85R-512 duly passed and adopted.
114/119: SKYFEST - THURSDAY~ DECEMBER 5~ 1985: All Council Members commented
on and commended all those involved in the staging and successful conclusion
of SKYFEST held Thursday, December 5, 1985 - a spectacular event involving the
release of one million plus balloons launched from the area in front of the
Anaheim Convention Center on Katella Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and West
Street. The ambitious project was conceived to commemorate the
30th Anniversary of Disneyland. Also the date chosen would have been the 84th
Birthday of its founder, Walt Disney. Mayor Roth and other Council Members
praised the volunteer efforts which brought the event to fruition as well as
giving accolades to the SKYFEST Committee, The City's Public Information
Office, employees of the Convention Center and all other employees involved
and the approximate 3,000 volunteers who worked early, long and hard inflating
the balloons with helium coordinating their efforts to meet the 2 p.m.
deadline for total release. An important aspect of the launch was the fact
that it was the largest balloon launch ever recorded and officials from the
Guinness Book of Records were on hand to audit, verify and ultimately record
the event in the Guinness Book. A representative of National Geographic was
also present. The Mayor, on behalf of the Council, again thanked everyone
involved resulting in a most successful conclusion of a very large and
historical undertaking which was reported by local and nationwide media. He
asked that letters of thanks be sent to those schools and organizations who
made the event possible.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:47 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:31 p.m)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:32 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
936