1984/03/20City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overhoit, Pickier and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
COMMUNITY SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE: Karen English
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: John Anderson
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICER: Cindy Cave
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Rabbi George Schlesinger, Temple Beth Emet, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay 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 Jack Kudron,
Recreation Superintendent in the City's Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department on being awarded the California Parks and Recreation
Society's District 10 Coveted Merit Award.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to 4-year old Stephanie Harris and her
family on their visit to Disneyland from Ft. Worth, Texas.
li9: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
"Spiritual Leadership Appreciation Day in Anaheim",
March 22, 1984.
114/144 PRESENTATION - COUNTY OF ORANGE - BROOKHURST STREET CORRIDOR STUDY:
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffi~ Engineer, introduced the consultants hired by the
County of Orange to give a presentation on the subject study.
Mr. John Lower, Transportation Planner, Berryman and Stephenson, then briefed
the Council on the "Brookhurst Street Corridor Study" which was conducted for
the Traffic Engineering Division of the Orange County Environmental Management
Agency, (OCEMA) Transportation and Flood Control Programs Office, by his
firm. Mr. Lower then briefed the report (see report, County of Orange,
Brookhurst Street Corridor Study Executive Summary, September 1983 (on file in
the City Clerk's Office). Also see report dated March 8, 1984 from the acting
235
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984,. 10.:00 A.M.
City Engineer entitled "Brookhurst Street, Harbor Boulevard, Katella Avenue
Corridors Summary of Participation and Findings", supplemented by a slide
presentation. The Executive Summary contained information on project
description and project approach starting on page 2 and continuing through
page 9 of the study. Included in the summary were recommendations relative to
Corridor-wide traffic safety and traffic flow improvements, and, finally
Corridor policy recommendations.
After Council Members posed questions to Mr. Lower relative to certain areas
of his presentation, Mr. Jim Sommers, Senior Transportation Engineer, Greet
and Company, the firm who performed the work for the Katella Avenue Corridor
Study, summarized the work that went into the.project and the various methods
used.
The Mayor thanked both Mr. Lower and Sommers for the informative presentation.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of ali 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 $2,102,449.28, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilma~'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. 84R-106 through 84R-112, both inclusive for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims re3ected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Robert Lawrence Whittam for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to a slip-and-fall accident caused by a puddle
of water in the men's restroom of the Anaheim Stadium, on or about October
16, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by Douglas E. Roman and Lloyd C. Betker for property
damages sustained purportedly due to sewer drain back-up at 1242 West
Lincoln Avenue, on or about November 17, 1983.
236
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
3. Claim submitted by Rodman R. Bahner for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to Hi Sodium Conversion Company dislodging a
large carrotwood tree, breaking sprinkler lines and damaging lawn in front
of 120 Maude Lane, on or about December 20, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Coleman Thomas for personal injury and personal
property damages sustained purportedly due to an accident caused by a
malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of Katella Avenue and
State College Boulevard, on or about November 4, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Josephine Thomas for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to a malfunctioning traffic signal at the
intersection of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, on or about
November 4, 1983.
6. Claim submitted by Rosalind Schuitz for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident caused by a malfunctioning
traffic signal at the intersection of Katella Avenue and State College
Boulevard, on or about November 4, 1983.
7. Claim submitted by John C. McGraw for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to power surge at 440 Adria Place, on or about
February 4, 1984.
8. Claim submitted by Cynthia E. Ferguson for personal property damages
purportedly caused by rocks being thrown from City-owned vehicle at
Lincoln Avenue and Crescent Avenue, or or about January 10, 1984.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 139: City of Seal Beach, Resolution No. 3355, Supporting AB2099,
the Park Bond Ballot Issue.
b. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of February 8, 1984.
c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for
February 1984.
d. 105: Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of February 9, 1984.
3. 106/177: Approving revision to the 1983/84 Resource Allocation Plan,
decreasing the Housing Authority budget by ~2,800,000, Control Center 60,
Program 213 Housing Assistance.
4. 123: Authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Anaheim Union High
School District, to allow modification of an existing tennis court lighting
system at Loara High School.
5. 123/150: Authorizing an agreement with Tri Counties Officials Association
for the provision of athletic officials for adult sports leagues, conducted by
the Recreation Division, in an amount not to exceed $61,250, commencing March
1, 1984 and terminating February 28, 1985, in accordance with Bid No. 4062.
237
Cit7 Ha.~l, Anahstm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20~. 19~4, 10:00 A.M.
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Computer Applications Resource, Inc.,
in an amount not to exceed $16,900, to develop the Collision/Surveillance
Program, term ending July 31, 1984.
7. 160: Accepting the low bid of Southern California Roofing Company in the
amount of ~i4,359, plus Option C, as required, for the roof replacement at the
Martin Recreation Center, in accordance with Bid No. 4082.
8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Orange County Boiler in the amount of
$i0,648.83 to furnish and install a new steam heating boiler in the Central
Library, in accordance with Bid No. 4084.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANA~'iM AwARDiNG k CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAINS IN BROOKHURST
STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 54-605-6329-17400-34350. (A and A
Pipeline, $196,194)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAINS IN WEST
STREET, CONVENTION WAY, AND THE PHASE I OF THE REPLACEMENT OF PRESSURE
REGULATING STATION NO. 21 AT WEST STREET AND KATELLA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 54-605-6329-17440-34370,54. (Valverde Construction
Inc., $859,476)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-108: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT PEARSON PARK LAGOONS REFURBISHMENT, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 25-820-7103-20060; 16-820-7103-2021C; AND
24-820-7103-20110. (Pentaco, Inc., $110,400)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-109: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHE'IM'"FINALL'Y ~CEPTING 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 FOLLWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT HARBOR BOULEVARD AND KATELLA AVENUE,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, FEDERAL NO. HES-MO05(O01), ACCOUNT NO.
49-795-6325-E5230. (Steiny and Company, contractor)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-110: 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 PERORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: YORBA
SUBSTATION STEEL POLE FOUNDATIONS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
55-68-6329-84810-36400. (Means & Ulrich, contractor)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-111: 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: MODIFICATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT BALL ROAD AT SUNKIST STREET, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-E5320. (Steiny and Company, Inc.,
contractor)
238
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-112: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Paul D.
Williamson)
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay Overhoit, Pickier and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-106 through 84R-112 duly passed and
adopted.
123: AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU AGREEMENT: City
Manager William Talley briefed his report dated March ~, 1984 recommending
approval of the subject amendment. After doing so, he commented further that
it was particularly appropriate that the amendment was before the Council
today. Anaheim was moving into its "renaissance". As far as developing the
convention and tourist complex that must be occupied, there were substantial
problems in the industry over maintaining full occupancies even with the
Olympics. Staff felt that the proposed amendment would go a long way toward
solidifying its position nationally and internationally as a prime destination
point.
Councilman Bay stated his first concern was the justification for a major
increase in the amount of money to be appropriated to the Visitor and
Convention Bureau (V&C). He then briefed the figures given him contained in
memorandum dated March 3, 1984 which he requested reflecting the funds
appropriated by the City to the V&C vs. actual expenditures from 1978 to
present (on file in the City Clerk's Office), one of his questions being
whether they could spend ail the money they were projecting to give them.
Looking at the 1984-85 projection under the authority of the amendment, it was
estimated at $1.6 million by staff. One-eighth of the total room tax amounted
to 12.5 percent. With the rooms being added during the next one to
one-and-a-half years estimated to be between 2,800 and 3,000, he felt strongly
that the total tax could go as high as $15 million. In coming years, they
were looking at a $2 million a year budget for the V&C. He wanted to hear
some justification for that type of increase considering the increase in the
Transient Occupancy Tax that went from 6 percent to 8 percent by action of the
Council during the past year, which was a 25 percent increase in that tax. He
questioned a figure of 12.5 percent being proposed by V&C with no more
justification that he read in the agenda packet. He looked at capital
expenditures that were going to take place in that area and was concerned
where the money was going to come from to do the things necessary in
connection with expansion, i.e., fire protection, parking, police protection,
infrastructure and eventually the aesthetics. He was not against the
promotion of the V&C, but he had a feeling unless told differently, they were
planning more than could be spent. Mayor Roth noted that Mr. Snyder was in
the Chambers audience; City Manager stated that while he was coming to the
podium, he wanted to make a comment relative to the staff recommendation. The
figure noted through February of 1983/84 (03/19/84 Report) of 3653,000
represented what they had paid. There was perhaps a 30- to 45-day lag, so
239
City Hal~, Anah~i~., ~a!ifornta - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
that figure could be looked at as a seven-month figure. He could say the
relationship with the V&C was one of the best working relationships between
municipal government and the private sector in the country. Over the last
five years, there was only one year where expenditures were substantially
under, otherwise Mr. Snyder spent nearly the allocation requested and
scheduled it throughout the year. It was not really 12.5 percent, but 12.5
percent of the money collected. For every dollar that Mr. Snyder's group
received, $107 was spent in the community, the City received seven dollars,
the hotel industry 3100. They were looking at an industry that was building
in anticipation of the Olympics and bringing thousands of rooms on board that
they wanted to keep occupied. It was necessary to keep ahead of the
competition.
Mr. Bill Snyder, President of the Anaheim Visitor and Convention Bureau, 800
West Kateiia Avenue, stated that the allocations given to the Bureau for the
last several years had been in the area of 10 percent increases. Those were
years of rather high inflation, and what they were doing was keeping track
with inflation and getting no additional meaningful programs. He then
explained the competitive climate in which they were working and if they ever
got to $2 million, the competition would be receiving more than twice that.
They were operating in a very competitive arena. He then briefed the Council
on what had taken place in the last few years and the things they had been
doing. The fact that the spending was already behind was a traditional thing
and he did not think it would be behind by the end of the year. He then
elaborated on their future plans and where future monies were going to be
targeted, the goal being to establish new markets, to get into new areas, and
bring in new business. He further commented that the visitor industry had
been a very responsive one in the City. The V&C gained nothing but the
industry did and when the industry gained, everybody benefited.
Councilman Bay asked how he (Snyder) would feel if his budget was set at 10
percent growth, rather than 12.5 percent; Mr. Snyder stated he felt he spoke
for the industry in saying that the industry was deeply concerned with the
infrastructure and everything related to the City when it supported an
increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax last July. What they were looking for
was a kind of dedication from the City. To answer specifically, he felt it
was a lot easier to do 12.5 percent because in the last four years, they had
averaged about 12.7 percent. If infrastructure problems did arise, a 10
percent figure could be easily talked about. They were going to spend the
money on meaningful programs. If they did not do so, they were not going to
rush to spend it. Speaking on behalf of the industry, it would be a
reflection of their responsibility to do the 12.5 percent which was what they
had been operating under with the realization if the need arose, it could be
backed off down the line.
Councilman Bay stated he did not want to imply the V&C was not doing a good
job because he knew they were, but looking at other things the City was going
to have to spend money on, they had to very carefully look at how much they
were going to put into the program. One thing he did not bring up was the
Katella area beautification costing between $200,000 and $300,000. He was
suddenly hearing it was going to be a yearly expenditure and that was new to
him.
240
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
City Manager Talley stated there was about ~212,000 in the budget this year
for implementation of a general beautification plan in the Katella-Harbor area
from the freeway west. It was his intent to budget ~300,000 next year and to
continue to do so if they worked out a viable plan with the industry and until
the Council told him from a policy standpoint they did not want to do it and
then he would stop.
Councilman Bay stated he was saying they had to look at the whole picture when
talking about where dollars were going to go. The revenue benefit from the
Room Tax that he always felt should benefit the entire City, should be looked
at as key to other improvements. On the long term, he was saying they should
look carefully at the ratios.
Council Members Kaywood, Overhoit and Pickier then expressed their strong
support relative to the recommendation.
MOTION: Councilman Pickier moved to authorize the first amendment to an
agreement with the Anaheim Visitor and Convention Bureau to provide for
payment of an amount of not to exceed one-eighth of the estimated total annual
Transient Occupancy Tax receipts as budgeted, with payment at the end of the
fiscal year, based on actual receipts, and formalizing procedures relating to
matching contributions by the Bureau. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion
Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
153: CREATION OF NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION - MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
COORDINATOR: Creating the Classification of Maintenance Services Coordinator
at salary range X-SRO4, effective March 23, 1984, as recommended in report
dated March 13, 1984 from the Human Resources Director, Garry McRae.
Councilman Bay stated he had a concern, not with the specific addition to the
Administrative Management Staff, but with any such addition. He felt there
was a great deal of irony when they got a quote from the Sibson Report
justifying a new administrative position. He also felt the whole management
structure and administrative structure of the City needed to be looked at by a
consultant that reported directly to the Council, and had felt that way for
some time. If they went on making new positions, then when the percentage of
management vs. the total number of employees increased, they would be the ones
responsible and he did not intend to be a party to it.
City Manager Talley stated he must take strong exception to a
mischaracterization. The subject represented a reclassification of an
existing management person based upon a study of a consultant hired by the
City Council. The wage rate was questioned when the study went in; they
agreed to wait six months and have the consultant look at it again. They did,
and now the person was being reclassified to another wage rate. The job and
person presently existed. The title was changing and the salary was moving
slightly. It was not a new position but a mere reclassification of an
existing position based upon a consultant's recommendation.
Councilman Bay stated he thought it was a new position. He then asked if in
the total Sibson Report and information the City Manager received, if there
were any recommendations for reducing positions.
241
City Hall, Anaheim~ California..- COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Talley answered that he did not recall if there were, but he would be
happy to look at that. He believed the assignment given to Sibson by the
Council was to classify the existing management structure and it was not an
organizational study. He received a report from Sibson where it suggested
there were areas they might want to look at from an organizational
standpoint. They were looking into those areas and had one area under study
at this time.
Councilman Overholt asked Councilman Bay if there was a misunderstanding on
his (Bay) part relative to the creation of the subject classification;
Councilman Bay answered that there really was and he apologized for "raising
cane". He did not realize it was an existing position, and, in fact, would
even vote for it. However, that did not change his remarks with regard to the
overall picture.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 84R-113 for adoption amending
Resolution No. 83R-387. Refer to Resolution Book.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-113: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-387 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS SUPPORT AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
(Maintenance Administrative Services Coordinator)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
ABSENT:
PRE SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-113 duly passed and adopted.
105: DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Councilman
Overholt moved to declare a vacancy on the Community Services Board left by
Michael Hayes who was no longer a resident of the City for the term ending
June 30, 1985. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kaywood asked that a letter of thanks be sent to Michael Hayes
thanking him for his service to the City, particularly his service to the
Police Reserves.
183: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS: Request by John M.
Flocken, Chairman, for staff to solicit input from the Industrial Development
Board and make it a part of the staff review process on conditional use
permits, covenants, conditions and restrictions, general plan amendments, and
for any other matters directly affecting the industrial sector of the
community. Submitted was a Joint Report dated March 15, 1984 from the
Planning and Community Development Departments submitted for informational
purposes.
Mayor Roth asked Mr. Flocken if he had seen the subject staff report; Mr.
Flocken answered "no".
242
City Hall, Ana~eim,..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay stated he had a question for staff while Mr. Flocken was
reading the report. It seemed the normal procedure of furnishing a Planning
Commission agenda to the Industrial Development Board (IDB) would offer a
flow-time problem. He asked if the agenda for the Planning Commission was
available the Friday prior to the meeting.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, answered "yes", but it was printed two
Fridays prior to the meeting. If they put it in the mail two Fridays before
the Planning Commission meeting, the IDB would probably have it on that Monday
to determine whether or not they needed to call a meeting on Wednesday. If
they provided Planning staff with their input on that same Wednesday, that
would give them Thursday to include it in the Planning Commission Reports.
Councilman Bay that would solve the flow time he thought he was seeing.
Mr. John Flocken, Chairman, Industrial Development Board, 1320 South Hacienda
stated, in other words, they would then have the opportunity to review the
staff report prior to its presentation to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Thompson answered "no," but that the IDB would have the opportunity to
provide their input to be included in the staff report which would be after
the IDB meeting on Wednesday, if they gave staff that input by 5:00 p.m. on
Wednesday.
Mr. Flocken clarified that was what they wanted. They wanted to have the
opportunity to provide staff with information, so staff could have their input
before the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Thompson stated if they received the comments of the IDB by 5:00 p.m. on
that Wednesday, they would include a paragraph under Evaluation which would be
the input from the Board.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt the thrust of the staff report was that
there was no need for meetings every Wednesday morning with the IDB, but when
there was an issue, they could supply staff with information for the meeting.
Mr. Flocken agreed, but in any case, they would be available every Wednesday
morning at 7:30 a.m. where information on matters regarding the industrial
area could be give them.
Councilman Overholt stated that since there was no problem from staff's
position, that both sides were in agreement. It was determined that no
Council action was necessary.
108: HEARING - ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 84-1 AND POOL ROOM PERMIT APPLICATION -
ORANGE COUNTY SPORTS ARENA, INC.: To consider an appeal of the decision of
th~ 'P~'ahhing' Directo'r approving an Amusement Arcade Application for Orange
County Sports Arena, Inc., 2131 West Lincoln Avenue, for 21 amusement devices
(continued from the meeting of March 13, 1984) and an application for a pool
room permit to allow 20 pool tables at the Orange County Sports Arena Inc
(continued from the meeting of February 21 and March 13, 1984). Submitted
were reports from both the Planning and Police Departments dated March 5, and
March 13, 1984, respectively.
243
City Hail, Anaheim, California - ~.OUNC!L MINUTES - Marc.h...2p, 1984,...~9:00 A.M.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter dated March 15, 1984 had been
received from Urban and Clark, attorneys representing the Orange County Sports
Arena, discussing Item No. 4 of the Police Department report of March 13, 1984.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. William Urban, 19900 Beach Boulevard, Suite 'G' Huntington Beach, stated
he understood they might go into closed session on the matter.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated he saw no need for a closed session
unless the Council requested one.
Mr. Urban stated he directed the March 15, 1984 letter to Mr. Hopkins last
week with regard to the March 13, 1984 memorandum from the Chief of Police.
In that letter, he confirmed the brief conversation he had with Mr. Hopkins
regarding the suggestions made by the Police Department. They were in accord
with Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 (memorandum on file in the City Clerk's
Office) and in fact, No. 5 had already been ordered and would be done. The
only problem they had with Item No. 4, was the suggestion that a fence be
built because of overgrown shrubbery on adjacent property. The fence was over
360 feet long and 8 feet high and their estimate of cost was at least $5,000.
An alternate proposal by the Police Department was that the shrubbery be
removed from the other adjacent piece of property which might alleviate the
safety problem. They did not have any information as to the owner. Mr.
Margerum was agreeable to working out whatever was possible and compatible
with the Police Department's suggestions and Council's desires. A 6-foot
fence would cost only half that of an 8-foot fence.
Councilman Bay asked if he would stipulate to either making arangements for
removal of the shrubbery or constructing the fence; Mr. Urban answered "yes".
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if the shrubbery were removed, it would create a
dust problem; Councilman Overholt agreed and felt they might be creating
another problem. If the shrubbery were maintained at a decent level, there
might not be a concern.
Mr. Urban stated they would be willing to stipulate to one option or the other.
Councilman Overholt asked if that would be agreeable to the Police Department.
Karen English, Anaheim Police Department, Community Services Representative,
stated her understanding from the drawings that they received at the Police
Department was that the fenced area they were requesting was actually only 315
feet which was going to further limit expenditures. If the Council was
requesting that it be 6 feet in height, that would be acceptable to the Police
Department. She clarified for Mayor Roth that they would accept 6 feet in
lieu of 8 feet, and 315 feet in length.
Councilman Pickler asked if the Whirly Ball activity was also going to be
instituted along with the Arcade and Pool Room; Mr. Urban answered "yes". It
would be installed as soon as they had permission from the Council to proceed.
244
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March. 20, !984,. 10:0? A.M.
Councilman Pickier expressed his concern about circulation and traffic in the
area and the Whirly Ball aspect was also of concern to him, in the fact that
if there were about ten teams, this would cause additional traffic and
circulation problems. He also did not agree in calling it a family operation,
since he noted it was proposed to be open from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m., Monday
through Saturday, and 10 a.m. to midnight on Sundays. He did not believe that
any family operation was open that late and even though they were agreeing to
cut back from Sunday through Thursday, 10:30 a.m. to 12 midnight, and Friday
and Saturday from 11 a.m. to 2 a.m., he felt it was still too much.
Mr. Urban explained that Whirly Bail was primarily an adult recreation and
having the later hours would accommodate the older or adult teams to give a
broader range. Only ten people could play during a half-hour time period so
ten people would be leaving and arriving every one-half hour. He was not
ready to address the traffic problem, since this was the first time the issue
had been raised.
Mayor Roth stated that they had no report from the Traffic Engineer relative
to the business causing a traffic problem. They would need some basis to know
whether or not it would be a hazard.
Mr. Tony Margerum, 535 South Ranch View Circle, stated they had a traffic
study done by Mr. Pringle of Weston Pringle and they found no problem relative
to parking. Their Whirly Bail operation in San Diego had two courts and here
they were proposing one. He confirmed that the traffic report was shown to
the Planning Commission and the Traffic Engineer, Paul Singer, who felt there
would be no problems.
Annika Santaiahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated the item that came
before the Planning Commission was on-sale alcoholic beverages that they
planned to have in conjunction with the activity. Because of that activity,
they were required to do a traffic study even though the basic use which was
the Whirly Ball was a valid use in the commercial zone with the commercial
parking requirement, but that the on-sale might potentially increase the
clientele. The study as presented was satisfactory to the City, but now they
were not talking about on-sa~e alcoholic beverages.
City Attorney Hopkins then clarified for Councilman Bay that the hearing was
on the Pool Room and the Arcade, but that Whirly Ball did not require a
conditional use permit. Further, the request for alcoholic beverages had been
withdrawn; Mr. Urban confirmed that the request for alcoholic beverages had
been withdrawn and permanently. They had no intention of serving alcoholic
beverages.
Couniciman Overhoit stated his concern was whether the applicant fully
satisfied the Police Department. If so, he was ready to vote.
Mayor Roth asked for confirmation that they had come to terms with all Police
Department recommendations except the fence; Mr. Urban stated that was
correct, but they would stipulate to construction of a 6-foot fence whatever
the length would be.
245
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman noted that Sylvester Diaz had resigned as Vice President and
Member of the Board and also that the office of the corporation was at his
home, and asked whether that would create a conflict; Mr. Urban responded that
the corporate office at the time of incorporation was on Dorothy Circle in
Villa Park. Subsequent to the resignation of Mr. Diaz from the Board and as a
member of the organization, as soon as they had a lease in Anaheim, the
corporate office would be moved to that site. At present they had no other
place to have a corporate office, since they had not concluded everything.
City Manager Talley stated he wanted to call the Council's attention to the
Police Department's original recommendation about the length of time they were
recommending when the Council voted because while they had gone through a lot
of procedural and physical activities, he did not believe the Police
Department had changed its mind that the Council should grant a permit for
longer than 90 days until they had a chance to look at the operation.
Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Diaz had now resigned and terminated his
association as an officer or employee of the organization; Mr. Urban answered
that was correct. He had gone back to a former operation.
Councilman Overholt asked if he was stipulating that at some future time, Mr.
Diaz would not become an official or employee of the organization; Mr. Urban
answered that was his understanding.
Councilman Pickler stated that he did not think Whirly Bail belonged in that
area. It was supposed to be family-oriented, but catered to those 26 years
old or older. He felt that situation, coupled with traffic and circulation in
the area, and the hours were not compatible with the family-oriented
operation. He was going to vote "No".
Mr. Urban then clarified that he also did not have a problem with the hours of
operation suggested by the Police Department of 10:30 a.m. to 12 midnight
Sunday through Thursday, and 11 a.m. to 2 a.m., Friday and Saturday.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve an Amusement Arcade application for
Orange County Sports Arena Inc., 2131 West Lincoln Avenue for 21 amusement
devices and a Pool Room Permit to allow 20 pool tables at the Orange County
Sports Arena Inc., subject to a 90-day review.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if, in addition to 90
days, would he be willing to place a tim~ limitat~on on the CUP; Mayor Roth
stated they would have an opportunity at 90 days or at any time to revoke the
permit once granted, upon an order to show cause hearing.
Councilman Overholt asked if the motion included all six requirements as set
forth in the Police Department memorandum of March 13, 1984, but reducing the
size of the fence from 8 feet 6 feet, as well as the condition with reference
to Mr. Diaz and if Mr. Urban was so stipulating; Mr. Urban so stipulated.
City Clerk Roberts asked for clarification relative to the 90-day review if
that was 90 days from today's hearing or at the time they opened the business;
Mayor Roth stated it would be fair to give them an opportunity to do all the
things they had to do.
246
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Urban requested that the 90 days commence upon opening.
Councilman Roth then clarified his motion as follow: Approving Amusement
Arcade application No. 84-1 for 21 amusement devices and a Pool Room Permit to
allow 20 pool tables at the Orange County Sports Arena, 2131 West Lincoln
Avenue, subject to the six recommendations listed in staff report from the
Chief of Police dated March 13, 1984, but reducing the size of the fence from
8 feet to 6 feet and subject to a 90-day review after the business opened,
with the further stipulation that Mr. Syivester Diaz who had resigned from the
Board would not at some time in the future become an official or employee of
the organization. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman
Pickler voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickier mentioned that there was an establishment at Lincoln and
Brookhurst that was causing problems and he questioned why they were not doing
anything about it; Councilman Roth stated that he could have the matter
brought before the Council at any time.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that they could take action to review any
permit with a hearing and due process.
i79: ORDINANCE NO. 4489: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4489 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4489: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUCICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(83-84-10, RM-1200, 115 South Ohio Street)
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that was where they had
higher density apartments going in. If so, and she voted "No" previously, she
would vote "No" again; Annika Santaiahti clarified the location.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4489 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4490: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4490 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4490: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(83-84-14. RM-3000, south side of Crescent Avenue, north side of Alameda
Avenue, west of Muller Street, Tract No. 10102)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overhoit, Pickier and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
247
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4490 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4491: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4491 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4491: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFER~ED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(82-83-23, CL(SC), easterly of the terminus of La Palma Avenue, on the north
by AT&SF PR, on the west by Tract No. 9169, and on the south by the Santa Ana
River, Shorb Wells)
Roll Calf Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overhoit, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4491 duly passed and adopted.
REQUEST TO SPEAK - MR. BILL ERICKSON: Mayor Roth yielded his time under
Council comments to Mr. Bill Erickson who wished to address the Council.
Mr. Bill Erickson asked that his presentation be rescheduled in one week due
to the hour being so close to a lunch break.
179: STATUS OF EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2397: Councilman Overholt
asked for the status on the subject CUP of American Medical International. He
noticed that the application had been withdrawn.
City Clerk Roberts announced that Friday she received a request withdrawing
the application for an extension of time. Pursuant to the City Attorney's
Office, they advised that was permitted and that the applicant would be the
only one prejudiced by withdrawing the request. The CUP was now inactive, and
the only way it could be activated again was for the applicant to come in and
request an extension of time. At that time, if that should happen, the people
on file requesting to receive notice regarding the extension of time would be
notified again. The time period for the CUP expired last January.
City Attorney Hopkins explained it would be a matter of a retroactive
extension if they decided to come in and ask for it to be agendized.
Councilman Overholt stated there was a lot of interest in the issue and it had
been highly politicized. The concern he had was that the people opposing the
hospital were looking forward to an opportunity to come down and say their
piece. It appeared that the withdrawal of the application was an effort to
avoid that, and he wanted to be sure they were doing everything the way they
wanted to do it, because he would vote against it again as he did the last
time.
Councilman Pickler stated he had talked with some of the leaders on Monday and
they did not realize that the request for an extension of time had been
withdrawn. He did not get the impression that they wanted to come down but
wanted to make certain everybody was notified.
248
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Council could schedule the matter even if
the applicant withdrew it, and wasn't active at the moment.
City Attorney Hopkins Stated this would be the prerogative of the applicant.
He would have to check further, but his impression was that the applicant
controlled whether he wished to have an extension or not.
Councilman Overholt stated he had the impression that the Council was
unanimous in supporting the CUP. However, it was a split vote and he was on
the "no" side; Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was on the "no" side because of
the location and would be on the "no" side again.
Councilman Pickler stated he voted "yes" although he was not certain what he
might do today, but changing the rules just to satify people was not justified
at this time.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss current litigation and a personnel matter with no action anticipated;
The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and
potential litigation with action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:20 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present (1:35 p.m.).
i79: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-7, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2499 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Gloria
H. Miller and Dorothy H. Hurley, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RM-1200, to permit a 79-unit (senior citizens) apartment complex on property
located at 2620 West Ball Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum
building site area, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage,
(d) minimum floor area, (e) minimum recreational-leisure area, (g) permitted
encroachments into required yards, (h) minimum distance between buildings.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-213, 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, and further, granted
Reclassification No. 83-84-7 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2499, in part,
subject to certain conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 6, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
January 10, 1984 (see minutes that date). At that meeting, after extensive
discussion and input, the Council disapproved a negative declaration status
for the project and denied both the Reclassification and the Conditional Use
Permit.
249
City ~a!.l.,....A~aheim.., Ca!if0~nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
On January 17, 1984, the Council considered an Affidavit of Merit submitted by
Mr. Pene requesting a rehearing on Reclassification No. 83-84-7, Conditional
Use Permit No. 2499 and the negative declaration. The Council granted the
request and a public hearing was scheduled and continued from the meeting of
February 21, 1984 to this date. However, extensive discussion and testimony
was given at that meeting (see minutes that date).
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. William Pene, GGP Associates, Developer 5015 Birch Newport Beach, stated
since the last meeting he met with the neighbors'on both sides. In speaking
with Mr. Blume, they devised a plan that would provide a solid block wall
along the top of the carport for 150 feet from the southwest corner extending
towards Ball Road and after that, it would be 8-feet high. Mr. Blume was in
agreement. They would also be constructing a 2 1/2-foot high wooden visual
screen to protect Mr. Blume's privacy. He also met with the town home people
to the south. As developers, their plan was to provide covered parking spaces
for each tenant. The town home people had a plan that would provide for a
five-foot landscape buffer and then there would be open uncovered parking
spaces, which was shown on the plan posted on the Chambers wail. He did not
have a problem with that, and in discussions with Annika Santalahti she said
that would work. He would leave that issue open for discussion.
Councilman Roth asked the density of the project; Mr. Pene answered they were
proposing a 70- or 72-unit senior citizen project and as he stated previously,
that was borderline as far as the economics of the project. He would leave it
to the Council's discretion, but would prefer to have a 72-unit complex.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the percentage of density bonus with 70 or 72
units; Annika Santaiahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated a 70-unit
project would be a density bonus of 49.6 percent. If a 25-percent bonus which
the Council adopted as a policy, it would allow a total of 51 dwelling units
on the property. Later in the meeting, however, Ms. Santaiahti clarified that
although she had indicated that 51 dwelling units was the appropriate number
on the site with the density bonus, 51 was the legal number under RM-1200.
The extra 25 percent would be about 63 units. The current proposal at 70
dwelling units was 49.6 percent.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked again on the carport as she had several times at
past hearings, if the carport had three walls going from the floor to the roof.
Mr. Pene answered the carport on Mr. Blume's property line would have a
complete wail that would go from the floor to the top of the carport. There
was one wall to the rear and a roof to the carport.
Councilwoman Kaywood surmised it was one back wall and a roof and no side
walls; Mr. Pene stated that was correct and Councilwoman Kaywood commented
that that was not a carport. She asked Ms. Santalahti to give the definition
of the carport.
250
City Ha!l.~ Anahe.im~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Ms. Santalahti stated went the parking code was modified, they changed the
definition, but prior to that it was three solid wails with a roof, without a
door. Currently the developer acceptably could have a proposal where each
wall would be a minimum of 50 percent solid. That was a development standard
the Council or Commission might not accept on any given project.
Councilman Bay stated relative to the density bonus, he took 36 units per acre
which was the normal limit on RM-1200 and divided into 49.6 percent and ended
up with a roughly 38 percent density bonus at 70 units.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she made it clear from the very beginning
after the Environmental Impact report, Reclassification and Conditional Use
Permit were denied that 25 percent on the affordable was the limit; it would
not be anything more and it appeared there was consensus on the Council. She
was not willing to talk about even one unit over the 62 at ali.
Councilman Pickler asked with regard to the five-foot buffer that Mr. Pene
said was agreeable to the people in the town homes, if he was going to move
ahead with that.
Mr. Pene stated their original plan called for carports all around. Initially
they wanted to provide space for each tenant. The people in the town homes
preferred to have uncovered parking and a five-foot buffer. In discussion
with Ms. Santaiahti, that would not be a problem as.far as construction, and
he did not have a problem either.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that relative to the size of the units, even with
all the discussion, they were still 440 square feet.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Anthony Giagnocavo, 322 North Olive, stated that last week the seniors
were given a setback, in that the Orangewood Acres Mobilehome Park was going
to be converted. He hoped the Council would give serious consideration to the
project before them today. He then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he
had lived in Anaheim for approximately eight or nine months, he did not have a
problem finding an apartment, he paid ~320 for his apartment which was
approximately 700 square feet.
Roger Friermuth, 2671 Meadow View Lane, President of the Meadow View Park
Homeowners Association, stated that they met with Mr. Pene and he (Pene) had
agreed to remove the covered parking spaces on the south side and in their
place provide open spaces and buffer landscaping. That arrangement would
provide the minimum Code requirement for that type of development in covered
parking spaces with an additional 50 uncovered available for the development
which would be 1.5 overall with the 70 units. If Council would stipulate that
as a requirement for approval, in the interest of the seniors of Anaheim, they
would withdraw their opposition to the project.
Bernard Blume, 2638 West Ball Road, stated he had talked to Mr. Pene and their
agreement was that there would be a carport and that the wail would be
251
Ci..ty ~a!.l,~Ana~e!m., California ~. COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
attached to the roof. He read the Planning Commission's recommendation which
was satisfactory to him and he would like that to be stipulated to. However,
when he spoke to Mr. Pene prior to the meeting, there was still the
uncertainty as to whether the wall would be attached to the roof. He was
asking for a closed area, a wall with a roof, and he would like that
definitely before any approval of the project. He asked that it be stipulated
today, either Item "J" as recommended by the Planning Commission or that Mr.
Pene stipulate that the wall be attached to the roof with the proper back to
his (Pene) property, and not as stated in Mr. Pene's letter that the wall
would be as high as the roof.
Ms. Santalahti explained for Councilman Pickier that he was asking that the
westerly wall of the carports along the southern 150 feet on that property
line be a solid wall with the slant of the carport roofs draining into Mr.
Pene's property entirely.
Mr. Blume explained Item "J" of the Planning Commission recommendation would
be fine. He was told the reason for 12 feet was that it had to be ~ fire wall
and that was fine provided the roof of the carports was attached to the
developer's wall.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated relative to Item "J", she had a question in
addition to a solid twelve-foot high carport wail attached to the roof, that
an additional two feet six inches wooden visual screen would be constructed on
top of the carports. She wanted to know if that was something Mr. Blume was
requesting.
Mr. Blume stated he spoke to Ms. Santalahti and she explained the situation.
However, he had never been able to get an affirmative answer as to the height
of the carport. If it was only ten feet and then an additional two feet to
protect him for the fire wail, then he did not need the other screening. They
had to keep in mind there was going to be an elevation of approximately two to
three feet, that would be sufficient for his purposes and that was the twelve
feet he was talking about.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that would be twelve feet on his side; Mr. Blume
answered that he believed it would almost be 15 feet on his side.
Mr. Alvin Sugarman, 12562 0ceanplace Drive, Garden Grove, stated the applicant
seemed to have complied with the request of the Meadow View Park Homeowners in
agreeing to put a buffer in the backyards of the town houses and his project.
From a personal standpoint as a developer, he had difficulty with the
density. (see previous testimony given by Mr. Sugarman at the meetings of
January 10, 1984 and February 21, 1984). He also had some problems with the
aesthetics of the project.
After questions posed to Mr. Sugarman by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor Roth
asked Mr. Pene to make his s-mmation.
Mr. Pene stated relative to the issue of density, the project was exactly the
same density as the senior project approved at 950 South Gilbert and the size
252
City H~!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
of the units were similar. Relative to the issue of the wall, they had not
stipulated the exact height of the wall because they could not do so at this
time. The project was going to require fill dirt for drainage to Bail Road
and it could be any where from 1 1/2 to 3 feet. He felt the best way to
identify it was to discuss it, i. e., bringing a wail to the top of the
carport. He would also stipulate that that carport top would be attached to
the wall.
Councilman Bay felt he should be talking about definitive terms on visual
intrusion and that the drainage was not going to go on to Mr. Blume's property
and however tail it was going to be, there would be no intrusion from the
second floor. Those stipulations would cover Mr. Blume's concerns.
Mr. Pene agreed to what Councilman Bay articulated.
Mayor Roth stated they were also talking about the slanting of carport roofs.
They were talking about the fact that the carport roofs had to be inside the
development itself and that was a key issue; Mr. Pene stated he had stipulated
that in a past meeting and he was stipulating to that now.
Councilwoman Kaywood first referred to the agreement signed with the Housing
Authority. She also noted that each time they talked to Mr. Pene, the rent
went up $10. It was $390 a month at the Planning Commission hearing, $400 at
Council, and it became $410 with the Housing Agreement.
Mr. Pene interjected and stated the $410 was the Authority's amount provided
under the affordable housing guidelines.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff if that was accurate; Lisa Stipkovich,
Housing Manager, stated that was not exactly correct. It was a number they
agreed upon. Mr. Pene asked for a bit higher rents, and she suggested
something lower and they came to something in between. That was how the $410
was arrived at.
Councilman Kaywood asked for clarification then that there was no such thing
that they could not charge less then market rate; Mrs. Stipkovich answered
that currently the policy for affordability on rental units in the City was to
stay within the Section 8 fair market rents. It was something they had been
discussing with the Planning Department and hopefully would be discussed at
the meeting when the senior citizens housing projects were to be discussed.
They never anticipated the kinds of conditional use permits and variances that
had been granted. Fair market rents were based upon the average rent for the
area. It was difficult to know how to come up with a'number for this type of
project. They needed to have specific guidelines.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickier asked Mr. Blume if the comments relative to the wail were
satisfactory to him; Mr. Blume stated he noticed in the recommendations that
it stated one person to an efficiency unit and two people to a one-bedroom.
That did not have to be stipulated to, but he wanted to know if Item "J" was a
stipulation, since it was included in the recommendations. What Mr. Bay
253
stated was fine with him. He did not want the visual intrusion, but if Item
"J" was stipulated to, whether 12 feet or 11 feet, he was just asking that the
wall be there.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt, in her opinion, that nothing had been dealt with in
good faith on the part of Mr. Pene, and she would move again to disapprove the
EIR negative declaration status and to deny the Reclassification and the
Conditional Use Permit. They were back again to the original concerns, the
density and what the staff report initially stated - that if the density were
to be continued down the street, it would be a problem on the infrastructure.
Even though there was a cutback from 79 units to "70" or "72" units, it was
another type of proposal she did not believe she ever heard of where they were
saying it was not a specific number.
In answer to Councilman Pickier, Ms. Santalahti stated that they would like to
have had an exhibit that showed what the covered parking spaces along the
western property line looked like. In this instance, she would recommend
amending one of the conditions of approval adding terminology. This was with
reference to the condition that required development in substantial compliance
with the plans and specifications on file with the City of a 70-unit senior
citizen apartment project. A.) The rear west wail of the carport, about 125
feet long along the southerly 150 feet of the west property line shall be
about 12 feet high (wall plus parapet) and solid with no openings towards the
west. The remaining covered parking spaces (about 105 feet long) along the
northerly 129 feet of the west property line shall be located adjacent to a
high block wall. The roofs of all the carports and covered parking spaces
along the west property ilne shall be sloped to drain away from said westerly
property line. There shall be a 5-foot landscape buffer adjacent to the
southerly property line and landscaping to consist minimally of broad-headed
trees planted on 20-foot centers.
Councilman Pickier stated the fact that Planning had not seen a complete set
of plans and further that a workshop was scheduled for April 10, 1984 to
discuss guidelines for senior citizen projects, he felt they were premature in
moving ahead with the subject project. At the workshop, they were going to
discuss density, type of construction, etc., and, therefore, today he was not
going to approve something that might change. He wanted to see the project
go, but they had to first make a determination where they were going. They
should wait until after April 10, 1984.
Mayor Roth asked Mr. Pene to respond to the recommendation of a continuance;
Mr. Pene answered that he could not do it.
Councilman Pickler asked if he would lower the density to 65 units; Mr. Pene
answered that he could not do that either.
After additional discussion with staff relative to a comparison of densities
and density bonuses and between this and the project on Gilbert Street,
Councilman Pickier moved to continue the public hearing on Reclassification
83-84-7, Conditional Use Permit No. 2499 and negative declaration therefor, to
Tuesday April 17, 1984, 1:30 p.m., one week after the scheduled workshop to
discuss senior citizen project guidelines scheduled for April 10. 1984.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
254
City Hall,..Angheim,..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he would speak against the
motion to continue, since if they spent all the time they did redesigning the
project, they should make a decision. He did not understand Mr. Pene saying
he was asking for the same thing as the Gilbert project when he had figures
before him saying it was a 24.4 percent bonus and he (Pene) was asking for
36.3 percent. Without speaking on either side of the issue, the decision on
whether they wanted the development or not should be made today. It was 13
percent over what they normally gave as a 25 percent bonus for setting up the
rental agreement through the City which Mr. Pene had done. The issue was
whether they wanted to give Mr. Pene 13 percent more bonus because he was
setting up a new and different project with much smaller rooms for seniors
which, from what he heard politically, they seemed to want. He was not "wild"
about the development or its basic density, but if this was the direction they
would be going with bonuses on what they called senior projects to try to
solve the seniors problem of housing in the City, he did not think that 13
percent over the normal 25 percent was outrageous, but he did feel they should
settle it today.
Councilman Overholt stated, in speaking for the motion, that he was concerned
about the need for senior housing and the 25 percent had to do with
affordability. As far as seniors, they had not adopted guidelines and that
was the purpose of the scheduled workshop. They were not talking about a
density increase of 13 percent, but 50 percent over the density allowed for
affordable. If the project was good enough to build, it was good enough to
keep.
A vote was then taken on the forgoing motion. CounciLman Bay and Councilman
Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3372 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application submitted by Marion Vesey, (ANTHONY'S PIER 2), to construct an
outdoor patio enclosure on CR zoned property located at 1640 South Harbor
Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback,
(b) minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-8 approved the
negative daclaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received with 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 affect on the environment and further, denied Variance No. 3372.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the attorney by the
applicant and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of
February 21, 1984.
City Clerk Roberts announced that a letter dated March 19, 1984 had been
received from Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant, informing her that
his firm had withdrawn as legal counsel and a Mr. Charles Ravezzo would be
present today to speak on the matter.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
255
City Hall, ~naheim,' Calif0rni~.-..COUNC. IL MINUTES - March 20, 1784, iO:.O0 A....M.
Mr. Steve Paliska, Professional Parking Systems, 32 Butterfieid, Irvine,
stated he appeared before the Planning Commission at their meeting of January
9, 1984 to give testimony (see Planning Commission Minutes that day). He
stated they had the setback problem and if they got that approved, then they
had to address the parking problem. He than read Item 15 from the staff
report to the Commission dated January 9, 1984 (page 12-c) indicating that the
applicant had submitted a parking demand study dated January 4, 1984 prepared
by Weston Pringle to substantiate the requested waiver and that the City
Traffic Engineer had reviewed the submitted plans and parking study and found
the proposed parking sufficient to accommodate the request if valet parking
was provided during the restaurant's hours of operation. They also had a
traffic engineering study done on New Year's Eve which was an extraordinarily
busy night for restaurants and he found the parking to be adequate. Relative
to their neighbor, Anaheim Inn, he tried to make a commitment to work with
them with regard to parking and it appeared after two appointments that their
parking problem was a result of Denny's. He also brought a letter with him
from Saga Motel which was in the same parking facility as Anthony's (letter
dated March 20, 1984 made a part of the record) the letter stated that
Anthony's Pier II had performed their relations relative to parking and
business with sincerity and commitment.
Councilman Bay stated he thought Mr. Paiiska presumed that the total
opposition to the Variance was the parking problem; Mr. Paliska stated "no",
but that they also had a setback problem to be addressed by Mr. Ravezzo.
Mr. John Davis, 8242 Hayes Circle, Huntington Beach, stated he was the person
who designed the restaurants for Mr. Ravezzo and the problem in this case was
the 50-foot setback. He first gave a brief historical background relative to
the events that took place on the property back to the time it was the Lancers
Restaurant. At that time, approximately 2,500 feet of the property was on the
property on which the Best Western Anaheim Inn was now located. Rather than
go into prolonged litigation with them, they simply removed it which took the
entire lounge area out of the restaurant which would have eventually been
turned into another dining room area. To compensate for that, they added a
patio to the structure to accommodate 75 people and although it worked out
well, they were not happy with tb.e cleanliness because it was exposed to the
outside. They proposed to add a glass solarium over the patio designed in
such a way that it would begin at the building at approximately 12 feet 9
inches up and then slope and curve down to 8 feet at the front. They proposed
to come down 3 feet from where the patio existed at present. They spent
$15,000 on landscaping in front of the building and proposed to spend
approximately that amount for landscaping inside and outside of the solarium.
They did not feel it would be setting a precedent by allowing them to build a
solarium because it was not a building addition, but a greenhouse affect on
the front of the building. One of the concerns of Anaheim Inn was that it
would block them off and, therefore, they held the height down for that
reason. In talking to the Health Department, they were pleased that they were
going to construct the addition and, further, it would do a lot to upgrade the
property. It was a family restaurant.
256
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Bruce Robinson, 15124 Lakewood BouleVard, Bellflower representing English
Greenhouse, stated that they built solariums, basically an all-glass enclosure
one-inch thick which would cut noise down more than a plaster wall. What was
there now was a patio and when they finished it it would still be a patio,
since they would not be breaking any bearing wail, but were enclosing the
patio, and trees, plants and shrubs would be placed in and out of the
solarium, the only difference being that it would be more beautiful.
Mr. Charles Ravezzo, 103 North Bayside, owner of Anthony's Pier II, stated
they were not setting a precedent for several reasons. He thereupon reported
on other businesses along Harbor Boulevard with less than a 50-foot setback
and also submitted pictures (made a part of the record) showing those
businesses. He felt the 50 feet was a part of the money he paid to get the
land and now it was being taken away. To him, Harbor Boulevard looked worse
than the strip in Las Vegas and what he wanted to do was to make it look
better. The enclosure was a ~200,000 unit. Also, they had been serving
people out on the patio for two years with no problems. He was concerned
about his ~50,000 investment in furniture and fixtures for that area. His
business was built on giving the public a fair price for a meal. He was ready
to go or to stay. He then stated he understood he could put a canopy over the
patio without asking for any approval.
Ms. Santalahti stated he could do so for a certain size canopy, but one that
would not go that far into the setback.
In concluding, Mr. Ravezzo stated that the big problem with the Best Western
Anaheim Inn was not the parking, but they were afraid that Anthony's Pier II
was going to block their view and that was the crux of the whole problem.
Patty Shad, 830 South Oakstone, Manager of Best Western Anaheim Inn located
next door, stated her concern was mainly parking, but also the fact that they
had not even been open a year and were not allowed to encroach into that
setback area. She was not concerned about Anthony's blocking their front, but
the noise level when people were seated in the patio area was a reason to have
to refund money to their guests, since they served dinner on the patio up to
10 p.m.
Mayor Roth asked if she agreed since she was concerned about the noise level,
if that would be reduced with the glass enclosure; Ms. Shad stated it would,
but her further concern if they served 75 more people was where those people
were going to park. Anthony's had a happy hour during the week from 4:30 p.m.
to 6:30 p.m., and on weekends from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., when they stopped
serving at 12 midnight. From 4:30 p.m. on, Anaheim Inn posted a sign they put
out and their desk clerks had to constantly patrol the parking lot. They had
adequate parking for their facility but not for Anthony's. They did get
people from Denny's, but their main problem was at night from 4 p.m. on. They
had a man on duty who patrolled the lot just for that particular problem and
when people were told they were not allowed to park there, they became very
irate since they had to go ail the way up Harbor and back down to valet park
at Anthony's. The valet parker instructed Anthony's patrons to park in the
Best Western lot if they did not want to valet park. It was a severe
problem. There were singles who frequented the happy hour from 9:30 p.m. to
257
City Hal.l., Ana~e!~,..Ca.!.if.ornia -. COUNCIL MINUTES.- March .20,..!984, 10:00 A.M.
11:30 p.m. and at midnight they met in the Anaheim Inn lot to see where they
were going to go from there. Their night auditor had to go and disperse
them. Anthony's sign was also on the Best Western property and by the time a
driver saw the sign, the next driveway was theirs (Anaheim Inn).
Regarding the issue relative to the variance, the Carousel and Desert Inn were
under construction to add on at present and if they approved Anthony's
request, both of those facilities would undoubtedly like the same. Best
Western could not accommodate enough people in their rooms just as Mr. Ravezzo
had to turn people away. The staff report to the Planning Commission stated
they had 134 existing parking spaces, but that was a combination of the Saga
Inn and Anthony's. It was supposed to be 147 per Code. Further, Thrifty
Rent-A-Car was on the property and she questioned where those cars would
park. The motel needed 84 spaces and with i34, that left only 50 for the
restaurant. There were also 18 restaurant employees as well as the employees
from the motel that needed parking spaces. If they were allowed the seating
for 75 more patrons, it would cause a greater problem. They were going to
have to employ someone full time in their parking lot to control their parking
which was an unfriendly situation.
Mr. Bill O'Connell, 1431 James Way, stated that Ms. Shad had covered the
matter. He felt that the whole issue was one of parking and the general
parking problem in the area with all the hotels, motels and restaurants on
Harbor Boulevard. What the gentleman was basically trying to do was to add on
to his restaurant in order to serve more patrons and he did not have enough
parking to do so. Mr. O'Connell also asked if there was an ordinance limiting
the serving of food outdoors, since their problems occurred after his motel
guests had gone to bed.
Ms. Santalahti answered that in order to have an outdoor function at ali they
needed a CUP, and they were notified of their illegal activity awhile ago.
They were not supposed to do any serving outdoors. When the information came
in, it must not have said anything about the outdoor serving of food because a
CUP would definitely have been required.
Mr. John Davis interjected and noted that Ms. Shad stated that Anthony's.~was
asking for an infringement of the 50-foot setback. He measured the Best
Western building himself from the curb and it was less than 50 feet, it was
approximately at 47 feet. Everyone from the opposition kept talking as though
the addition was an add-on. They had served out on the patio area since the
restaurant opened and the building plans clearly showed that the patio was to
be used for dining. Relative to parking, Weston Pringle, the engineer who did
the study was present today.
Mr. Weston Pringle, 2651 East Chapman, stated relative to the study made on
New Years's Eve, that the total parking between the restaurant and motel at
approximately 9:30 p.m. with the restaurant full at the time, there were 130
cars and one bus. There were 148 marked spaces for the restaurant and the
motel and with the valet parking the actual parking spaces could be increased
because of tandem parking, and other means of parking were also possible. At
that peak condition, there was more than adequate parking on site for the full
258
City Ha!l.,.Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20,...1984., 10:00 A.M.
restaurant. Relative to those individuals who did not want anyone to park
their cars, there needed to be some provision for parking of those vehicles.
They did provide for those vehicles to be parked up close in front and in a
relatively safe spot. From an analytical standpoint, there was adequate
parking. If patrons were parking in an adjacent facility, there could be two
reasons, the first being that they were missing the driveway for Anthony's,
and the second, they did not want valet parking. He felt those problems could
be resolved.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mr. Paliska stated that there were basically three problems (1) They were
trying to fill an existing use (2) Relative to the parking, there were four
areas where if the problems were resolved, it would be fine and according to
the City Traffic Engineer they had sufficient parking and Anthony's Pier II
would be willing to provide an attendant at the adjoining motel at their
expense to solve the problem and (3) They did have self-parking. They would
do whatever it would take within their power to make the situation work.
Councilman Overholt asked if he could get 147 spaces on the property; Mr.
Paliska answered that he could. Ms. Santalahti stated that the submitted
plans showed 134 spaces and 147 were required by Code but that those 147 be
available to everybody. If they wanted valet spaces, it could be accommodated
in connection with the variance.
Councilman Overholt did not feel there was sufficient parking; Mr. Paliska
disagreed and stated if they were granted a continuance, he could prove that
and they would also come back with an agreement for their neigbors.
Councilman Pickier stated he felt they were setting a precedent with the
proposal and that was of concern to him. Also, he could not see that they
were relieving the parking and traffic in the area by adding to it.
Councilman Overholt stated if they did not have any parking problems, then by
enclosing the patio area, they could solve a lot of problems with the
adjoining motel because of the noise. He felt the problem was the lack of
adequate parking.
Mr. Ravezzo stated he felt they had a point relative to the parking, but they
could overcome it. He was willing to spend a couple of hundred dollars a day
if they could keep his people from the adjacent property. He would pay
anything to save the parking situation by employing a person who would be
courteous, kind and take care of everybody.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Overholt 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.
259
City Hall, Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-114 for adoption denying
Variance No. 3372, the reasons being that the setback on Harbor Boulevard was
a crucial item and no matter what they called a glass enclosure, it would be a
wall fully enclosing the patio area. There was no way she could say that they
could deny the same to anybody else. There was enough overflow of people
walking on Harbor Boulevard now where it was difficult to find a space to
walk. It was a requirement for safety as well as everything else. The
setback was critical and the parking was also critical. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-114: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3372.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 3372 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - C0~Np~,ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2252 (READVERTISED):
ApPlication s~b~i~t'ed by Raymond Runo, (NEW YORK cARPETS), to amend certain
conditions of approval to permit a retail carpet sales facility on ML zoned
property located at 3035 La Mesa Avenue.
At its meeting of October 27, 1981, the City Council approved a Negative
Declaration status on the subject project.
The City Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 6, 1984, (see minutes
that date) recommended to the City Council that Condition No. 6 of City
Council Resolution No. 81R-494 be deleted since the business was being
operated at the current time in compliance with the conditions imposed, that
no problems had been reported, and on the basis that other uses had been
granted in that area without time limits.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Floyd Farano, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Attorney for the applicant,
stated he had nothing further to add.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled in reading the Planning Commission minutes it
was stated that requesting a two year extension of time each two years was a
definite hardship.
Mr. Farano answered "yes" it was a hardship. A two-year extension meant the
CUP was good for only one year and if for some reason there was a change on
the City Council or someone slipped up, the man would be continuing to operate
260
City Hall,.Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
an illegal operation, and he did not want to do that. They were probably
placing more of a burden on Mr. Silverberg than existed in the area. He
believed the two-year limitation was the only one that had that kind of
condition. There had been no complaints and Mr. Silverberg should be entitled
to the same kind of CUP as for everyone else.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-115 for adoption granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2252 readverttzed, deleting Condition No. 6, as
requested. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-115: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-494, DELETING CONDITION NO. 6 THEREOF
PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2252.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overhoit asked if they put a time
limitation on anyone else in that area.
Ms. Santalahti answered that she believed Mr. Farano was right and they
probably had not done so.
After additional questions posed to Mr. Farano by Councilman Overholt, a roll
call vote was taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-115 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-15A: In accordance with application
filed by Williamson R. V. Storage, public hearing was held on the proposed
abandonment of a former Southern California Edison Company electrical utility
easement acquired by the City, as successor, and portions of two public
utility easements dedicated to the City for electrical purposes located south
of La Palma Avenue, west of Grove Street. Pursuant to Resolution No. 84R-80
duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in
accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated February 8, 1984 was submitted recommending
approval of said Abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity fall, within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, Catergoically Exempt from the
requirement to file in EIR.
261
City .Hal!t' Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20~ .!984~ 10:00 A.M.
anticipated that over the next five years the City would invest over
~240,000,000 on capital needs in an effort to sustain and enhance a quality
living environment for the City's residents. He then briefed the areas where
the projected improvements would be directed and subsequently turned the
presentation over to Mr. John Anderson.
Mr. John Anderson, Associate Planner, first briefed the Planning Process
Summary covering Community Commitments/Goals, Base Studies/Needs Assessments,
Plans: General, Resource, Five Year CIP, Programs/Specific Plans,
Implementation, and Evaluation as well as the State Of The City Summary
(Section II) prepared as the basis for the development of the Five-Year plan
and the Capital Improvement Plan (Section III). Mr. Anderson's presentation
was supplemented by slides of several of the documents and tables contained in
the report.
Ms. Cindy Cave, Intergovernmental Relations Officer, briefed the Capital
Improvement Project Quarterly Status Report which was the tracking system for
the progam (last five pages of Section I).
Mr. Ruth then referred to the summary tables contained in the plan indicating
the total City-wide financial impacts briefed by Ms. Cave. He noted that for
the first time they had a very comprehensive feel of the condition of the
City, the State of the City, and identified viable projects that they felt
would continue to make the City a great community. Looking at the
uncertainties of fiscal resources downstream, staff had done an excellent job
of trying to identify where that financial package was going to come from to
support the Improvement Program. They had identified the plan as a workbook
and as the Council worked through it in their respective meetings and the
budget process, they hoped what they had done was to provide a working
document to stimulate interest, identify problem areas and to focus in on
where they thought the community was going to go and to provide a good
management tool for the City Council and staff to work the problems out
together. In concluding, Mr. Ruth then identified those staff members who
were involved in the process (see acknowledgement page in the plan) who had
done an outstanding job, culminating in the plan presented to the Council
today.
Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council, thanked the staff for the excellent
presentation and the extensive documentation and valuable data contained in
the plan. Relative to the State of the City, he questioned one of the
boundary issues, that being the possible annexation of the so called "Gaza
Strip", that area of County land located in the western part of the City as
well as others. He wanted to know if perhaps downstream the County would
force them into a position to take over those "islands".
City Manager Taliey answered that he believed the County's long range plan was
to eliminate all of those islands and to turn them over to local government.
The area surrounded by the City was a prime location that the County would
want to eliminate from their jurisdiction. First the County was not serving
that area adequately and secondly, it represented the kind of community that
needed increased public services. There were a lot of problems. For the City
263
Ci. ty' Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
to take on the burden, however, would be to take on a high financial exposure
without concomitant revenue streams. Those were major policy issues that the
Council had to decide. They had to ask the question if it was reasonable to
ask cities to take on and remedy situations created by other layers of
government. Another major problem was, if the Council want to proceed, he was
not at ail certain that the community itself would welcome the City with open
arms.
Mayor Roth stated that may have been true years ago but today there were a lot
of people unhappy with fire and police protection in those areas and they had
less advantages than the City. He looked at the situation as one of long
range consideration for the Council, but that they were not eager to accept
those islands without some financial arrangements with the County in order to
make the necessary improvements in those areas. That was a situation that
needed to be monitored.
Mr. Talley explained if the Council indicated their long range plan would be
to annex, they could study the area and come back to the Council with a plan.
It would include community dialogue and also a study on the infrastructure and
capital improvements that would be needed. If the Council thought it
worthwhile to move forward, they could then open dialogue with the County and
perhaps the County could do things in other areas of the City to assist the
City whereby they could make a trade-off. It was through a plan such as this
where the Council could address all the major problems.
Councilman Bay stated it was interesting to look at a five year plan. When he
looked at the trend from 63 million on a steady downward trend to 32 million,
it made him interested to know what occurred over the past five years. He
wanted to look back because if they studied history, they could perhaps avoid
repeating it. He wanted to know how the trends compared in looking at the last
five years as well.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated with Proposition 13 in i978, she wondered how
valid going back would be; Mayor Roth stated he would like to get numbers from
1978 showing the expenditures of the budget and also what monies were spent in
salaries and the whole "shot" from i978 to the present time and watch that
curve go up instead of down.
Councilman Bay felt that the plan was an excellent tool especially when they
had to start setting priorities.
Councilman Overholt asked what the format was going to be when they held the
workshop; Mr. Ruth answered that they encourage all Departments to give
narratives to the Council. The intent was to have a good workshop with
Department Heads.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the status of the legislation talking about a
two-thirds vote for general obligation bonds; Cindy Cave explained that was a
Constitutional Amendment being proposed and being scheduled for its full
hearing. It was presently in the Assembly.
264
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-116 for adoption approving
Abandonment No. 83-15A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION 84R-116: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
VACAING CERTAIN ELECTRICAL EASEMENTS LOCATED SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE AND WEST
OF GROVE STREET. (83-15A)
Roil Caii Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overhoit, Pickier and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-li6 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: By general consent the Council recessed into Closed
Session (3~'~ p.m,)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:19 p.m.)
112: GREER VS. CITY OF ANA~IEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City
Attorney and Ruston & Nance to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No.
30-94-87, Greer vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $15,000.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106: FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: City Manager William Talley
introduced the presentation to b'e made by staff on the subject plan. What the
Council was going to experience today was the starting of a process that had
been going on for months with City staff. They had before them a Five-Year
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) wisely labeled a workbook because what they
were going to see was a presentation giving an overview on what staff had
accomplished to date in looking at, for the next five years, nearly 1/4
billion dollars worth of expenditures. It was going to be a Council challenge
and pleasure not only to react to the plan and procedure that had been
established to date, but also they would subsequently have to make the
decisions on which projects and when. He then turned the presentation over to
staff.
Mr. James Ruth, Assistant City Manager, presented the City of Anaheim
Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal years 1984-85 through i988-89
(see, City of Anaheim Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan Workbook containing
the letter of transmittal explaining that the plan was a product of extensive
work undertaken by the Capital Improvement Task Force). He explained that the
plan was the conclusion of months of research, planning and coordination by
all operating Departments and provided for the Council a standardized City
wide approach for meeting capital improvement needs. While the plan document
identified needed capital improvements, as well as projected revenue sources
to fund those improvements, it also gave the Council a profile of the
community on which to base their immediate and future planning needs. They
262
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood wondered if a letter to Senator Seymour reminding him
that he said when he went to Sacramento his first order of business was going
to be to validate Anaheim's $10 million dollar Storm Drain Bond Issue, since
it received approval of over two-thirds of the electorate. If they could free
up that $10 million which would leverage to $15 or $20 million, all that money
would then be available for the other tremendous capital improvement needs
they had.
MAyor Roth, acknowledging Mr. Tom Leigler who was present in the Chambers
audience, noted that future plans included the enclosure of the patio area at
the Anaheim Hills Golf Course facility. He suggested that it also be sound
proof.
Mr. Ruth stated as the Council had time to review the document, if any
questions arose, he suggested that they write them down or call staff and they
would be glad to get a response in order to facilitate workshop sessions.
103: RECRUITMENT OF LAFCO PUBLIC MEMBER AND ALTERNATE PUBLIC MEMBER: Mayor
Roth referred to letter date'd March 8~"i984 f'rom Richard Turner, Executive
Officer of LAFCO, indicating that the agency was now accepting applications to
fill the unexpired term of its Public Member and a new four-year term of its
alternate Public Member. He suggested that the Council think of individuals
who might be good candidates for the positions noting that the deadline for
applications was April 13, 1984 with the appointment to be made on May 2, 1984.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:07 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
265