1984/05/15139
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUT.ES' ~ May 15, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
TP~FIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Alario
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Sister Rita Carroll, St. Anthony's Catholic Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION: Mayor Roth introduced Greta Hogue who was crowned the
¥9'84 Cinco de Mayo Queen at the recent Cinco de Mayo fiesta. He congratulated
Miss Hogue on behalf of the Council and City and presented her with red roses.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Fred Bercher,
General Manager of Delco Remy, who was accompanied by long time employees of
that company, Mary LeMar, Richard Haynie and A1 Wickmann. The Mayor and the
Council congratulated those present on the festive occasion of their 30 years
in the Anaheim business community and extended their best wishes for many more
years of prosperous business in Anaheim.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. Don Karcher,
Honoree and current Vice-President of the Orange County Chapter of the
American Red Cross where he has been a member since 1978. The resolution was
going to be presented to Mr. Karcher at the Orange County Spirit Award Dinner,
June 28, 1984 and commended him for his outstanding service to the Community
through his work with the Orange County Chapter of the American Red Cross.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Superintendent Gale
Pattison on the occasion of his retirement after 3.6 years of service to the
Orange Unified School District.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
493
!,40
City Hall~ Anahei,m,~, Californi.a - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
"American Legion Auxiliary Poppy Days" in Anaheim, May 18-19, 1984.
"Armed Forces Day" in Anaheim,.May 19, 1984.
'Cover Expo Days' in Anaheim, May 19-20, 1984.
"Public Works Week" in Anaheim, May 20-26, 1984.
'Police Week" in Anaheim, May 14-20, 1984.
Mrs. Evelyn Schooler, accompanied by Debbie Magana, accepted the Poppy Days
proclamation; Tony Van Dyke from the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center
accepted the Armed Forces Day proclamation; Art Daw, Acting City Engineer
accepted the Public Works Week proclamation; and Captain William Franklin
accepted the Police Week in Anaheim proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council and presented to the Japanese delegation present in the
Chamber audience from the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO). The
delegation, in turn, made presentations to the Council including a Certificate
of Appreciation in recognition of the Mayor's outstanding contribution in
helping to promote better trade relations between the United States and Japan.
The Mayor and the Council extended a sincere welcome to the guests from JETR0
and wished them continued success in their efforts to increase the trade
relations between the United States and Japan.
119: EXPRESSION OF THANKS: Mr. Joel Cuerena, Chairman of the Cinco de Mayo
fiesta thanked the City Council for their continuing support relative to the
fiesta noting that this year's fiesta (May 4 through 5, 1984) was one of the
largest. He especially thanked Councilman Bay who returned to the fiesta in
the evening to assist in presenting trophies.
Mr. Guerena, on behalf of the Anaheim Cruz Azul National Champions presented a
trophy to the City Council, engraved as follows; United States National
Amateur Southern California Championship , 83-84 and the Southern California
State Champions representing the City of Anaheim in 1984 and three time winner
of the Mayor's Cup Tournament for the City of Anaheim Cinco de Mayo fiesta.
The Mayor, on behalf of the Council expressed their appreciation for being so
honored.
119: PRESENTATION: Mrs. Sally White accompanied by Evelyn Foucher, President
of the Anaheim Arts Council and Ted Spriggs Jr., Associate Dean of Community
Relations at Fullerton College presented to Opal Kissinger, Supervisor of the
Mother Colony History Room, a video tape on the Civic Center Sculpture (City
Terrace) for the Central Library History Room.
Mrs. Kissinger accepted the tape and thanked the Arts Council for what would
be an asset and an assistance to those researching the origins of the Civic
Center Sculpture.
494
137
City Hal!, ,Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIN~. TES - May 1.5, 1984, 10:.0.0. A.M.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,394,260.44, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-174 through 84R-179, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Sharon Lillie Dietz for indemnity based on Superior
Court Case No. 399743, Donna A. Massaro vs. Sharon Ltllie Dietz, State of
California Department of Transportation and Does 1 to 100. Date of Service
was March 2, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Marie Murillo for personal injury damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of City employees at the Convention Center, on or
about January 13, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Richard Ybarra for monetary loss sustained
purportedly due to theft at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, on or about March
25, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by Michael Clark for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident caused by a malfunctioning traffic
signal at the intersection of Katella and Brookhurst, on or about January 15,
1984.
e. Claim submitted by Paul Swans for personal property damages sustained
purportedly due to an electrical surge at 1410 East Cortney Place, on or about
March 27, 1984.
f. An Amended Claim submitted by Mr. & Mrs. William Rogers for personal
property damages sustained purportedly due to an overloaded transformer at
1432 Blossom Lane, on or about November 27, 1983.
g. Claim submitted by Timothy Robert Pappas for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Policeman on Lincoln Avenue
west of Anaheim Boulevard, on or about April 19, 1984.
h. Claim submitted by Joseph William Thomas for personal property loss
sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police at the auction held at
Anaheim Police Station, on or about February 27, 1984.
495
138
City Rall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Project Area Committee--Minutes of March 13 and April 10, 1984.
b. 107: Planning Department, Building Division Report--Monthly Report
for April 1984.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of April 5, and May 3, 1984
(unapproved).
3. 123: Authorizing a fourth amendment to an agreement with Szabo Food
Service to increase the annual depreciation expense over the ten-year period
of amortization from ~150,000 to ~183,291 due to a cost overrun for certain
improvements in the new section of Anaheim Stadium.
4. 153: Receiving and filing the Affirmative Action Annual Report for the
calendar year 1983.
5. 153: Authorizing the Human Resources Department to solicit proposals from
firms interested in providing advertising services for Human Resources
Department recruitment efforts.
6. 137: Authorizing an agreement with Merrill Lynch, Financial Advisor in
the amount of ~25,700 and Jones Hall Hill & White, Bond Counsel in an amount
not to exceed $12,000 plus extraordinary delivery and messenger services not
to exceed ~300, as a Financing Team for the sale of Tax Anticipation Notes.
7. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-174: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE DIAMOND STREET/CARLETON STREET ALLEYS:
ILLINOIS STREET/CHESTNUT STREET ALLEYS ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 26-793-6325-E3740 AND 26-793-6325-E3750. (Dyno
Construction, Inc.)
8. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-175: 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: LAKEVIEW AVENUE/LA PALMA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 46-792-6325-E2850 and 11-790-6325-E0450. (Parrott &
Wright Construction Co., contractor)
9. 113/153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS 78R-491 AND 82R-453 RELATING TO DUTIES
OF THE CITY CLERK.
10. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING THE FORMATION AND GOALS OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
WATER POLICY COMMITTEE AND ENDORSING A COOPERATIVE EFFORT RELATIVE TO SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA'S WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
496
135
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 15~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
12. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-179: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
ANAHEIM AUTO CENTER, BALL ROAD AT ROUTE 57 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, GRADING AND
IMPORT BORROW, ACCOUNT NO. 01-933-6325. (opening of bids on May 31, 1984,
2:00 p.m.)
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. 84R-174 through 84R-179, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted. MOTION CARRIED.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT - HOLLYWOOD A-GO-GO: Application for Entertainment
Permit submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland, for Hollywood A-Go-Go, 508 So.
Knott Street, for girls dancing, from 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Councilman Pickler asked what the procedure was relative to the Alcoholic
Beverage Commission (ABC) review of a liquor license.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained if there was a violation of the ABC
rules, the City could protest to the Commission and request an investigation.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to deny the application for an entertainment
permit submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland, for Hollywood A-Go-Go, 508 South
Knott Street, for girls dancing, from 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. in accordance
with the recommendation of the Chief of Police. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
160: ACCEPTANCE OF BID FOR NETWORK POLYPHASE METERS: Recommendation to
accept the low bid of United Metering Inc., in the amount of ~51,124.22 for
seven hundred and sixty-eight Network Polyphase Meters, in accordance with Bid
No. 4097 was submitted in memorandum dated May 8, 1984 from the purchasing
agent.
Mr. Tom Kirker, Electrical System Design Supervisor, explained for the Mayor
that the subject meter was one used for a single phase 120, 208 volt service
for the apartment complex located on Brookhurst Street that was converting
from master metering to individual metering.
Mayor Roth questioned if they made a ~51,000 investment, other than the
reduction of overall usage, what the benefit would be to the City.
Mr. Kirker answered it would be the accuracy of the meter itself vs. the
master meter. The other benefits would be mostly to the tenants since,
because they would receive individual readings, there could be a decrease in
the consumption of energy they use.
497
,City Ha!l~ Anaheim~ C,alif,ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES, .- May 15.~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor stated it did not make any sense to him for the City to invest
$51,000 so that the landlord could make a conversion to individual meters.
appeared to him the charge should be mandated to the apartment owner rather
than the taxpayers. He wanted a better explanation.
City Manager William Talley suggested that the matter be trailed. His
impression, however, was that if a private complex went to the expense of
rewiring to accommodate individual meters, the City was obligated to buy the
meters.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to trail the matter to later in the meeting.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
It
Mayor Roth reiterated that the biggest advantage was to the landlord. The
~51,000 expenditure was of concern to him and would set a precedent with the
seven remaining complexes. He asked if the Public Utilities Board had looked
at the issue.
Mr. Alario answered that at the time the change was proposed, it was
considered by the Board.
After further discussion, Mr. Talley stated that the builder must pay for the
expense of conversion and the City paid for the meters. There were 768
receptacles waiting and a current policy required such a conversion;
Councilman Bay surmised that the City Manager was saying they did not have a
choice in the matter, and he agreed.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the low bid of United Metering,
in the amount of ~51,124.22 for seven hundred and sixty-eight Network
Polyphase Meters, in accordance with Bid No. 4097. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. Councilman Roth voted ~no'. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL REVISIONS: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on
memorandum dated May 15, 1984, from Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, a
participant in the Administrative Loan Program (ALP) responsible for the
proposed revisions. He also explained that inquiries had been received from
Councilwoman Kaywood and he understood there were further questions. Relative
498
Later in the meeting (approximately 12:15 p.m.) Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant
Public Utilities General Manager, explained that since June 1, 1979, the
Utilities Department had required separate meters on all types of residential
units whether multiple family or single family. At that time, there were
several master meters and the main move was towards conservation. Most
studies showed a 20 to 30 percent reduction in energy consumption when
converting to individual metering because the individual actually saw the
bill. The one and only advantage to such a conversion was that reduction in
consumption would reduce demand. That demand with the fee that was going into
effect in July where they would have to pay Edison approximately $14.50 per
kilowatt would save approximately ~1,700 per month. However, the City would
still spend the ~51,000 and increase meter reading time by approximately one
hour because there were 768 meters involved. Approximately seven complexes in
the City totaling 510 units are still on master meters that would yet be
coming in for similar conversions.
133
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COU.NCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 15~ 198.4, 10:00 A.M.
to the two proposed ordinances, one pertaining to the display of privately
owned art objects on City property and the other pertaining to zoning, those
could be introduced today without finally acting upon the motions relating to
deleting or amending Council policies.
Councilman Bay first commented on the fine job done by Mr. Singer and his
Committee which took a great deal of time and work; however, he was concerned
that the Council should not take the time now that he would feel necessary to
go over 27 policies for which he found no reason to delete. He would prefer
to continue to whole issue for a couple of weeks to get more general
information from the Committee as to why certain policies were recommended to
be deleted. He also read Councilwoman Kaywood's inquiries which included some
items on which he had questions.
Councilman Bay recommended that they continue any action on Council Policy
Manual Revisions for two weeks if that was sufficient time.
Before any action was taken, Paul Singer, Administrative Loan Program, stated
that he anticipated questions because of the intricate undertaking involved.
He appreciated receiving Councilwoman Kaywood's comments and if he could
receive Councilman Bay's comments as well as those from any other
Councilmember, he would be happy to respond to all concerns because it was the
Council's Policy Manual. The precept was if they could reduce the number of
policies, the remainder would be placed into more advantageous use.
Councilman Overholt asked if Councilwoman Kaywood's questions could be put in
writing for review by the other Council Members since they had received only
the responses; City Manager Talley stated he would provide the Council with
that information and would also ask that Mr. Singer provide the reason
wherever deletion of a policy was recommended.
It was determined that consideration of Council Policy Manual Revisions be
continued to May 29, 1984.
139: SB1509 (GREENE) - PUBLIC AGENCY SELF-INSURANCE OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated
May 14, 1984, from Risk Management recommending that the Council oppose
SB1509 and authorizing staff to transmit that position to the members of the
Senate Finance Committee. The Bill would require that by July, 1985,
Self-Insured Public Agencies be required to provide financial security for
their workers' compensation liabilities in the form of either a cash deposit,
securities, or a surety bond.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to support a position of opposition to SB1509
(Greene) as recommended by staff. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay requested that they send copies of their position to the League
of Cities to encourage the Orange County Chapter to join them in their
opposition although the time span was very short.
499
134
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - .COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15.~ 1984~. 10:00 A.M.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Appointment for
'the' term ending June 30, 1986, (Mr. Herb Leo')'. This matter was continued from
the meetings of April 17, 24 and May 1, 1984 (see minutes those dates).
Mayor Roth noted that at the last Council meeting, Councilman Bay nominated
Mr. Leo for appointment to the Redevelopment Commission and after some
discussion, it was again continued for full Council action.
Councilman Pickler wanted to know the reason for Mr. Leo's having to resign
from Commission in the first place.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he believed Mr. Leo submitted his resignation
based on the activities he was going to be engaging in having to do with his
new enterprise headquartered in the Chamber of Commerce building. There was
also a question regarding a leasehold he acquired. However, he had now
submitted another letter indicating he could participate. The law stated if a
person had a property interest in anything in the Redevelopment area, it
prohibited them from voting on anything in the context of that Redevelopment
area. After additional questions, Mr. Hopkins stated the difference at this
time was that Mr. Leo was out of the Redevelopment Commission and if
reappointed, it would not be acquiring the property interest but merely a
matter of his abstaining from voting on anything where an interest in his
particular activity was involved.
Mayor Roth gave as an analogy that in the middle 1960's he acquired property
at 1000 East Lincoln and at a later date the property was placed in the
Redevelopment area. When he was elected to the Council, he had to declare a
financial interest in a property that was in the Redevelopment area but as
long as he declared it, he was ok. The only thing he could not do was to
acquire the property while he was an official but it would not prohibit anyone
from having a leasehold.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that it was the acquiring of the interest in the
property that was prohibited.
Councilman Overholt explained the way they were headed, he was going to vote
"no#. He reiterated as he had previously the great admiration and affection
he had for Hr. Leo but the problem was that he had acquired an interest in
Project Alpha while he was a commissioner and the Health and Safety Code
(Section 3201) was very specific in stating that a Redevelopment Commissioner
shall not acquire an interest in property in a redevelopment project. Having
been so advised, Mr. Leo resigned. The Council had the power to reappoint Mr.
Leo but they were taking the position that once Mr. Leo resigned then it was a
new situation and he was now in the same position as Mayor Roth when he had
pre-existing ownership interest in Project Alpha and, therefore, the Council
could proceed and appoint him to a position. He had to vacate because the law
said he had to vacate it. To him, that was not political honesty.
Mayor Roth asked the City Attorney to clarify whether or not it would be an
illegal act if Mr. Leo was reappointed; City Attorney Hopkins stated that they
had reviewed the matter in considerable detail and had an opinion from special
Counsel that if Mr. Leo were reappointed, if there was no prior agreement or
5OO
131
.City .Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1.5~...198.4~ .10:00 A.M.
prior collusion to engage in such a reappointment, it would not be a violation
under the Health and Safety Code (Section 3201).
Councilman Overholt advised that he believed the Council had the power to
appoint, but he would not exercise that power to reappoint to a position that
Mr. Leo had to resign from because of the Health and Safety Code. The opinion
rendered did not delve into certain questions of circumstances because that
attorney was not asked to render a legal opinion on certain circumstances.
Mayor Roth stated to be sure their action would be impeccable, he was going to
ask that the matter be continued in order to get an additional amount of legal
Counsel on those items that Councilman Overholt felt were not clarified.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the appointment to the Community
Redevelopment Commission for one week and asked for an interpretation of that
particular area in the memorandum to them (attorney client privilege) where
there was supposedly an area that had not yet been defined. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was not clear on the
instruction given the City Attorney since they had a legal ruling already.
asked the City Attorney if he was clear on the matter.
He
City Attorney Hopkins stated they did have an opinion from special Counsel but
Councilman Overholt stated there were some grey areas. He would have to have
further details as to those areas so they could be submitted to special
Counsel and there might be other areas to be looked into.
Councilman Overholt also asked that he expand on the procedures set forth in
Government Code Section 3060, 3072 and 3074 mentioned in the opinion along
with the other information.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, clarified to be a minimum of
one week. MOTION CARRIED.
175: ALTERNATIVES FOR EDISON ELECTRIC RATE REFUND: Staff requested a
continuance of the matter to the meeting of May 22, 1984.
Mayor Roth stated that even though staff requested a one week continuance for
discussion of alternatives relative to the refund, Mr. Bill Erickson wanted to
address the Council.
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, read his letter dated May 15, 1984
(on file in the City Clerk's office), the essence of which was as follows:
That the interest derived from the refund at the outset be directed to needy
utility customers.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue a discussion of alternatives for
the Edison Electric Rate Refund to May 22, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
501
132
City ,Hal!r' Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15} 1984} 10:00 A.M.
129/127: PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON FIREWO~S: Councilwoman Kaywood again moved
that there be a one-year moratorium on fireworks this season through July 1984
on the sale and use of fireworks in the City due to the dry, hot, windy
weather and rainless winter, and in the interest of safety, air quality and
water conservation. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose
of discussion.
Before any action was taken, Councilman 0verholt stated he was not present at
the last meeting but read the newspaper accounts. He was not supportive of
the motion. He noted there was a lot going on in Sacramento relative to the
issue and further, if the community felt strongly about the issue, they should
get the requisite signatures to place it on the ballot. They had debated long
and hard in the past on the matter of fireworks and he did not intend to
debate it again at this time.
Councilman Bay stated that the State Senate had passed the bill that would
return local power to ban fireworks, but the Assembly had not acted.
Therefore, if the proposed motion passed, it would be illegal currently. He
asked the City Attorney for clarification.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the status of the law at present was that the
Court of Appeals, First District, on February 16, 1984, (Ventura vs. City of
San Jose) held that the regulation of fireworks by permitting the local bans
on use and discharge were permissible but in the field of retail sales, there
was a pre-emption by state law and, therefore, local ordinances or control
that cities would attempt to apply would be in conflict with the State
fireworks law and invalid. SB2333 (Roberti) had gone through the Senate and
was now in the Assembly. If passed, it would return the power to the Cities
to regulate the sale, but it had not been made law. It was their opinion
under the Court of Appeals holding that it would be illegal to have any ban on
the sale of safe and sane fireworks. The City would be empowered to ban the
use, but not the sale.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that putting the issue on the ballot was beside
the point. She was talking about this July, and if the question were to go on
the November ballot, it would not have the effect she was speaking of at this
time~ which was as a safety precaution.
City Attorney Hopkins then confirmed for Councilwoman Kay~ood that any action
by the Council that would attempt to ban the sale would be illegal under the
present holding. The Senate bill he referred to was an urgency bill and if it
were adopted by the Assembly, it could be in effect very quickly. However,
until and if it was adopted, it would be illegal to ban the sale.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted the irony in having the ability to ban the use but
not the sale.
Councilman Overholt stated there was very strong feeling in the community at
the time the majority of the Council chose not to put the question on the
ballot. He was part of that majority and would still be. The movement to put
the issue on the ballot was very germaine and he was wondering where that
interest was at this time. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the problem was in the
5O2
City Hall~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINU.~E.S...- May 15~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
need to get 15,000 signatures to place something on the ballot, and also
needed $500 cash as well as many people to do the leg work to accomplish
this. Citizens were disenchanted after someone.had brought in 7,000
signatures and the issue was still not placed on the ballot.
Councilman Pickler stated they had gone through the same weather situation
before. July was a dry month generally, and he did not think this year it was
going to be any dryer. Many different groups used the sale of fireworks as
their fund raiser. The situation had been kept under control for the past two
years and the Fire Department, Police Department and citizens had done a good
Job. Fireworks was something the citizens were entitled to, until, or if,
placed on the ballot and voted otherwise, in his opinion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they had no rain in the rainy season so it was an
entirely different situation than the last two years. If the Council did not
wish to take action on the ban, she recommended that they put the issue on the
November ballot.
The Council first voted on the motion on the floor which failed to carry by
the following vOte:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Pickler and Roth
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Councilman Bay stated he abstained because he did not know if the motion
passed and they could not ban the sale, how they could stop them from being
used in any case.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to place the issue of whether or not
Anaheim would allow the sale and use of fireworks in the future on the
November ballot. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he seconded the motion because
he always favored putting the question on the ballot to let the people decide
and his feeling had not changed. He never stated whether he was for or
against, and he would not do so, but supported the idea of the people being
able to choose relative to a ban on fireworks, based on the view that SB2333
would pass.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the
following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood and Bay
Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
503
130
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 15, 1984, ~0:00 A.M.
139: SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION "A" - THE FIFTEEN-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN:
Councilman Pickler moved that the Council go on record in support of
Proposition "A", the Fifteen-year Transportatio9 Plan, increasing the sales
tax in Orange County from 6 percent to ? percent to support the plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he felt they should support
the plan for many reasons among those, alleviation of traffic conggestion, the
positive environmental impact, savings in gasoline consumptions long range
benefits to the City in being able to maintain its roads, streets and arterial
highways, etc.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated the fact that Anaheim would be receiving
~13,151,000 over the fifteen-year period according to figures provided by the
Automobile Club (see minutes of May 8, 1984).
Mayor Roth stated it was a difficult decision to make. He considered
Proposition "A" to be a personal decision the individual had to make. His
personal philosophy generally was not one of increasing taxes but due to the
fact that he was an elected official of a City with 28 to 29 million visitors
a year, and realizing that transportation was one of the key economic
considerations for both the recreational and industrial areas of the City, the
scale tipped in favor of Proposition "A". He was concerned, however, that
even though it was a fifteen-year plan and that the one percent increase in
sales tax would be in effect for that period, that it would be very difficult
to drop at the end of that period.
Councilman Pickler stated he was not for taxes but felt the benefits
out-weighed the deficits; Councilwoman Kaywood also pointed out that the
millions of visitors would also be paying for the plan not only in Anaheim,
but also all of Orange County and that was one of the reasons why it would be
a broader based tax.
Councilman Bay stated he intended to abstain because at the outset, he said he
would always support putting a question on the ballot to let the people decide
but also stated that he did not intend to vote to support Proposition "A" nor
oppose it. His abstention was clearly not in favor of either side. He wanted
to leave it to the voters to choose whether they would tax themselves. He had
not supported a tax increase in his political history of being on the Council
and, therefore, could not support the subject increase. However, he also
understood the need and the long years of waiting for Cal Trans and the State
to do something and so he tended to lean toward recognizing the need.
Councilman Overholt stated he had been supportive of the concept since the
plan was originally developed with one exception and that was to fund it with
an increase in the sales tax. To him the sales tax was one of the most
discriminatory of taxes, but he had come to the conclusion it was the only way
to fund the plan. He felt it behooved the Council that if Proposition "A"
does carry, that they deputize themselves to ensure the plan was carried out,
and in fifteen years that they encourage an end to the one percent increase.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
5O4
Councilman Bay abstained.
127
City .Hall~ Anaheim~ Cal~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1984~ .10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC REQUEST - CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the
following items in accordance with the recommendation of the Zoning Division.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
1. 151: SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT NO. 82-183~ EXTENSION OF TIME: Authorizing a
three-month extension of time to the permit submitted by The William Lyon
Company, to allow the display of temporary flags and banners for Tract No.
11053 located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street, as
recommended by the Zoning Division, to expire August 18, 1984. MOTION CARRIED.
134: DATE AND TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 188:
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many units had been approved prior to the
proposed General Plan.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, stated that the current General Plan had
approval for approximately 920 dwelling units on the site. The Planning
Commission had approved up to 2,400 units.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated when the hearing was held, she wanted to know the
rationale for the increase.
Councilman Roth moved that the date and time for a public hearing on General
Plan Amendment No. 188, Land Use Element, be Tuesday, June 5, 1984 at 1:30
p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4495 - LIMITING ACCESSORY USES OF PROPERTY TO A SPECIFIC
PERCENTAGE: Mayor Roth reiterated his concern about locking the present and
future Councils into a specific percentage (also see minutes of the meeting of
May 1, 1984 where matter was discussed); Councilman Overholt stated he had
expressed the same concern and still agreed with the Mayor's position.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had asked last week whether if they
specified a percentage on each use that came up, what that incidental use
would be as they did with retail in the industrial area, no more than 25
percent - or with motels having kitchen units, no more than 25 percent, then
she would see no need for the proposed ordinance. She explained her request
had been made almost a year ago with regard to a mobilehome park that had as
an incidental use recreational vehicles up to 45 percent. Councilman Bay
expressed the same concern that one half was not incidental. She was
surprised when she saw the item in the Council Agenda Packet because it was
such a long time ago.
Mayor Roth asked if anybody wanted to offer the ordinance for adoption; since
no one wished to do so, he stated that the ordinance would then be withdrawn.
142/124: ORDINANCE NO. 4497: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4497 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4497: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION
7.04.030 OF CHAPTER 7.04 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
BOXING.
5O5
!25
Ci.t7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~a. 7 15~ 198,4~ 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4497 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4498: Pertaining to allowing private clubs, lodges,
fraternities and sororities in the Canyon Industrial zone, by conditional use
permit: City Clerk Leonora N. Sohl announced that the Council had received
letters since last week from the Industrial Development Board, Community
Redevelopment Commission and the Project Area Committee, all recommending
opposition to the proposed ordinance. They had not as yet heard from the
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Industrial Committee as to their position.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the ordinance.
Before action was taken, Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning,
explained for the Mayor that the proposal came out of a public request for a
private club in the northeast Canyon Industrial area and that was why it went
to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Roth stated he understood it was the Elks Lodge; Ms. Santalahti stated
she believed that was correct.
Mayor Roth stated he wondered whether they should give the matter more thought
since the Elks was an organization they should try to help and he understood
the lease was up in their present location.
Mr. Bob Crisentt, Realtor, explained he represented the people who owned the
property that the Elks were in the process of buying located across from the
North American Rockwell plant on Hiraloma, (the former La Cabana restaurant),
which had been closed for over a year. It made an ideal property for a lodge
and, further, use of the property at the present time was nonexistent.
City Manager Talley stated that Mr. Priest (Executive Director of Community
Development) was listening and he phoned him to state for clarification that
the Industrial Development Board~ Project Area Committee and Community
Redevelopment Commission were all aware it was the Elks Lodge when it was
considered.
Ms. Santalahti explained for the Mayor that unless the ordinance was adopted,
this activity would be permitted by Conditional Use Permit in any other
industrial area other than the Canyon Industrial area.
Councilman Bay stated that was the issue, in the Canyon Industrial area
precautionary measures were put in to control that area to preserve it for
Industrial Development as the City's industrial land base was shrinking. He
was in support of the motion to deny the change in order to help protect that
industrial area. It had nothing to do with whether or not he supported the
Elks Club.
5O6
City Hal.l., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15., 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion to deny adoption of the proposed
ordinance. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4499: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4499 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4499: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(66-67-61(104) C-R, South of Manchester, east of Harbor)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4499 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4500: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4500 for
first reading. -Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4500: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(83-84-20 RM-2400, 124 South Harding Drive)
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation and potential litigation with possible action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:29 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present (1:40 p.m.).
112: DENNIS ALLEN VS. CHATTANOOGA PHARMACEUTICAL CO.: Councilman Roth moved
to authorize the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs to settle
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 35-16-14, Dennis Allen vs. Chattanooga
Pharmaceutical Co., for an amount not less than ~15,O00 and to reject
defendant's offer to settle for $5,000. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: DISCUSSION - BILLBOARDS: Proposed ordinances amending Chapters 4.08,
18.05 and 3.20, pertaining to billboard regulations and annual business
license tax therefor. This matter was continued from the meetings of May 24,
July 19, October 18 and November 15, 1983 and April 10, 1984 - see minutes
those dates.
Staff recommended that the Council by motion approve an EIR negative
declaration status in conjunction with the draft ordinances if approved.
The Planning Commission at their meeting of April 2, 1984, recommended that
the Council deny the proposed draft ordinances and direct the staff to modify
5O7
126
Cit~ Hal,l} Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15.} 198,4,~, 10:00 A.M.
the draft ordinance pertaining to Chapter 3.20 establishing an annual business
license tax based on the square footage of billboard signage.
Mayor Roth stated that he had not seen any groundswell of support for the
proposed ordinance; Councilman Overholt noted that staff recommendations
covered both fee schedules and billboards.
The Mayor asked if anyone in the Chamber audience wished to testify in support
of the proposed ordinance; there being no response, he then asked for a show
of hands of those opposed. Approximately five people raised their hand, one
person wanting to know what the new ordinance encompassed.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, then briefed the major ramifications of
the proposed ordinance basically that it would open up a portion of Anaheim's
freeways zoned for commercial and industrial land use for outdoor advertising
signs where, at the present time, billboards on freeways were not allowed in
Anaheim.
Mayor Roth noted that there was no one in the audience to support the proposed
ordinance and, further, Regency Outdoor Advertising had also withdrawn their
support and they were one of the prime movers in making these recommendations.
Councilman Roth thereupon moved to receive and file the proposed ordinance and
attendant staff report (November 15, 1983 entitled Billboard Study Update) and
further clarified that the current and existing ordinance was still in effect
thus not allowing freeway billboards. Councilwoman Kay~ood seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth clarified that by their proposed action,
they were saying there was no change in the current billboard ordinance and
they were not opening up freeways to billboards.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Roth then broached the matter of fees that had been previously discussed
with the billboard companies; City Manager Talley explained it was his intent
when he submitted the Annual Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) in two weeks to
recommend to the Council that they look at a number of revenue sources and one
was the overall business licenses in the City. It had been 25 years since the
ordinance was changed relative to those licenses.
Mayor Roth stated he was looking at it from a different direction and Just
because the business license tax had not been raised since 1958, was not
justification for need.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated this was a fee and not a tax. At the time the
issue was broached relative to freeway billboards, to her recollection, all of
the companies that spoke agreed that the $100 per year per company regardless
of the number of boards they had in the City was out of line and should be
updated. There was no question that they need to look at that.
5O8
123
City Hal. ir .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not supportive of changing those business
license fees and he felt the whole ordinance should be taken together even
though two separate issues were involved.
City Manager Talley clarified for Councilman Pickler that he would be
recommending as a policy matter that the Council consider commissioning a
study on the business license fee structure, basically the fundamental
approach of how they did it at present and whether or not it was equitable.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned why the industry could not make their views
known at this time since their representatives were in the Chamber audience
today.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; Mr. Gus Bode, 726 North East
Street, briefly addressed the Council on a billboard he had in Lakewood.
There being no further persons who wished to speak to the matter, the Mayor
closed the public hearing.
By general consensus the Council agreed it would be appropriate during the
budget process to not only review the fees or taxes to the billboard industry,
but also any other fees being charged and to make recommendations.
103: PUBLIC HEARING - LA PALMA -RED GUM ANNEXATION: City of Anaheim, to
consider the annexation of approximately 47.31 acres of land located
northwest, northeast and south of the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Red
Gum Street in the Canyon Industrial Area. Submitted was a report from the
Planning Department dated May 7, 1984, recommending that the Council make a
finding regarding the value of written protest filed and not withdrawn and
taking appropriate action as specified in Government Code Section 35229
(Municipal Organization Act).
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mrs. Sam Yedlin stated she lived in Orange but she had a written protest to
submit. Mrs. Yedlin, thereupon, submitted a letter dated May 14, 1984, from
Mr. Harvey Owen, owner of property at 15572 Coronado Street in the County of
Orange protesting the annexation of his parcel to the City (made a part of the
record).
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, stated that the written
protest just submitted referenced Parcel 6 as identified on the posted map
which carried 9.28 percent of the total 100 percent of assessed valuation.
Mr. Fukyda, 15132 La Cresta, spoke registering his protest since his land is
primarily farm and that was the way it was going to stay for awhile. He did
not see any reason to be annexed to the City.
Mr. Fick explained that the City would permit the present use of the property
until the time of its development.
Mr. Fukyda stated the only change would be in his tax status; Mr. Fick
explained that the area was considered to be uninhabited because there were
less than 12 registered voters living in the area. Following Proposition 13,
5O9
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ Califor.nia.- COU.N.CIL MINUTES T May 15~ 1984~ 10:O.O A.M.
there was very little difference in tax status between the City of Anaheim and
the County of Orange. To his knowledge the only difference existing at all
was a very small fractional difference relative to the bonded indebtedness of
the City vs. any bonded indebtedness of the property located in the County of
Orange.
Mr. Fukyda asked if that meant 10 percent or 12 percent; Councilwoman Kaywood
stated that it would be under one percent.
Mr. Fukyda stated that this would be the third parcel the City annexed and his
experience had been a 10 or 12 percent increase in taxes or maybe more; Mr.
Fick reported the only way they could get the specific information for his
parcel would be to research Mr. Fukyda's tax records with the Finance
Department.
After additional questions posed by Mr. Fukyda, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
City Clerk Sohl. then clarified that two protests had been received, one
written and one verbal and the value of both protests did not exceed fifty
percent.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-180 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-180: A RESOLUTION OF T~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM MAKING A FINDING REGARDING THE VALUE OF WRITTEN PROTESTS FILED AND NOT
WITHDRAWN IN ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR LA PALMA-RED GUM ANNEXATION AND
ORDERING THE TERRITORY ANNEXED PURSUANT TO SECTION 35229 OF THE GOVERNMENT
CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
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. 84R-180 duly passed and adopted.
179: REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461: Application submitted by
Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to amend conditions of approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2461, to permit two 14-story, 200-foot high office complexes on
RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 300 West Katella Avenue.
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 was certified by the Council at their
meeting of January 24, 1984 as being in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, along with the statement of Overriding
Considerations.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-18, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 subject to certain conditions and the City
Council at their meeting of March 27, 1984, granted Conditional Use Permit No.
2461 subject to all City Planning Commission conditions including additional
510
121
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES ~.Ma.y .!5, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
conditions as stipulated in Resolution No. 84R-124 (see minutes March 27,
1984). A rehearing was requested by attorney for the applicant relating to
the imposition of certain conditions and the request for rehearing was granted
by the Council at their meeting of April 3, 1984, and public hearing scheduled
this date.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated May 1, 1984, had been received by
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney for the applicant requesting a continuance of the
public hearing to May 22, 1984.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Floyd L. Farano, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, stated that there had been
some developments which they hoped would be favorable and, therefore, they
would like to ask that the hearing now be postponed to June 5, 1984.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there was no response.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2461 to June 5, 1982, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2543 (READVERTISED) AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Project Anaheim, Anaheim Town
and Country Motel, to permit a 46-space recreational vehicle park in
conjunction with an existing motel on CL zoned property located at 2740 West
Lincoln Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Maximum structural
height, (b) minimum landscaped setback, (c) required site screening, (d)
maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution PC84-53, 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 Conditional Use
Permit No. 2543 subject to certain conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of April 24, 1984, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. San Jan Huang, 11372 Orange View Road, Santa Ana stated that they were
willing to accept all the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Pickler then expressed his concern over the deterioration of the
existing facility and next to that on west Lincoln was another RV park that
was also a "mess". He wanted something that was going to enhance the area and
he did not see how the proposed RV park was going to do that with the waivers
being requested. He was opposed to the proposed development.
511
122
City Hall~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -,Ha~ 15~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Huang then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he had owned the
property for three years.
Mr. Joe Kitashima, Architect, 1920 Katella Avenue, speaking to Councilman
Pickler's comments stated as far as the motel itself, he could not answer for
the owner regarding remodeling, repainting or relandscaping but personally
would like to see it done, and perhaps Mr. Huang would be amenable to
accepting an additional condition to that effect in the development of the
proposed project. The RV park itself would be in the rear of the property and
would be fully landscaped. They had accepted the condition of the eight-foot
high concrete block wall fence on the north property line. They intended to
fully landscape and irrigate that area in accordance with the Planning
Commission conditions.
Mr. Huang stated that they planned to remodel the 25 motel units if they
received approval on the RV park. However, if they did not develop the rear
piece of property, from an economic standpoint, they could not afford the
expense to remodel.
The Mayor asked-to hear from those who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition.
Mr. Garry Woods, 2726 West Lincoln, stated they lived adjacent to the proposed
RV park. He asked for information on the requested waivers.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, then explained what was
entailed in the four requested waivers.
Mr. Woods stated that relative to the eight-foot block wall, they wanted to be
sure it was measured by their ground height (the development) as their ground
height was three or four-feet higher than the neighbors.
Ms. Santalahti clarified that whichever side was the higher, that was the
point they would measure from. The wall for the first 144-feet would be
six-feet high and the remainder eight-feet.
Mr. Woods wanted to know if it was too late to ask for eight-feet for the
entire length.
Mayor Roth stated if the front portion was commercial and they limited that to
six-feet in the commercial section, and eight-feet in the back residential
portion if that would not satisfy Mr. Woods relative to his privacy.
Mr. Woods answered that he thought it would.
The Mayor asked Mr. Woods if they asked the applicant to stipulate that
approval of the RV park would be based upon the improvement of the front
portion, would he support it; Mr. Woods answered, "yes".
Mr. Dave Hardman stated he represented the adjacent property, the Ha'Penny Inn
(Village Inn Investors). He asked if there was going to be any effect to
512
119
Ci.t.~ Hall~..Ana.heim, California.- COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
either height or structural minimum setback facing Lincoln and also if the
wording of the resolution allowed them to proceed to do something during the
construction phase.
Ms. Santalahti answered "no" to both questions.
In answer to the Mayor, Mr. Hardman stated he would support the project with
the stipulation regarding his primary concern of the visual effect, i.e.,
being able to see his property if they had minimum setback.
Catherine Lively, 2726 West Lincoln, expressed her concern over the appearance
of the property at present and especially the fact that they had a fire on the
property and the evidence of the fire was still apparent and nothing had been
done to correct the situation. Further, her property was just a few feet from
the proposed RV park on the southeast side.
Mayor Roth stated that they were going to ask the property owner to clean up
the property in any case and would have a Code Enforcement officer sent to the
property if necessary to investigate.
Mayor Roth asked Mr. Kitashima if he had spoken with Mr. Huang relative to
putting a package together refurbishing the front buildings and landscaping as
a condition of approval of the RV park.
Mr. Kitashima stated he thought Mr. Huang had agreed to remodeling and
relandscaping the front concurrently with developing the RV park in the rear.
As far as the front elevation of the building, they would be willing to
resubmit to the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the construction
permit how they were going to handle the remodeling of the front of the
buildings in the landscaping.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler reiterated that he felt the proposal was going to create
more of an obstacle and hindrance to the area with the vehicles entering and
exiting. Guests could stay as long as 29 days and come back into the RV park
again. He did not see the need in that area. This would add to the
circulation problems already in existence. If they were going to add on to
the motel, the existing motel had to be improved before anything else was
done. He was not ready to approve an RV park in that area.
Mayor Roth stated if they denied the Conditional Use Permit there would only
be further deterioration of the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, 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.
513
Ctt7 Hall.~ Ap. aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Before any resolution was offered, Councilman Bay stated that they talked
about stipulations relative to refurbishing the existing buildings but thus
far he heard only some general statements. If the developer was saying they
would refurbish the existing buildings, he wanted to see specific
stipulations. Also the proposed RV park was for 46-spaces as a potential
maximum and he noted there was one comfort station with three toilets. He
wanted to know if they had standards within planning on RV parks because it
did not sound like adequate health measures to him for 46 vehicles.
Ms. Santalahti explained that they followed state regulations for RV parks.
She would have to check but as she recalled the number seemed low to her.
However, regardless of what the Council approved today, they would be required
to comply with the particular State regulations. In other words, State Codes
would have to be met or exceeded.
Councilman Bay asked if staff had any recommendations relative to
refurbishment stipulations; Ms. Santalahti recommended the following: That
prior to commencement of the activity or issuance of the building permit,
remodeling plans to improve the front of the existing motel buildings facing
Lincoln Avenue shall be submitted to the building division for approval. Said
improvements shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections
for the RV park. She also stated that the applicant should comment
specifically as to whether or not they were looking at painting the facade or
putting new fascia board on the building, etc. She pointed out that painting
did not require building permits.
Mayor Roth wanted a stipulation from the owner relative to what he was going
to do with regard to refurbishment and relandscaping.
Mr. Kitashima proposed that as far as remodeling or improvements to the front
of the building, that it be limited to non-structural. If they were required
to tear down a wall or something similar, that would be unreasonable. He
would like to submit to the Planning Commission a sketch with specific
materials and colors etc. for Planning Commission or Planning Department
approval.
Councilman Bay stated those should be submitted to Planning Department staff
and further pointed out that he wanted to make sure the developer understood
that the best chance of passage would be on a stipulation to specific upgrade,
both in landscaping and remodeling.
Hr. Kitashima stated that right now it was difficult to stipulate specifically
because he had not studied the situation. He would like to come back to
Council, but in the interim he wanted to draw some sketches and give specifics
as to what they intended to do, and then tie the whole matter into one
Conditional Use Permit.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2543 for one week to give an opportunity for the applicant to
submit precise plans and specifications relative to the upgrade of the
existing motel and the landscaping. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
514
City Hall, Anaheim~ Calif.o~n~a.- ~pUNC.IL MINUTES - MaN 1.5, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth asked that the Council receive that
information a few days in advance of the meeting in order to be able to get a
staff report as well rather than just submitting that data next Tuesday.
After further discussion with Mr. Kitashima relative to the time necessary to
prepare the plans and first submit them to the Planning Department, the Mayor
amended his motion as follows: That the public hearing on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2543 be continued to June 5, 1984, to give ample opportunity for
the plans and specifications to be submitted to the Planning Department and
subsequently to the Council.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:05 p.m)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:49 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:00 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
515