1984/05/22City B-!i~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
PRE SENT:
AB SENT:
PRE SENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and R°th
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Mark Logan
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTAND AUDIT MANAGER: Eon Rothchild
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend David Beadles, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
"National Tourism Week" in Anaheim, May 27-June 2, 1984.
"Senior Citizens Day" in Anaheim, May 26, 1984.
"Pest Control Month" in Anaheim, June 1984.
"Neighborhood Watch Month" in Anaheim, May 1984.
Bonnie Cook accepted the National Tourism proclamation; Jim Brinton accepted
the Senior Citizen's Day proclamation; Garry Sanders accepted the Pest Control
Month proclamation and Captain Randy Gaston accepted the Neighborhood Watch
Month proclamation.
119: PRESENTATIONS: Mr. Richard Curtiss, President of the Mother Colony
Household Inc., accompanied by Dixie Edwards, immediate Past President,-
presented a check for $498.24 from their orgainization to purchase 54 rolls of
microfilm for the Library History Room.
Mayor Roth accepted the check on behalf of the Library History Room and for
Elizabeth Schultz and Opal Kissinger who were present in the Chamber audience
and thanked the Mother Colony Household for their generous contribution.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appropriate said funds ($498.24) into
Account No. 01-173-6668. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
516
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
119: PRESENTATION: Mr. Chris Jarvi, Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Director, presented a Presidential Citation to the Council in the form of a
signed plaque by President Ronald Reagan commending the City's volunteer
program. The City's program ranked in the top four percent of the 2,000
submittals made nationwide. Mr. Jarvi then recognized those members of his
staff who assisted in formalizing the program.
Mayor Roth commended Hr. Jarvi and his staff on receiving such a prestigious
citation emphasizing it was just this kind of program that made Anaheim the
great city it was today.
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 all ordinances aha 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 $1,457,867.04, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: Om motion by Councilwoman
Kmywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-181 through 84R-186, 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 Donald D. Doepke for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to electrical power surge in alley behind homes on
600 and 700 blocks of South Claudina Street, on or about March 5, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by X-L Cleaners for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to power surge in the alley behind 630 South Anaheim
Boulevard, on or about March 5, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Carolyn McGee for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to condition of street on Orange Avenue,
approximately 100 yards east of Beach, on or about April 3, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by Elaine Roth for personal property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of City workers at 1346 ScarboroughLane, on or
about March 12 and 25, 1984.
517
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
e. Claim submitted by S. & P. Gulati for loss of civil rights sustained
purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Department at 130 West Katella,
on or about February 6, 1984.
Claim filed against the City and recommended to be allowed:
f. Claim submitted by Jean E. Denbo for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City at Chapparral
Park children's play area, on or about March 30, 1984.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. Community Services Board~Minutes of April 12, 1984.
b. Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of April 25, 1984.
c. Project Area Committee--Minutes of April 24, 1984.
d. Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of April 12, 1984.
e. Police Department--Monthly Report for March 1984 and First Quarter
Crime Analysis, 1984.
3. 175: Receiving and filing the Annual Consulting Engineer's Report to
Bondholders of Water Revenue Series 1971 Bonds - Fiscal Year 1982-83 dated
March 1984.
4. 139: Supporting AB 1732 (Costa) authorizing the Clean Water Bond Law of
1984 and authorizing the Mayor to communicate said support to the City's
legislative representatives.
5. 139: Supporting AB 2183 (O'Connell) authorizing the Safe Drinking Water
Bond Act of 1984 and authorizing the Mayor to communicate said support to the
City's legislative representatives.
6. 139: Opposing SB 1750 (Robbins) relating to recreational vehicle parks
and occupancy taxation and authorizing the Mayor to communicate said
opposition to the City's legislative representatives.
7. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
eight-month period ending February 29, 1984.
8. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the City of Placentia for installation
of a traffic signal at Placentia Avenue/La Jolla-Via Burton, at an estimated
cost of ~2,185 (25% of cost) for City share.
9. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Leighton and Associates, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $16,000, to perform engineering geology services at Olive
Hills Park.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Cunningham Company in an amount not to
exceed $19,697.54 for 2,389 feet of 15 KV URD Cable, 3-1/C triplexed, XLP
insulated, in accordance with Bid No. 4100.
518
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
11. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-181: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETF2~MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION AREANO. 3 STREET IMPROVEMENT: ROSE STREET-CYPRESS
STREET TO LINCOLN AVENUE; VINE STREET-CYPRESS STREET TO LINCOLN AVENUE;
CYPRESS STREET TO VINE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
46-793-6325-E3820. (opening of bids on June 21, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
12. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-182: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITRON STREET, LA PALMA AVENUE TO
NORTH STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, STREET, SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENT,
ACCOUNT NOS. 01-793-6325-E3730, 11-790-6325-E0460, and
51-606-6329-17380-34340. (Fecit Strata Construction, Inc., contractor)
13. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-183: 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: CENTRAL MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 72-721-6325. (J. A. Stewart Construction Co., Inc., contractor)
14. 153:' RESOLUTION NO. 84R-184: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED
TO THE ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION UNIT. (creating the classification of
Police Front Counter Operations D, 1573 A-E, effective April 6, 1984)
15. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-185: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED
TO THE ANAHEIM FIRE ASSOCIATION UNIT. (creating the classification of Fire
Training Aide A, 1315 P-E, effective May 18, 1984)
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-186: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-181 through 84R-186, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
139: SENATE BILLS 2246~ 2247 AND 2248 (SEYMOUR): City Manager William Talley
briefed joint memorandum dated May 14, 1984, from the Intergovernmental
Relations office and Police Department recommending support of the subject
bills and authorizing the Mayor to communicate that position to the City's
elected representatives in Sacramento.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested minor revisions to the sample letters to be
sent to the City's representative; Councilman Overholt questioned the "user
fee" aspect outlined in the fourth paragraph of the May 14, 1984 report.
519
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 22; 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mark Logan, Assistant City Attorney (Prosecution section), reported ~hat the
assessment would be in addition to any current penalty assessments and
calculated on the base fine. He then explained how the monies would be
disbursed concluding that the intent of the legislature was that it be used to
enhance criminal prosecution services which would represent a significant
portion of the City's budget for prosecutorial services.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Council support SB2246, SB2247
and SB2248 (Seymour) to reduce crime in California and authorizing the Mayor
to communicate said support to the City's legislative representatives.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: REORGANIZATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - MANAGEMENT SERVICES
DIVISION: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated May 15,
1984, from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae recommending
implementation of certain actions relative to the subject reorganization
effective May 18, 1984.
Councilman Bay stated it appeared to be quite a major reorganization and he
was never oppposed to such reorganizations particularly where it would save
money. He had a question, however, relative to the information contained in
the last paragraph of the May 15, 1984 report that there would be a savings of
$12,000 a year. He wanted to know if that was for the remaining months of the
current year.
City Manager Talley answered that it was $12,000 per year plus approximately
30 percent burden or $16,000 to $17,000.
Councilman Bay stated from the information they had been given, he could not
understand exactly the total organizational change and, further, he was not in
favor of changes that reduce two and one-half people representing only a
$12,000 savings. He felt the savings should be greater.
Mr. Talley explained that the reorganization had been worked on for over a
year by Utilities in concert with not only their consultant, but also
subsequently he requested a special study done by Sibson Associates. There
were a number of positions that were being compensated at higher rate, some at
an equal rate and one at a lower rate. The combination of the increased rates
offset much of the savings that might be expected. They were trying to reduce
the number of employees but that, in some cases, would require higher levels
of people.
Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, explained that the Utilities
Department had gone from 30.5 to 28 positions in that particular group. They
had transferred some responsibility and thus the net effect would not produce
the large savings they might like to see.
Mr. Talley also pointed out that in the Utilities Budget presentation, the
Council would see a reduction of 13 positions. The Utilities would be down a
net of 12 people but not in this particular work unit.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution 84R-187 and 84R-188 for adoption.
to Resolution Book.
520
Refer
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-187: 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.
(effective May 18, 1984)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-188: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-386 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (Creating
Job classes of Public Utilities Administration Service Manager, and Public
Utilities Financial Services Manager)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
0verholt, Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-187 and 84R-188, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4501 - NO PARKING ANY TIME RESTRICTIONS ON BR00KHURST
AND EUCLID STREETS NORTH TO SOUTH CITY LIMITS: Mayor Roth, noting that the
subject proposed Ordinance represented a vast undertaking, asked the Traffic
Engineer if the citizens involved had been notified of the proposed change.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that they had proceeded in a manner
similar to that employed on the La Palms Avenue parking restrictions plan. He
outlined the procedure followed which ensured that citizens were made aware of
the proposed parking changes and given opportunity for input. His Office had
tried on an individual basis to mitigate the impact of parking removal, and
only those cases that could not be handled administratively would be brought
to Council's attention.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4501 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4501: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190, SUBSECTIONS
14.32.190.020, 14.32.190.710, AND 14.32.190.410 AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS
14,32,190.020 AND 14.32.190.410 PERTAINING TO PARKING.
175: ALTERNATIVES FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) ELECTRIC RATE REFUND:
Authorizing the Public Utilities Director to distribute the $6.9 million
Southern California Edison Company refund directly to the electric customers
and also any additional refunds in the near future. This matter was continued
from the meeting of May 15, 1984 (see minutes that date).
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, stated that he had been trying to
create a fund to provide utility bill payments for the needy and he felt there
was a possible chance that monies could be taken from this refund to
accomplish this. He noted from the May 17, 1984 meeting of the Public
Utilities Board that it would cost approximately $75 to $100,000 to effect the
refund. Since they were expecting another refund, the two amounts should be
combined and one refund made. The last time they received a refund, he
521
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
received a check for $13.00, but some industries received as much as
$400,000. As reported in the Register, Anaheim has 25,000 people 60 years of
age or older and the number of those at or below poverty level was six
percent. He felt the suggestion he made at the previous meeting (see minutes
May 15, 1984) had fallen on deaf ears.
Councilman Bay explained that retaining refunds from SCE to the ratepayers in
the City, regardless of the percentage that went to industrial uses vs.
residential uses, that money did not belong to SCE or the City and it was not
the prerogative of the Council to choose to take that money. He also recalled
rulings from the City Attorney that, to create a fund for the needy, could not
be done legally.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt stated first that a single refund
should be made of whatever monies are received from Edison. At present, the
exact amount of the refund is not known. Pursuant to the order from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission another approximate $1,300,000 is due May
29, 1984, which would be combined with the ultimate refund from SCE. His
recommendation to the Public Utilities Board and the Council was that the
refund be made to utility customers.
After further discussion and questions between the Council and Mr. Hoyt, he
(Hoyt) confirmed that the intent was that the monies received through the
refunds, the $6.9 million already received and the approximate $1.3 million
expected to be received, would be refunded to customers but no specific time
or date had been set. His intent would be to come back to the Council after
knowing the exact amount and further advising the cost to produce a special
refund check or adding a credit to the billing. He was asking the Council
today to indicate its intent to make the refund to the customers rather than
using it to defer future rate increases. He estimated the refund would be
available in July or August.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that there was a proposed increase in rates
scheduled for August 1, 1984. She questioned whether that would make the City
look "foolish", i.e., giving a refund when they were raising the rates since
it appeared both would be occurring simultaneously.
Councilman Bay stated that he had no problem with Mr. Erickson's suggestion
that they attempt to combine the refunds but the issue today, as he saw it and
as recommended by the Public Utilities Board, was one of principle-that-the
Council was going to tell the Utilities Department it was their intent to
refund monies to the ratepayers. They had received the first refund of $6.9
million om April 13, 1984. If it was held until May, June, July or August,
the eventual refund combined with the expected additional refund should carry
the interest earned so that the rate payers would not only receive the refund,
but interest earned; Mr. Hoyt confirmed that was correct.
A brief discussion followed between Councilman 0verholt and City Attorney
Hopkins relative to the legality of using the monies to set up an account for
the needy which had been discussed and an opinion rendered at earlier
meetings. Councilman 0verholt surmised that the City Attorney was saying the
City would undoubtedly be faced with the same problems encountered in the past
when the matter was researched.
522
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to authorize the Public Utilities Department to
distribute the 36.9 million Southern California Edison Company Refund directly
to the electric customers, and also any additional refunds in the near future,
including the interest earned since receipt of the refund, less the cost of
distributing such refund; and that if not over a three month spread, that the
additional refund be combined in order to make one distribution. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4502 THROUGH 4507: City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the
Council on his memorandum of May 14, 1984, wherein he recommended adoption of
certain ordinances in order to provide Municipal Code Authority for the
enforcement of controls not now adequately covered by existing state or
Municipal Code provisions and which were necessary to address current and
anticipated problems associated with the 1984 S,,mmer Olympic Event in the
Anaheim area. The ordinances would also enable the City to recover certain
expenses involved in processing petitions filed by persons petitioning the
Municipal Court pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 4502 through 4507, both inclusive,
for first reading:
142/112: ORDINANCE NO. 4502: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING TITLE 1, CHAPTE~ 1.01, SECTION 1.01.380 TO THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY COSTS IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL
ACTIONS.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 4503: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 6.52.020 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 4504: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 7.16.130 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 4505: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.28, SECTION 7.28.030 AND 7.28.040, AND
ADDING A NEW TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.28, SECTION 7.28.030 TO THE A/qAHEIMMUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO HOTEL AND MOTEL LOITERING.
142/101: ORDINANCE NO. 4506: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ANAHEIM
ADDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 11.04 SECTION 11.04.070 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO TRESPASSING AT THE ANAHEIM STADIUM.
142/101/124: ORDINANCE NO. 4507: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 11.04.080 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO PUBLIC PROPERTY.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Appointment to the
Community Redevelopment Commission for the term ending June 30, 1986 (Mr. Herb
Leo nominated). This matter was continued from the meetings of April 17 and
24, May 1 and 15, 1984 (see m~nutes those dates).
523
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt noted that the matter was continued in order to receive
further legal opinion. He wanted to know if that opinion was available.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that he called Special Counsel yesterday to
request an updated report. He was informed this morning that it was on the
way but it had not arrived as yet. He expected it to arrive sometime today.
Mayor Roth suggested that the item be trailed until later in the meeting.
Councilman Overholt moved that the matter be continued for one week and
subsequently amended to two weeks since the Mayor would not be present at the
next meeting.
Before any action was taken, the Mayor stated he did not see any reason to
delay action for another week if the Council received the requested legal
opinion today.
After a brief discussion, it was determined that the matter would be trailed
until later in the day and if the opinion was not received, the Council could
then act on the motion of continuance.
Later in Zhe meeting (4:47 p.m.), Councilman Roth moved to continue the
appointment to the Community Redevelopment Commission for the term ending June
30, 1986 (Mr. Leo) to June 5, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - HOLLYWOOD A-GO-GO: Affidavit of Merit in
support of a request for a rehearing submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland in
connection with the denial of an Entertainment Permit Application for
Hollywood A-Go-Go, 508 So. Knott Street, at the Council meeting of May 15,
1984.
Mr. Wayne Copeland, 2902 West Ball Road, stated he was requesting a new
hearing on the denial of the subject permit. He was unable to attend the
meeting of May 15, 1984, when the permit was denied because of an emergency
illness. Since that time, he had retained Counsel who was not able to be
present today because of a prior commitment. If he could have another hearing
in four weeks, he would be ready to rebut the denial.
Mayor Roth noted that in the affidavit, Mr. Copeland was charging collusion,
but he was not explicit; Mr. Copeland stated he would prefer to leave that to
his Counsel.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to deny the request for a rehearing without
preju6ice to Mr. Copeland's Counsel to request another hearing. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, discussion took place between Councilman Overholt and
City Attorney Hopkins relative to the timeliness of the request for a
rehearing which was within five days of Council's action; wherein the City
Attorney advised that the matter could be continued. Councilman 0verholt
stated he was willing to continue the request for a rehearing at which time
the Council would deal with the request.
524
City ~s11~ ~-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler wanted to know the reason for granting a rehearing.
Copeland was not ready to speak to the issues listed in his affidavit
requesting the rehearing, he saw no reason to grant that request.
If Mr.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the request for a rehearing on
the denial of an Entertainment Permit application for Hollywood A-Go-Go, 508
So. Knott Street, to June 5, 1984. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Pickler voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM THE MEETING OF APRIL 30~ 1984--ITEM NOS. 2
THROUGH 11: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their regular meeting held April 30, 1984, pertaining to the following
applications were submitted for City Council information.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2561: Submitted by Lemon Associates, to
permit retail sales of candy on ML zoned property located at 75 East
Orangethorpe Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-76, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2561, and granted a negative declaration status.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2568: Submitted by Peggy Layme Falkenberg,
ET AL, to permit a private educational institution (Telephone Technology
School) on CH zoned property located at 1101 South Anaheim Boulevard, with
Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-78, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2568, and granted a negative declaration status.
179: VARIANCE NO. 3390: Submitted by General American Life Insurance Co., to
construct a 6-story office building on ML zoned property located at 2401 East
Katella Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-80, granted,
part, Variance No. 3390, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination, Class 5.
in
179: VARIANCE NO. 3392: Submitted by Howard W. and Leslie J. Atwell, to
construct a room addi~fon to a single-family residence on RS-5000 zoned
property located 1917 Sundown Lane, with Code waiver of maximum lot coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-81, granted, in
part, Variance No. 3392, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination, Class 5.
179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 3395: Submitted by
Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to
RS-5,000(SC), to construct a 25-1ot (plus 3 open space lots) subdivision on
property located on the southeast side of Imperial Highway, south of Nohl
Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-83 and PC84-84,
granted Reclassification No. 83-84-27 and Variance No. 3395. EIR NO. 224 was
certified January 29, 1979.
525
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1812 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by
Robert N. Reddin, (Marquis Cocktail Lounge), requesting an extension of time
to Conditional Use Permit No. 1812, to permit expansion of an existing
cocktail lounge and dance hall on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1203 West
Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1812, to expire April 10, 1985.
179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-31 AND VARIANCE NO. 3141: Submitted by
Robert Fuller, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No.
79-80-31 and Variance No. 3141, proposed ML zoning, to permit an industrial
complex on property located at the southeast corner of Frontera Street and
Glassell Street, with Code waivers of required lot frontage and minimum
landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 79-80-31 and Variance No. 3141, to expire April 7, 1985.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2567: Submitted by Apollo Inn, to permit the
on-sale of alcoholic beverages in an existing motel on C-R zoned property
located at 1741 So. West Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-77, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2567, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she read the documentation on the subject but did
not see the need. The Apollo was requesting a stand-up bar in the motel with
no food to be served. She was concerned over the precedent that would be set.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that applicant had
received approval at another location in Anaheim for a similar use. They
wanted to provide their customers the opportunity to purchase on-sale
alcoholic beverages.
Councilman Overholt felt knowing the specifics might satisfy Councilwoman
Kaywood and avoid a public hearing. He wanted to know what other locations
have the same use; Ms. Santalahti stated she believed it was at the Inn of
Tomorrow on Katella Avenue. The proposal was made and approved over a year
ago and since that time, staff had received no commentary one way or the
other. She would, however, check with enforcement. The use was similar with
no food provided and no advertising that there were on-sale alcoholic
beverages available.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that there was nothing in the minutes or on
the agenda to indicate why they wanted the use and she felt it was something
she needed to know. She was interested in knowing if staff had a report on
the existing use, if it was actually identical, whether there had any been any
problems and ti there was information the Council could receive today.
Mayor Roth suggested that the matter be set for a public hearing or that no
action be t~ken; Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning
Commission's decision on Conditional Use Permit No. 2567 and, therefore, a
public hearing would be held at a later date.
526
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2566: Submitted by Miller Street Limited
Partnership, to permit a non-ferrous recycling facility on ML zoned property
located at 1401 North Miller Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-79, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2566, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the letter the Council received dated May 1,
1984, from Theodore and Gloria Baraglia (made a part of the record), raised
some disturbing questions. The existing fence belonged to the neighbors and
it was not on the subject property. Shew anted to know if staff had
investigated.
Ms. Santalahti answered that the fence requirement simply stated that the
property be enclosed with a wood slatted fence. If the applicant could not
get permission from the neighbor to place that slatting in that fence, he was
going to have to build his own fence.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that there were enough signatures on the petition
attached to the May 1, 1984 letter to Justify a public hearing. She,
therefore, requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2566 and a public hearing would be scheduled at a
later date.
179: VARIANCE NO. 3394: Submitted by Pei-Chung Chao and Rosana Hsu Chao,
(Emerald of Anaheim Hotel), to construct a non-illuminated roof sign on C-R
zoned property located at 1717 So. West Street, with Code waivers of permitted
location of roof sign and minimum distance between signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-82, granted, in
part, Variance No. 3394, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination, Class 11.
Councilman Pickler noted that the subject Variance listed on the agenda
referred to an item to be discussed later in the meeting (public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2324). He asked for clarification relative to
their action.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Planning Commission action would be final
if the Council took no action.
Ms. Santalahti explained if the Council did not act on the Variance, the
Planning Commission's action would stand but one of the conditions was that
the public hearing to be held later in the meeting be acted on approving the
modification of the previous resolution. The developer would never be able to
take advantage of the Variance if the Council did not act favorably.
The Council took no action on Variance No. 3394 at this time.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2324: Submitted by Emerald of Anaheim Hotel,
requesting deletion or modification of Resolution No. 82R-385, Condition No.
11, of Conditional Use Permit No. 2324, to permit a 15-story, 139-1/2 foot
high, 500 room hotel with accessory uses, with Code waiver of minimum parking
spaces on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1701 So. West Street.
527
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit was recommended by the Planning
Commission. The matter was scheduled to be discussed at the public hearing
section of the meeting at which time the Council was expected to take action
on the subject Conditional Use Permit.
The Council took no action on Conditional Use Permit No. 2324 at this time.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 195: To consider an amendment to the Housing
Element of the General Plan, to update housing needs, goals, policies, plans
and programs city-wide.
Approval of the General Plan Amendment was recommended by the Planning
Commission at their meeting of April 30, 1984, pursuant to Resolution No.
PC84-86.
City Clerk Leonora N. Sohl announced that a Mrs. Hollis had requested to speak
to the matter.
Mrs. Nancy Hollis, 1715 South Nutwood, stated one of their concerns was trying
to determine where the empty land fields were and also to request a night
meeting so that more people could attend. She also had a number of questions
relative to the Amendment to the Housing Plan.
Mayor Roth suggested that Mrs. Hollis list her questions and discuss those
with staff in the meantime since they seemed to be of a technical nature which
would facilitate matters when the public hearing was held.
After further discussion and questions posed to Mrs. Hollis by Council Members
relative to the plan, the time to hold the meeting was discussed. Councilman
Pickler suggested that it be at 5:00 p.m. which would coincide with the end of
the budget hearing on June 19, 1984.
After further discussion, Councilman Bay moved that the date and time for a
public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 195 be set for Tuesday, June 19,
1984, at 7:00 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman
Pickler voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4500: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4500 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4500: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(83-84-20, RM-2400, 124 Sottarding Drive)
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. 4500 duly passed and adopted.
ADDRESSES ON BUSINESSES AND HOMES: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that when
she attended the Police Department open house last week, a suggestion was made
by one of the helicopter pilots that more addresses be placed on roof tops of
528
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
businesses and homes noting that they would not be visible other than from the
air. She then reiterated her concern and recommendation that addresses be
visible on the front of homes and businesses and also on curbs if possible.
There were many blocks in Anaheim where the corner sign could not be seen or
where it was not possible to determine the numbers which undoubtedly caused
difficulty for emergency vehicles. She asked again to see if something could
be done in that regard but without forcing people to do it.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss a personnel matter with action anticipated and also to discuss
potential and current litigation. The City Attorney requested a Closed
Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action
anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:47 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:40 p.m.)
123/153: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND GARY JOHNSONANDAPPROVING
MONTHLY AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE: Councilman Roth moved to approve an agreement
between t4e City of Anaheim and Gary Johnson, the new City Engineer and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement with
appointment effective June 18, 1984. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve a monthly automobile allowance in the
amount of ~225 ($103.85 biweekly) for the new City Engineer, Gary Johnson,
effective June 18, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428: Application submitted
by Larry R. Smith, to permit a billboard on CL zoned property located on the
north side of Ball Road, west of Knott Street, with the following Code
waivers: a. maximum display area, (b) maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-63, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no si~nificant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact; and further
denied, Conditional Use Permit No. 2428.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Foster and Kleiser,
agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of May 10,
June 7, July 26 and November 22, 1983 and February 21 and April 17, 1984, to
this date.
529
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Rob Verman, Foster and Kleiser, 1550 West Washington, Los Angeles, stated
he wanted to point out some changes. At the last meeting, he mentioned that
they would remove one of their structures. There were eight signs presently
at the subject intersection, they would be removing one and had made
arrangements with Independent Outdoor advertising to remove one of their signs
on the northwest corner next to the proposed si~n. His company had removed
eight other si~n structures in the City and replaced them with two or three
with a net loss of approximately six signs. He confirmed for the Mayor that
they were goin~ to remove two signs, one on the southeast corner of Knott
Avenue and Ball Road and the other at the northwest corner, the Independent
Outdoor advertising sign, if they received approval of the sign they were
requesting today. There would then be seven signs total at that corner.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Verman if there was any way the applicant could
install another sign on the southeast corner.
Mr. Verman answered his company would not do so and he spoke to Independent
and Gannett and they would not do so. There was a strip of land that could
possibly accommodate a sign but there was no mention by other companies of
wanting tQ construct a sign at that location. Their company intended to
further secure the location by leasing the railroad property to the south to
be certain there would be no other sign on the property.
Councilman Pickler posed questions to staff relative to assuring that there
would only be seven signs at the corner; during the discussion that followed,
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, concluded if the Council
approved the Conditional Use Permit that it be approved with a time period
that was at most the length of the lease over which Foster and Kleiser had the
rights. That was with reference to the two specific signs to be removed.
There could perhaps, be a simpler way by saying, if another signwas sought
and acquired for the other locations, that the subject sign would come down.
Mr. Verman stated that he would agree that no other sign would replace the
Independent Outdoor sign on that property, but he could not guarantee or had
no control over the Union 76 station on the northwest corner as to what they
might do.
After further discussion with staff, Councilman Bay stated the key to the
issue was showing proof of evidence that Independent Outdoor was going to
remove their sign from the northwest corner. He did not believe it would be
necessarily fair to Foster and Kleiser to commit to no second sign on the
southeast corner other than the property over which they had leasing rights.
Ms. Santalahti agreed but her thinking was that they were proposing a 672
square foot billboard which was more than the area allowed. Part of the
rationale relative to what Mr. Verman proposed had to do with the amount of
the billboard space at the intersection. If he was willing to commit to
removing the sign if the eighth sign was installed under someone else's
Jurisdiction that would be fine. His argument, however, was that he would
have only seven. That was why she made her su~estion. He would have no
control, but when the eighth sign came in, under what she was proposing, he
530
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
would be committing to removing the 672 square foot sign but it could be
replaced with a 300 square foot sign.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted Mrs. Keeter was present. Mrs. Keeter owned the
service station on that corner and had removed two signs because of the
aesthetics. If she had left those in place, no one else would have any rights
on that corner.
Mr. Verman then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood as he had done previously,
that he would not be looking for any kind of monetary replacement and if the
property was redeveloped, they would take their signs down. If it developed
within a year, the signs would be taken down at that time.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Joyce M. Keeter, 716 South Kenmore, stated she heard Mr. Verman promise,
but she was sure he could not speak for another company; Mayor Roth stated he
would not get his permit to construct the sign until the other sign was
removed. There would be an agreement and it would be a part of the
stipulations.
Mrs. Keeter asked if she could be assured that the 48-foot long sign that
could ris~ as high as 42-feet would be removed if the empty piece of ground
was developed; Mayor Roth stated that would be added to the stipulations if
the request received a majority vote.
Mrs. Keeter felt that the sign was entirely too large for the area and
something on the southeast corner was not necessarily going to help a great
deal on her corner (northwest). She then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood
that the two signs she had removed were the same size as the ones on the
corner at present. She was receiving revenue for the signs when she had them
removed. As part of her new lease, she stated the signs must be removed
because that area needed help. She did not want something on the property
that would be a detriment and that was her reason for removing the signs.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Verman if he would have an objection to having
a sign within the allowed height and size instead of one that was more than
twice what was permitted; Mr. Verman answered that they would not be willing
to do that.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT KEPOKT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general
commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No.
2428 upholding the decision of the Pl~n~ing Commission.
531
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Before action was taken, Mayor Roth stated he was going to vote against the
denial. He felt that after many months and continuances of the matter, that
Mrs. Keeter's needs had been covered particularly relative to the stipulations
by Hr. Verman that two signs would be removed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mrs. Keeter if she was approving or opposing the
request; Mrs. Keeter answered that she was not approving and preferred that it
not be done.
Councilman Bay stated he needed clarification on the stipulations which he
understood would be as follows: (1) removal of the Independent Outdoor
advertising sign on the northwest corner; (2) removal of the Foster and
Kleiser sign on the southeast corner and no replacement by them for the term
of the lease on that property and, (3) stipulation to the removal of the
subject sign if the property was developed. He asked Mr. Verman if he agreed;
from the audience, Mr. Verman gave his agreement.
Councilman Overholt then asked if there were provisions on the lease on the
southeast corner for renewal or extension of the lease term; Mr. Verman
answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt asked if the stipulation prohibiting the building of a
second sign on the southeast corner would extend to any extensions or removal
of the lease because, in essence, Foster and Kleiser could terminate the lease
and write a new one and build a second sign. He asked the term of the
existing lease.
Mr. Verman stated he was not sure, but he thought it was four, five or six
years; Councilman Overholt suggested that it would be clearer if they stated
five years.
A vote was then taken on the Resolution of Denial which failed to carry by the
following vote.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood
Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
None.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-189 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2428 reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission and subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to issuance of a permit to construct subject billboard,
the following conditions shall be complied with:
(a) The existing billboard located on this corner on the Ball Road
frontage shall be removed;
(b) The existing "Foster and Kleiser" billboard located on the
southeast corner of Ball Road and Knott Street shall be removed; and
532
City Hall, Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
(c) An agreement shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office
for review and approval, agreeing that the billboard identified in (b) above,
shall not be replaced to the extent that Foster and Kleiser has control of
such property by its lease for said location.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
3. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No.
2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
4. That this conditional use permit is granted for a period of five (5)
years from the date hereof at which time it is terminated and upon or prior to
such date of termination said billboard shall be removed at no cost to the
City.
179: tLESOLUTON NO. 84R-189: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
'COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBE~S:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-189 duly passed and adopted.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2438 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: La Palma Business Park, to permit a billboard on }fL zoned
property located at the northeast corner of White Star Avenue and Armando
Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum display area, (b)
maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-95, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration~ since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2438.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Robert D. Mickelson,
Agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of June 7
and July 26 and November 22, 1983 and February 21 and April 17, 1984, to this
date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent; there was no
response.
533
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Staff clarified that they had not heard from tha applicant or his agent;
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they may have presumed since the Council did not
change the ordinance to allow freeway billboards that there was no point in
attending the hearing.
Councilman Overholt asked if the applicant could ask for a rehearing; Ms.
Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answered that the applicant would
have to request such a rehearing within the next week.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general
industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-190 for adoption denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2438 upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
179: RESOLUTON NO. 84R-190: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2438.
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-190 duly passed and adopted.
174: ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSED USE HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING
FUNDS: To consider proposed administrative uses of $4,435,449 in Federal
General Revenue Sharing funds for the Fiscal Year 1984/85.
Mr. Ronald Rothschild, Program Development and Audit Manager, briefed the
Council on the May 22, 1984 report - Federal General Revenue Sharing - Public
Hearing -Anaheim City Council Chambers - 1:30 p.m. May, 22, 1984,
specifically the 19 Capital Improvement projects and equipment programs for
which the Federal General Revenue Sharing receipts for the ensuing fiscal year
were intended to be dedicated in the amount of $4,435,449 (report on file in
the City Clerk's office). Pages 5 and 6 of the report contained a brief
explanation relative to each of the 19 items to which funds were proposed to
be dedicated.
At the conclusion of Mr. Rothschild's presentation, Councilman Bay asked
relative to Item No. 8, Street Reconstruction Projects, how much of the
$937,000 was for the Katella Avenue area improvement; Mr. Rothschild answered,
$500,000.
534
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed uses of Federal
General Revenue Sharing Funds for fiscal year 1984/85; there being no
response, the Administrative Proposed Use Hearing on Federal General Revenue
Sharing Funds, having been held as required, was closed with final disposition
of the funds to be determined at subsequent Council budget hearings.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-16A: In accordance with application
filed by Rose Properties, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
an existing easement for public utility purposes located on the south side of
Santa Ana Street, west of Rose Street pursuant to Resolution No. 84R-155 duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated April 5, 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
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-191 for adoption approving
Abandonment No. 83-16A. Refer to Resolution Book.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-191: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF SANTA ANA STREET, WEST OF ROSE STREET. (83-16A)
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-191 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3387 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application submitted by Norman P. and Barbara S. Gluth and Iriam J. Landsman,
to retain an illegal apartment unit on KM-1200 zoned property located at 1777
West Glencrest Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum site area
per dwelling unit, (b) minimum floor area per dwelling unit, (c) minimum
number and type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-59, approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, amd 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 mn the environment, and further, granted Variance
No. 3387, subject to the following conditions:
535
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 through 3.
2. That the existing conversion shall be brought up to the minimum
standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Housing,
Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of
Anaheim.
3. That this variance shall automatically expire upon the conveyance of
ownership of the subject property by the owner thereof at any time following
the effective date of this variance; that the owner of subject property shall
execute and record a covenant on subject property within sixty (60) days of
the effective date of this variance requiring that the illegal apartment unit
will be converted back into a garage in conformance with the original plans
approved for subject apartment complex when the property is sold. Said
covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation
at the Orange County Recorder's Office and proof of said recordation shall be
provided to the Planning Department.
4. That all of the above-mentioned Conditions shall be complied with
prior to final Building and Zoning inspections or within a period of sixty
(60) days' from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Norman Gluth stated he was one of the owners and petitioners and he
appealed on the basis of a misunderstanding. There was a condition imposed
which he thought was an imposition placed on them by the Planning Commission
which in the minutes appeared as a stipulation. He did not so stipulate and
instead indicated that he would have to consider the matter as to whether or
not he would make an appeal. He did appeal because he found the condition
unacceptable. He was referring to the condition that the unit be reconverted
if and when the property was sold, Condition No. 3. He felt it was an
unreasonable thing to ask and was asking that the variance be granted without
that stipulation since it would cause an unreasonable financial hardship on
the owners and there were other properties in the area where variances had
been granted without such a stipulation.
Ms. Santalahti explained for the Mayor that, along with being an illegally
converted garage, it meant the reduction of parking space. The unit was also
undersized and increased the density over what Code allowed. The Commission's
feeling was that the applicant had purchased the property knowing that the
unit was there.
Mr. Gluth stated that the price was negotiated prior to entering escrow. It
was an exchange escrow and the disclosure that the 17th unit was illegal was
made at a time when there was no opportunity for him to do anything about it.
536
City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984t 10:00 A.M.
Ms. Santalahti then confirmed for Councilman Pickler that there were'at least
two other similar cases in the area where variances were approved prior to the
current ownership but she did not know if the waivers were identical to the
subject request. Presently in that area, as soon as staff found out about
those units, they were requiring reconversion.
Councilman Overholt, trying to ascertain Mr. Gluth's concern, asked if it had
to do with when he might want to sell the property he would be deprived of
profits he might have received if the condition had not been attached to the
approval.
Mr. Gluth stated that five or six percent of the value was locked up in that
17th unit. He paid that much more and if he removed the unit, he would have
the expense of reconversion as well as the loss of revenue. Further, he saw
no reason for not closing escrow which could only have been stopped at
considerable expense in order to renegotiate the price. He then clarified for
Councilman Pickler that it was a matter of principle with him and he wanted to
state that he did not stipulate to the condition. He objected to it but if
the condition were included, he did not see that there was anything he could
do.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-192 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3387 upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission and
subject to the four mentioned conditions imposed.
179: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-192: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3387.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-192 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2547: Application submitted
by Ann Prentice, (Mobil Service Station), to construct a convenience market
with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine on CL zoned property located at
2500 East Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-63, 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
537
City Hall~ ~-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
have a significant effect on the environment, and further, denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 2547.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
public hearing scheduled this date.
City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that a letter dated May 22, 1984 had been
received from Ms. Prentice requesting a continuance of the public hearing for
two weeks in order to work out problems that she was having with the tenant,
Mobil Oil.
City Attorney William Hopkins first confirmed for Councilman Pickler that
Mobil 0il was appealing the Planning Commission decision. The owner was now
asking for a two weeks continuance because she was having a problem with Mobil
concerning the lease.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
538
City Hall, Anthem_m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Don Robbins stated he worked for Mobil Oil in the Real Estate Department.
He filed the application and asked for the appeal. He saw no reason why they
should continue the matter. The issue between the lessor and Mobil Oil would
be the same two weeks from now as it was today.
Mayor Roth referred to the letter dated May 22, 1984 from Ms. Prentice, the
owner which stated, "my lease does not provide for the sale of beer and wine
and groceries.~
Mr. Robbins commented if their Legal Department said they could not defend
something in court they would drop the issue. He had met with their attorneys
earlier, they re-read the lease and informed him if he had to go to court,
they had a good chance of winning.
Ms. Ann Prentice, 1101 South Reseda Street, stated she owned the property at
2500 East Lincoln and the reason she was asking for a continuance was due to
the fact that when the lease was written, the intent was to sell gasoline and
oil products only, not beer, wine and groceries. Therefore, she was
requesting a two weeks continuance so her attorney could continue to work with
Mobil to see if they could come to some agreement.
Further discussion followed as a result of questions posed to Ms. Prentice and
Mr. Robbins by Councilman Overholt relative to negotiations in progress
between the attorneys of both principals and whether a two-week's continuance
would be of benefit.
MOTION: Councilman Roth favored the two-week continuance and he thereupon
moved that public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2547 be continued to
June 5, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was takeh, City Attorney Hopkins clarified for Councilman Bay
that as Councilman Overholt stated, there was a lease to Mobil Oil and
involved was an internal dispute between Mobil Oil and Ms. Prentice as to how
much they were going to pay and other rights. Rather than the City getting
involved in that dispute, he recommended that the continuance be granted. It
was true that the owner was Ann Prentice, but there was a leasehold right. He
felt the two-week continuance could perhaps resolve the problem.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2324: Klllingsworth,
S~rickler Lind&rem, Wilson & Associates Architects, to amend certain
conditions of approval, in particular Condition No. 11 of Resolution No.
82R-385, that the proposed hotel shall comply with all signing requirements of
the CR zone and that no portion of any exterior sign constructed on the hotel
shall be located at a height exceeding 116 feet above grade, of Conditional
Use Permit No. 2324, to permit a 15-story, 139-1/2 foot high, 500 room hotel
with accessory uses, with Code waiver of minimum parking spaces on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 1701 So. West Street.
Environmental Impact Report No. 243 was certified by the City Council to be in
compliance with City and State guidelines in the State of California
Environmental Quality Act at their meeting of July 20, 1982.
539
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting of April 30, 1984, recommended
that the request for deletion or modification to Condition No. 11 of City
Council Resolution No. 82R-385 be granted on the basis that the subject sign
would not be an illuminated sign and would not be detrimental to Disneyland.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Stan Sakamoto, 3833 Long Beach Boulevard, Long Beach, stated they were
present to ask for an amendment to Condition No. 11 of Council Resolution No.
82R-385 based on the fact that at the Council meeting of July 20, 1982, the
116 foot height restriction was to be based on the north tower only. When the
resolution was issued, it read the entire building, they appealed that on the
basis that all hotels needed identification. To ask them not to have a roof
sign would be a great hardship on the operation of their hotel. At the
beginning of the design process, they went to Disneyland to determine if any
portion of the building was visible from Dtsneyland. They conducted balloon
tests with the Engineering Department of Dlsneyland. One floor of the north
tower was visible which the Emerald voluntarily agreed to remove at great
cost. As evidenced by the posted drawing, the right side of portion of the
building was lower by one entire floor. They believed that the roof sign
would be minimal in nature, smaller than the Code allowed and non-illuminated
and it was composed of individual letters.
Mayor Roth posed three questions to Mr. Sakamoto: (1) would the proposed sign
cause visual intrusion into Disneyland; (2) was the sign less than the maximum
allowed; (3) was it not illuminated.
Mr. Sakamoto answered, (1) in their opinion it would not be visible from the
park but the trees that were in line from one point of the park where the
building could be seen would be trimmed to accommodate lighting for one of
Disneyland's shows in the s-mmer. As evidenced by the photographs, also
posted on the Chamber wall, a very small portion of the building could be seen
but the sign, in their opinion, could not be seen from any ground level
portion of the park. (2) The sign was less than the maximum allowed. (3) The
sign would not be lit in any fashion whatsoever.
After questions posed to Mr. Sakamoto by Council Members for purposes of
clarification, the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in support.
Mr. Nicholas Klotz, 1717 Southwest Street, Executive Vice-President of Emerald
Hotel Corporation, stated they felt they constructed a building in an area
which would not only be an asset to them, but also to Anaheim. In order for
them to do business, it was common throughout their industry to have proper
identification. In order to operate effectively and be recognized in the
market segment, it was of utmost importance to have adequate identification.
It was also their belief that they had to comply with all City and County
requirements. The had accommodated Disneyland's restrictions by having two
towers of two different sizes, one with 15 floors and one with 14 floors. The
14-story tower was so as not to be an intrusion or visible from Disneyland.
They felt at this point that a non-illuminated sign of the nature they were
requesting was an absolute must to be competitive in their industry and obtain
market recognition.
540
City Hallt A~naheimt California -COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition.
Mr. Bill Bealer, representing Disneyland, requested that the Council not grant
an amendment to Condition No. 11 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2324 allowing
the Emerald Hotel to install a sign on the top of their building. Disneyland
was a quality outdoor family entertainment center with an emphasis on the
aesthetics and show qualities of their operation. In order to create that
kind of environment without outside intrusion they had worked with the City in
the past and the City adopted Resolution No. 80R-175 establishing height
standard guidelines around Disneyland. The intent of the resolution was to
limit any visual intrusion from outside of Disneyland. Over the years, they
had worked with various companies and developers around the park and had said
as long as the development did not intrude into Disneyland from the normal
walking surface around the park, they would agree to the development. When
the original hearing took place on the Emerald Hotel, they conducted a visual
intrusion test and it was obvious there was intrusion into Frontierland.
Disneyland worked out an arrangement agreeable to both where there was no
Immediate intrusion. The hotel was visible but they did not feel it detracted
from Frontier Land because of the coloring and the location of the intrusion.
Disneyland agreed to that even though by the statements and intent of the
resolution, it was intended to eliminate all visual intrusion. They did so
because it would cause great hardship to the Emerald to reduce the height
further. Disneyland agreed because there would be no signs visible. Emerald
was now requesting a sign at the top of their hotel. The photographs taken at
exit to Thunder Mountain Railroad showed the sight intrusion of the hotel into
Disneyland and that the sign would be visible from there because of its color
and contrast to the color of the hotel. Disneyland felt that was not
acceptable in order for them to maintain the quality of their show. The
Emerald had several signs located on the exterior of the hotel at present, one
on the north and one on the south end. They, therefore, had ready
identification from both the views on West Street. The site for the subject
sign was facing the Disneyland parking lot. On the grounds that the sign was
colored and would be readily visible to Disneyland's guests, and in order to
maintain the quality of their show, they felt the request for the sign was an
intrusion into Disneyland and were asking the Council to deny the amendment to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2324.
The Mayor asked Mr. Sakamoto to make his s,,mmation.
Mr. gakamoto noted that Mr. Bealer stated his main concern was visibility of
the hotel sign during the production of the show. He stated the show took
place at night and the lights were in a direct line of sight with the hotel
which would make their sign even less visible at night. The sign would not be
lit in any way from the hotel not even from reflected light from the hotel
guest rooms because it was set back eight feet from the edge of the roof.
During the day it would be visible, but it was at such a position that in only
one location, as shown in the photographs was it visible. Mr. Bealer stated
the spot most objectionable to them was the exit from Big Thunder Mountain.
He did not know of anyone getting off a ride to look up for a sign. He
understood thew hole question was critical to future developments in Anaheim.
Therefore, if the Council was unable to make a decision today, he suggested
they all go out to Disneyland to the position the photographs were taken in
the park to determine exactly and personally the full intrusion.
541
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 22~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt there was merit in Mr. Sakamoto's
suggestion and he asked if it would be possible for Mr. Bealer to have his
people meet members of the Council and show them the problem. Questions were
then posed to staff relative to height limitation in the vicinity; Councilman
Bay stated he heard a statement that the City had a resolution on height
limitation. In the pictures he looked at, he could see the north tower of the
Emerald hotel even though it was a story lower. He asked if there was a City
resolution and policy determining maximum height and, if so, he wanted to know
when the Council approved the hotel being built above that height in the first
place.
Ms. Santalahti stated she did not believe the hotel was constructed above any
height limitation. The height limitation was on a map done ten or more years
ago. There was the potential that certain things built under Code could be
visible from inside Disneyland. The procedure, therefore, has been that on
anything of a high-rise nature, Planning requested that the petitioners go to
Disneyland to verify that there was no problem.
The consensus of the Council was that a visit to Disneyland to ascertain
whether or not there was visual intrusion would assist in making a decision on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2324, Condition No. 11.
MOTION: douncilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2324 relative to the deletion or modification of Condition
No. 11 of Resolution No. 82R-385 to Tuesday, June 5, 1984, at 1:30 p.m.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:30 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:47 p.m.)
The Council then took action on continuing appointment to the Community
Redevelopment Commission (see page__ where discussion and action took
place).
CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No.
84R-193 for adoption amending Resolution No. 83R-385 which established rates
of compensation for classes designated as Executive Management. Refer to
Resolution Book.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-193: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-385 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay, speaking against the Resolution,
stated the change in the salary range raised the maximum to $110,320 with a
new midpoint of ~91,930. It was a change to the original Sibson Plan which he
opposed at the time it was voted on. He voted against it because the salary
ranges and the benchmarks established in the Sibson Study were based on very
large cities across the state. He did not feel Anaheim had to compete with
those cities and now they were going to take the City Manager's range to an
even higher point than that originally planned.
542
City Hall~ Ansheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood countered stating the fact that the City was now 233,000
in population and had 29 million visitors in 1983 did not even begin to take
into account its complexity, considering the Convention Center, Stadium,
Utilities, Disneyland, etc. She noted in comparison that the City Manager of
San Clemente recently accepted an offer in Bakersfield for $70,000 plus
$50,000, totaling $120,000 and Bakersfield's population was only 125,000 which
was more than four times that of San Clemente.
Council Members Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler then spoke in support of the
Resolution; Councilman Roth stated he was going to abstain on this matter.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-193 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve an agreement between the City of Anaheim
and William O. Talley and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
agreement. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay outlined the reasons for his
opposition to the proposed contract. He felt that it provided more protection
to the City Manager than the Charter allowed relative to his being replaced.
He then briefed some of the clauses and sections in the contract which
disturbed him primarily not because they meant a great deal more in
compensation for the City Manager, but because he felt meant a great deal more
power for the City Manager in dealing with the Council and future Councils
(agreement on file in the City Clerk's office).
In concluding, Councilman Bay stated that he had not taken the results of the
contract and turned it into dollars because the action on the salary scale
just acted upon would affect that. However, he took Mr. Talley's present base
salary of $78,354 and added an eight percent merit increase to that or
approximately $6,644. Taking that new base salary, whatever it might be,
dependant upon what merit raise the Council chose to give the City Manager,
and then adding the eight percent standard package in the new contract
addition of 15 percent, ignoring the cost of increased insurance and other
items at this time, would still bring the total to over $100,000 a year. He
could not support such a contract that did that.
Council Members Overholt, Pickler and Kaywood spoke in support of Mr. Talley,
each citing the reasons they felt that insuring City Manager Talley would be
with the City under the terms of the contract until 1987 had been and would be
in the best interest of the City. Mayor Roth also spoke in support of Mr.
Talley but emphasized that he could not support the contract because he felt
the costs were Just too high to the taxpayers.
543
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22; 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
During the lengthy commentary, City Attorney Hopkins confirmed for Councilman
Overholt that the contract did not violate the Charter and that his office had
approved the contract as to form.
Councilman Bay then reiterated his concerns relative to the contract adding
that, in his opinion, it had far-reaching implications for every city in
Orange County, the key issue being whether such a contract was necessary to
keep a good City Manager in the City. He did not think it was.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion approving the agreement.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT.'
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler
Bay and Roth
None
City Manager Talley, asking to speak to the matter, explained the agreement
started out when he approached the Council and stated that under his current
agreement, he was prohibited from entertaining any offers for employment.
During 1983, he had received two offers substantially in excess of the subject
contract,, and another in 1984 to which he could not even reply. He merely
asked the Council whether or not they wanted to enter into negotiations for a
new agreement or if there was some way the Council could free up his current
agreement allowing him to explore those options. It was his impression the
Council wanted to continue his services. Further, based upon the information
he provided the Council, it was his belief if he were to leave Anaheim, the
Council would pay more for a new City Manager if brought in from the outside.
He pointed out that the majority of provisions in the agreement were benefits
he now had, and there were some provisions that would allow him to convert
some benefits to salary as Councilman Bay pointed out. To do that, he would
expose himself to substantial tax liabilities and the City would pay for those
benefits. In concluding, Mr. Talley stated what he felt he had done was to
trade peace of mind for dollars. He wanted to stay and work in Anaheim. A
majority of the Council wanted him as the City Manager and thus he and the
Council had entered into a three-year agreement that again prohibited him from
talking to anybody. In his opinion, it was a bargain for both himself and the
City and it was not a one-way agreement. He was proud to have worked with the
Council Liaison Committee on the agreement and he was looking forward with
great enthusiasm to the next three years in Anaheim.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:40 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
544