1984/06/19Ctt7 Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19, 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
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Robert Franks
CITY CLERK: Leonora Sohl
WATER ENGINEER MANAGER: Ray Auerbach
CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER: Don Metzger
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ACTING CITY ENGINEER: Art Daw
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson
POLICE CHIEF: Jimmie Kennedy
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman Priest
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Philip Grammatica
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Rick Gastil, Hotline Help Center gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION: Mrs. Fran Mauck presented Mrs. Dorthea Stephenson,
Anaheim's 1984 Mother of the Year, to the Council. She explained that Mrs.
Stephenson was the mother of six children and the essay which won her the
coveted title was one of approximately 5,000 received. It was written by her
27 year old daughter Mary Lou, a basketball coach at Santa Barbara. Mrs.
Mauck then read the winning essay.
Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council and the City congratulated Mrs.
Stephens0n on having been selected Anaheim's Mother of the Year for 1984 and
presented her with red roses.
119: AWARD PRESENTATION: Mayor Roth presented George Ferrone, Finance
Director with an award given by the Municipal Finance Officers Association, a
Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting to the City of Anaheim.
This was the eighth year the award was given to the City. Mr. George Ferrone,
Finance Director accepted the certificate and stated it would not have been
possible without the support of the City Manager, Audit Committee of the
Council, the Council and his staff.
624
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
"Safety in the Workplace Week" in Anaheim, June 24-30, 1984
Gardell Powell, the City's Safety Manager, accepted the proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A resolution of appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be mailed to Lt. Alan Robinson,
Salvation Army, for his dedication in service to residents of Anaheim in the
past four years and wishing him success in his new assignment.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held April 3, 1984. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,904,611.80, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-221 through 84R-228, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action takes as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Ruby J. Parry for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to actions of City at Anaheim Boulevard and Parry
Street, on or about April 23-27 and May 2-4, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Clara Morgan for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident caused by negligence on
the part of the City in front of 1829 Glenoaks Avenue, on or about
February 16, 1984.
Claims to be allowed:
625
City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19t 1984, 10:00 A.M.
a. Claim submitted by Storer Cable for property damages purportedly
sustained due to actions of City crew at 3151 Radcliffe, on or about April 24,
1984.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Report dated May 1984.
3. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Hall Permit submitted by
Chanh Ngoe Nguyen and Phue Thi Vu, for the Ritz, 507 South Brookhurst Street,
to have dancing on Thursdays and Sundays from 8:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m, and on
Fridays and Saturdays from 8:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police.
4. 123: Authorizing a new operating agreement with E1 Camino Bank for iow
interest, 15-year housing rehabilitation loans at a rate of one point over
Bank of America prime in connection with the Community Preservation Program.
5. 182: Approving proposed developments at 2570 West Lincoln Avenue and at
2300 Westport for inclusion in the Orange County Revenue Bond Program and
authorizing the Community Development Executive Director to communicate said
approval to the County.
6. 139: Opposing SB 2137 (L. Greene) pending State legislation on parkland
dedication and authorizing the Mayor to communicate said opposition to the
City's legislative representatives.
7. 179: Granting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1116, to
establish a trailer park for recreational vehicles on property located at 1343
So. West Street (Vacation_land), to expire July 15, 1999.
8. 169: Authorizing an extension of time to the contract with Silveri and
Ruiz Construction Company, to March 28, 1984, and assessing liquidated damages
in the amount of $900 for 9 calendar days delay in the completion of North
Street Street and Water Improvements, Account Nos. 26-793-6325-E3640 and
51-606-6329-17320-34340.
9. 169: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Parrott and
Wright Construction Company, Inc., in the am0u~t of $136,213.98 for additional
work in connection with the 01d Lincoln Avenue Street, Alley and Storm Drain
Improvements, Account No. 46-792-6325-E2880.
10. 175: Authorizing Change Order No. 2 to the contract with DeB
Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $9,931 for additional work in connection
with the roof rehabilitation of the La Palma Reservoir, Account No.
51-619-6329-17550-70810.
11. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-221: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-120 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS.
626
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
12. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-222: 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 SUPERVISORYMANAGEMENT.
13. 00-155: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-223: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION OF
THE CITY OFANAHEIM.
14. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-224: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ACCOUNT ENTITLED THE "MEAL
REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT" IN CONNECTION WITH THE PAYMENT FOR MEALS PURSUANT TO
THE I.B.E.W. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OF OCTOBER 7, 1983.
15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-225: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (M.J.
Brock & Sons, Inc., Peralta Hills Water Company)
16. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-226: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETIONAND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENTANDALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL ANDWATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF Al,I.
WORKNECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: OAK CANYON NATURE CENTER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NOS. 24-810-7103-10110; 16-810-7103-10080; 16-810-7105-10080; AND
16-810-7103-10180. (Atlas Wrecking, Inc., contractor)
17. 164: 'RESOLUTION NO. 84R-227: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAI.I~ 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 AI.I.
WORKNECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: WEIR CANYON ROAD SEWER IMPROVEMENT PHASE II, 1656 FEET NORTH OF SANTA
ANA CANYON ROAD TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
11-790-6325-E0510. (Casada Engineering, Inc., contractor)
18. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-228: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 19 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT
NO. 07-5055 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
SUPPLEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-221, 84R-222, and 84R-224 through
84R-228, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 84R-223:
627
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Picker and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-223 duly passed and adopted.
139: SB1369 (AYALA) PENDING STATE LEGISLATION WHICH ENACTS GOVERNOR
DUKEMEJIAN'S WATER PROGRAM: Clty Manager William Talley briefed the Council
on joint memorandum dated June 18, 1984 from the Intergovernmental Relations
Office and Utilities Department, recommending support of the subject
legislation.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to support SB1369 (Ayala) and authorized the
Mayor to communicate this position to the City's elected representatives in
Sacramento. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, answered
questioned posed by Councilman Overholt on the ramifications of the pending
legislation.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: 1983/84 WRITE-OFF OF UNCOLLECTIBLE UTILITY ACCOUNTS: Mr. Don Metzger,
Customer Service Manager first reported for the Mayor that in comparison, the
subject write-off was the lowest the City had experienced in 10 years, with
the except$on of one year.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the 1983/84 Write-Off of
Uncollectible Utility Accounts totalling $576,347.97, as recommended in
memorandum dated June 8, 1984 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CARL WARREN & CO. - AGREEMENT FOR CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION: Council
Members Roth and Bay wanted a comparison of rates per hour for the previous
year and those now being requested.
The item was trailed to later in the meeting so that staff could provide that
information.
Later in the meeting (12:06 P.M.) Bob Franks, Assistant City Attorney,
reported that the increase in hourly rate for field investigation was $1 from
$25 to $26 and office expense for establishing the files increased 50~, from
$12.50 to $13.00.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize an agreement with Carl Warren &
Co., for claims administration at a cost not to exceed $50,000 for the term
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held May 30, 1984, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
628
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERRIT NO. 2446: Submitted by Richard Hunsaker, to permit a
billboard on ML zoned property located at 2700 Regal Park Drive, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback and (b) maximum height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2446 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2447: Submitted by ABJ Developments, to permit a
billboard on ML zoned property located at 1010 Grove Street, with Code waiver
of maximum height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2447 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2448: Submitted by Don V. and Garnet A. Edmunds,
to permit a billboard on}fL zoned property located at 2691 East Taft Avenue,
with the following Code waivers: (a) permitted location and (b) maximum
height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2448 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2449: Submitted by E.B.B. Properties, to permit a
billboard on ML zoned property located at 1281 Sunshine Way, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback and (b) maximum height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2449 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2450: Submitted by Consoli, McComber, McCubbin
Investment, Co., to permit a billboard on ML zoned property located at 1270
Sunshine Way, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback
and (b) maximum height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2450 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PEP~T NO. 2451: Submitted by Bristol Company, to permit two
billboards on ML zoned property located at 2311-2323 West La Palma Avenue,
with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback and (b)
maximum height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2451 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2452: Submitted by Max Cukier, et al, to permit a
billboard on ML zoned property located at 1311-1347 Blue Gum Street, with Code
waiver of maximum height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2452 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2534: Submitted by Rapt Company, to permit a
billboard on ML zoned property located at 2430 East Katella Avenue, with Code
waiver of maximum eight.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2534 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
629
r7
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2535: Submitted by Walter T. Erickson, et al, to
permit a billboard on ~L zoned property located at 1850 South Anaheim
Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback
and (b) maximum height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2535 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2536: Submitted by John C. and Evelyn Adams, to
permit a billboard on ML zoned property located at 1845-1849 South Manchester
Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback and
(b) maximum height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2536 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2537: Submitted by Kenneth Keesee, to permit a
billboard on ML zoned property located at 1922-1928 South Anaheim Boulevard,
with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback and (b)
maximum height.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2537 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2583: Submitted by Royale Guest Home of Anaheim,
(La Palma Royale Guest Home), to expand an existing senior citizens retirement
facility on CL zoned property located at 525 West La Palma Avenue, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum number and type of parking spaces and (b)
minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-99 granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2583, and granted a negative declaration status.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2581: Submitted by Arthur F. Pressell, Trustee of
The Pressel Family Trust, Larry W. and Julie Anna Krouse, to permit a
semi-enclosed drive-through restaurant on CG zoned property located at 534-602
West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-100, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2581, and granted a negative declaration status.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2578: Submitted by Bryan Industrial Properties, to
permit a retail furniture store on ML zoned property located at 145 East
Orangethorpe Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-101, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2578, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether the Chamber of Commerce or the Industrial
Development Board had any comment regarding the proposal.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answered that the Chamber
received copies of all Planning Commission agendas and would have been aware
of the proposal. There were a mix of retail operations in the subject area
and thus far there were no problems.
630
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
VARIANCE NO. 3403: Submitted by Linkletter Properties, to construct a
self-storage facility on ML(SC) zoned property located at 1290 North Lakeview
Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-102, granted
Variance No. 3403, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that only 11 parking spaces were
approved with 175 spaces required; Miss Santalahti explained that she had
discussed the matter with the Traffic Engineer. For storage buildings
specifically designed for that use, the need for parking was for people
loading and unloading. None of those uses had posed any kind of problem and
they were so specific in their construction technique that they did not
anticipate any problems. Further, a caretaker on the site was typical. Users
did not park in the parking area, but drove to their unit. The parking area
was used by those inquiring about specifics.
VARIANCE NO. 3400: Submitted by San Roque, Inc., to retain an existing block
wall and swimming pool on RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned property located at 6899
Avenida de Santiago, with Code waivers as follows: (a) maximum fence height
and (b) minimum front yard setback.
The Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-103, denied Variance
No. 3400, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
TENTATIVE TRACT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 11~ 1984.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10981 - FINAL SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by Fieldstone
Company, requesting review and approval of final specific plans, for Tract No.
10981, to establish a 163-1ot (plus 2 open space lots, fire station and park
site lots), RS-5000 (SC) zoned subdivision on approximately 65.8 acres located
south and west of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the proposed
southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road.
The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10981.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2574: Submitted by Carlos R. and Leonora Conant,
to expand a day care center to permit a maximum of 12 children on RS-?200
zoned property located at 1321 North Moraga Street, with Code waiver of
required loading and unloading area for children.
The Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-98, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2574, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
SETTING MATTERS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING: Councilman Bay noted recently there had
been a great deal of information gathering on Planning Commission items that
came before the Council after having been heard by the Commission. On those
items, the Council could either set them for a public hearing or take no
631
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
action. He agreed with obtaining information, but he felt the Council should
consider a better way to obtain answers to questions Council Members might
have on a particular item prior to the Council meeting where the items were
listed on the agenda. If there were technical questions that needed
answering, he did not know why those could not be answered by communication
between Council Members and staff.
Councilman Overholt felt that the procedure for Planning Commission items
should not be so rigid that it would preclude Council Members from making a
statement that would be important to be heard.
Mayor Roth did not believe it precluded asking questions but he was concerned
that they were getting into a dialogue where instead the matter should be set
for a public hearing; Councilman Bay reaffirmed his primary concern was that
the Council not create a dialogue and a debate on issues when the applicant
was not present to state his side of the argument.
105: ATTENDANCE RECORDS - MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Councilwoman
Kaywood stated she had a question of policy with regard to the subject
reporting of absences, excused and non-excused, as reported to the Council by
the Chairman every six months. There was one commissioner absent from every
other meeting since September and they would not get to see that until July.
She wanted to know if that was acceptable to the Council. She felt the
information would be untimely due to the upcoming consideration of
re-appointments and new appointments.
After Council discussion on the matter, it was determined that attendance
records of members of Boards and Commissions would be advanced by moving
quarterly reports up one month ahead of the present schedule. In June the
Council needed the information on attendance through the end of May at the
time of re-appointments or appointments to the Boards and Commissions at the
end of June.
149: REVIEW OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that at the
meeting of April 3, 1984 she had requested a review of the current parking
requirements. She asked the status of the report; Miss Santalahti stated that
it would be at least 2 weeks before the report could be submitted since at
present it was in draft form.
115/130: COUNCIL CHAMBER AUDIO SYSTEM AND PUBLIC PODIUM: Councilman Overholt
directed staff to check the audio system in the Council Chamber to insure good
audio production not only in the Chamber, but also on the Cable TV Channel.
He asked that staff also work with Storer Cable relative to possible sound
projection problems when taping Council meetings for rebroadcast. He was
interested in mitigating the problems they were having with some of the
microphones in the Chamber as well as the audio problems that were evident
when he watched portions of last weeks Council meeting, when it was broadcast.
Councilman Overholt also requested that once again an analysis be made
relative to the possibility of having access into the central area of the
Council Chamber from the podium area to preclude members of the public from
having to gain access into that area from the side aisles.
632
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the Engineering Department investigate
the possibility of creating access to the central area of the Council Chamber
from the podium area if it could be done without creating a safety hazard.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he did not feel there was a
need for such a change since the Mayor's method of directing people from the
central area when presentations were made worked out well.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Pickler voted no.
MOTION CARRIED.
179: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING - COMMERCIAL-RECREATIONAL AREA: Councilman
Bay reported on the meeting he attended along with Mayor Roth where they met
with people from the Commercial-Recreational area. He reported the
information on that meeting was contained in report dated June 18, 1984 (on
file in the City Clerk's office).
106: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - BUDGET: To consider the proposed 1984/85
Resource Allocation Plan, continued from the meeting of June 12, 1984 (see
minutes that date).
Departmental budget presentations: City Manager Talley prefaced each
department's budget presentation by referencing the page numbers in the
submitted budget, Capital Improvement Projects where applicable as well as
budget totals, noting any areas of major change, issues and any other items
which needdd further explanation.
The following department heads then gave an overview of their budgets and
plans for 1984/85 and their achievements in 1983/84 followed by questions and
comments from the Council:
Acting City Engineer, Arthur Daw - Engineering Department: Department
12, page 37 in the Resource Allocation Plan document. Total operating
programs, $3,053,991. Capital improvements, $18,935,000. Budget total,
~21,978,991. Full-time positions, increase of three from 59 to 62.
Since Proposition A was not passed by the voters on the June 5, 1984
ballot, there was a $670,000 reduction in revenue. Further, it was
determined the department had charged as an expense, a revenue item and,
therefore, picked up an additional ~185,600. They were slightly under
~500,000 in arrears from where the Budget started. Issues: level of
traffic signal maintenance. Parcels Jutting out on arterial highways. A
staff report was subsequently provided to the Council on the latter as
requested by the Council.
Discussion took place between Council Members and staff relative to
parcels Jutting out on arterial highways and the alternatives for
eventually eliminating those parcels. At the conclusion of discussion,
City Manager Talley stated that one alternative would be to set an amount
aside in the budget and when the report was submitted to the Council
concerning those parcels the Council could then prioritize them
633
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
accordingly. Councilman Bay suggested that the parcels be prioritized
starting with those causing the greatest problem to traffic flow.
It was determined that the balance of departmental budget presentations would
be continued to later in the meeting.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a closed session to
discuss a personnel matter, labor relations and pending litigation with two
actions anticipated; the City Attorney requested a closed session to discuss
litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into closed session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:07 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being presented. (1:45 P.M.)
174: PUBLIC HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS: To consider the
proposed 1984/85 General Revenue Sharing Allocations in the amount of
$4,435,449.
Mr. Ron Rothschild, Program Development and Audit Manager, briefed the Council
on report entitled "Federal General Revenue Sharing Public Hearing, 1:30 P.M.,
June 19, 1984, Anaheim City Council Chambers" and specifically the figures on
page 4 of the report covering 18 capital improvement projects which the
Federal General Revenue Sharing funds in the amount of 54,435,449 were
intended tO be dedicated. Number 19 was reserved for future appropriations
amounting 5500,000.
MOTION: There being no one who wished to speak to the proposed use of Federal
General Revenue Sharing Funds, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the public
hearing be closed. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Talley explained that all of the items as outlined were contained
in the Resource Allocation Plan and as part of the Budget option, the Council
may or may not want to include those items in the Budget.
106: PUBLIC HEARING - 1984/85 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT: To consider the
proposed 1984/8S Appropriations Limit in the amount of $97,686,086.
Mr. Ron Rothschild, Program Development and Audit Manager, briefed staff
report dated June 11, 1984, recommending the establishment of an
appropriations limit in the amount of 597,686,086.
Councilman Bay referring to the figures contained in the many attachments to
the subject report then gave an overview of the major changes that were
occurring showing that the City approximately 531 million more in revenue
coming into the City this year than last. It was necessary, however, to
remove Utility revenues and Internal Fund dollars from that figure. Net gain
with only the Utilities removed showed approximately 20 million more dollars
in revenue this year than last. It was necessary to know by some differential
between a bad revenue year and a projected good revenue year such as the one
634
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
coming up overall how much more revenue was coming to the City. There was no
way that one person could take a $354 million budget in three or four weeks
and show more than just the surface of the trends going on as to how money was
being spent in the City. The col,,mn that showed user fees in the City in
excess of cost - last year there was approximately $99,000 and this year it
was $405,697. The user fees in excess of cost in the City as required to be
reported had increased almost 400%. He broached that point now because the
question of fees would be discussed later in the hearing.
There being no members of the public who wished to speak on the proposed
1984/84 Appropriations Limit, Councilman Pickler moved to close the public
hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-229, adopting the appropriations
limit in the amount $97,686,086 for fiscal year 1984/85. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-229: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1984/85.
Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley explained for Councilman Bay that
the Council must adopt a maximum appropriations limit in accordance with the
provisions of the applicable part of the State Constitution. It would not
commit the Council to any particular amount of money but that for the factors
involved, ~he Council could not pass a budget exceeding $97,686,086.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll C~ll Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-229 duly passed and adopted.
181-106: CONTINUATION OF DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET PRESENTATIONS:
Fire Chlef Bob Simpson - Fire Department: Department No. 10, Page 32 in
the Resource Allocation Plan document. Total, Operating Programs,
$13,690,239. Capital improvements, $22,000. Budget total, $13,712,239.
Three major issues - (1) Departmental staffing recommendations -
full-time positions, increase of 17 from 206 to 223. (2) New Fire
Station No. 10 added in the Bauer Ranch area. (3) Resource Allocation
Plan contemplated expanding Station No. 3 and examining the feasibility
of relocating Station No. 2. The presentation was supplemented by slides.
Relative to the position increase, Fire Chief Simpson felt there was
ample evidence indicated by the slides as to why he felt it necessary to
increase the level of fire protection in the City. Three alternatives to
adding people to fire protection were as follows: (1) to continue the
635
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
same way by adding stations and manpower as the City continued its
growth. (2) A sweeping fire protection ordinance that retroactively
would fit every fire building in the City with sprinkler protection with
perhaps the addition of fee schedules to offset the continuing spiraling
costs. (3) Regionalized fire protection. The most viable alternative
was the regionalized fire protection; however, Chief Simpson stated he
did not see much hope of that becoming a reality in the next several
years.
Councilman Roth asked the Chief's plans regarding paramedics; Chief
Simpson answered that approximately ?0~ of their business related to
emergency medical services and the reason he felt a fee as proposed was
reasonable. In order to keep pace with the increasing demands, the Fire
Department had to double the number of paramedics in the City. That
increased level of service should be shared by the citizens.
Chief of Polic% James Kennedy - Police Department: Department No. 9,
Page 30 in the Resource Allocation Plan Document. Total, operating
programs, $26,616,854. Capital improvements, $231,000. Budget total,
$26,847,854. Full-time positions, increase of one 447 to 448. Issue:
Computer aided dispatch and records management system. The presentation
was supplemented by slides.
Assistant City Attorney~ Robert Franks - City Attorney's Office:
Department 3, page 22 in the Resource Allocation Plan document. Budget
total, $1,599,611. No capital improvements. No change in full-time
positions, remains at 24.
C~ty Manager Talley stated that due to the absence of the City Attorney
and the ongoing Ralph Anderson study, the Administration would make no
comments on the subject budget request.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the status of the Anderson study; Councilman
0verholt answered that it was in process and would be submitted.
Hr. Mark Logan, Assistant City Attorney, Prosecution Section, then
explained for the Mayor that the additional staff approved for 1983/84
had enabled the Prosecution Section to man the additional courts at the
North Orange County Court and to handle the additional ease load which
had increased by approximately 15~.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:14 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:26 p.m)
Public Utilities General Mana~er~ Gordon Hoyt - Public Utilities
Department (Water and Electric): Department 21, pages 48 and 49 in the
Resource Allocation Plan document. Total, operating program,
$189,268,993. Capital improvements, $27,036,400. Budget total,
$216,305,393. The City recently received more accurate figures on water
bonds. It was recommended, therefore, that operating programs be
636
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
increased an additional $445,506 for a new budget total $216,750,899.
Full-time positions, decrease of 12 from 314 to 302. Regarding the
findings of the Public Utilities Board submitted under memorandum dated
June 18, 1984 from the Public Utilities General Manager, the intent was
to incorporate those recommendations and changes in funding unless the
Council directed otherwise, since they represented a very minor change.
The Resource Allocation Plan also contemplated an electric and water rate
increase during the fiscal year.
Mr. Hoyt gave an extensive and detailed presentation supplemented by
slides. His presentation was covered entirely in the booklet submitted
entitled, ~Executive S,,mmary Presentation, City Council, June 19, 1984".
The booklet contained the narrative for the slide presentation, graphs,
chart A through chart P.
Executive Director of Community Development~ Norm Priest - Redevelopment,
Housing and Neishborhood Preservation: Department , Pages 33 and 34 in
the Resource Allocation Plan document. Budget total, $37,329,870. No
capital improvements. Full-time positions, decrease of 3 from 53 to 50.
Mr. Priest also s,,mm~rized a series of programs involved: Assisted
Housing Program, Housing Authority, Neighborhood Preservation, Community
Development Block Grant Funding, Citizen Participation Program,
Industrial Development Authority, Redevelopment and Departmental
Administration, Development Services, Property Services and Debt Service
under.Redevelopment. Community Development was a different area from
many City departments since they were not funded by the General Fund but
by Federal, State and Tax Increment Fund.
Data Processin~ Director; Phil Gr-m,mtica - Data Processin~ Department:
Department 16, page 28 in the Resource Allocation Plan document. Budget
total, $3,266,595. No capital improvements. Full-time positions,
decrease of 3 from 48 to 45. Issue: Computer hardware upgrades
(memorandum dated June 19, 1984 recommending that the Council authorize
the Data Processing Director to enter into agreements with IBM, Inc. and
Storage Technology Corporation for a computer hardware upgrade as
described in the memorandum, also waiving Council Policy No. 306, Section
3A (Advertised Bidding) and Section 3B, (Competitive Sealed Bids).
Extensive discussion then followed between Council Members and staff
relative to the request for update of the computer hardware.
Assistant City Manaser, James Ruth - Administration: Department 2, pages
20 and 21 in the Resource Allocation Plan document. Total, operating
programs, $1,527,028. Capital improvements, $10,000. Budget total,
$1,537,028. Pull-time positions, increase of 1 from 21 to 22. This
department includes Administration, Intergovernmental Relations, Public
Information, and Program Development and Audit.
Mr. Ruth explained that Administration had moved one budget analysis over
to the Productivity Improvement Program and were recommending a
productivity revolving fund of $225,000, a one time fund that would be
637
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19; 1984; 10:00 A.M.
replenished from cost savings resulting from the new program. The
additional management auditor proposed as recommended by Price Waterhouse
and the Audit Committee would take a more aggressive posture on
Electronic Data Processing (EDP) auditing. A policy issue to be
considered was whether or not the City would consider membership in the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, at a cost of $3,750.
Anaheim Museum Project: City Manager Talley referred to two reports on
the Anaheim Museum Project, one dated May 31, 1984 to the City Manager/
City Council from City King, Assistant to the City Manager, regarding the
Anaheim Museum discussing the need for the Council to determine their
position relative to the terms and conditions of a lease agreement with
Anaheim Museum, Inc. The other was that the Council direct the City
Attorney to prepare a lease agreement based upon whatever terms the
Council felt appropriate. The second report from the City Manager's
Office, City Attorney and Community Development addressing two questions,
(1) the loan of funds to Anaheim Museum, Inc. and (2) the maximum length
of lease the City could enter into for use of the space. The Resource
Allocation Plan contained no funds for the museum other than those the
Council previously budgeted and for which there had been no expenditures
to date of $165,000.
Mayor Roth asked to hear from those present in the Chamber audience
regarding the Anaheim Museum.
Mr. Mark Holpat, Director of the Anaheim Museum, gave an update and
overview of all the activities that had taken place to advance the
Anaheim Museum project including their fund raising activities. Over the
last six months, $100,000 had been raised which, combined with the
$165,000 the Council appropriated, brought them half way to their goal.
They were hoping to open and operate the museum early next year.
Mr. Robert Ricks, Attorney, 727 South Harbor Boulevard, spoke on behalf
of the museum and as a member of the museum board. They were seeking
partnership between City government and the people of the City in the
operation of the museum and were requesting at this time at least a
commitment that there was going to be a long term relationship. For the
Council's budgetary purposes today the board was asking for some
assistance in the operation of the museum through the fiscal year 1984/85
with the total request expected to be approximately $19,500 in addition
to the maintenance of an open, occupied building and the utilities to be
supplied. Further, they would like to have a commitment for either a 55
year lease which would assist in their fund raising events or, if
feasible for both sides, consideration of the fee grant at a later time.
Extensive discussion and questioning followed between Council Members and
Mr. Ricks, including additional input from staff member Cindy King,
Assistant to the City Manager, and John Roche, Director of Maintenance,
at the conclusion of which the following actions were taken:
MOTION: Councilman 0verholt moved that the City is willing to lease the
facility (Carnegie Library Building) to Anaheim Museum, Inc., for a period of
638
Cit7 Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- June 19~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
no less then 55 years or to grant it in fee if that is the most appropriate
way. In either case, facility to revert to the City if no longer used as a
museum. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appropriate a maximum of ~20,000 for
interior and exterior maintenance of the Anaheim Museum as well as for
utilities through June 30, 1985. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
125/123: ACTION ON DATA PROCESSING REQUEST: Before concluding, Councilman
Pickler moved to waive Council Policy No. 306 and authorize the Data
Processing Director to enter into a purchase agreement with IBM, Inc., in the
amount of ~777,734.20 for purchase of on Processor and 1 Display Console over
a three-year period; and a lease agreement with Storage Technology Corporation
for computer hardware upgrade at a monthly fee of $1,093 and a maintenance
agreement at a monthly fee of $869. Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
By general consent, the public hearing on the Resource Allocation Plan was
continued for one week.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess for a dinner break. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (7:45 p.m.)
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PIANAMENDMENT NO. 195 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: To consider an amendment to the Housing Element of the General
Plan, to update housing needs, goals, policies, plans and programs city-wide.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-86, 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 si~nificant effect on the environment, and further, granted , and
recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 195.
Mr. Jay Tashlro, Associate Planner, briefed portions of the staff report to
the Pla~ning Comm/ssion dated April 30, 1984 and memorandum dated June 7, 1984
to the City Manager/City Council from the Planning Director, Ron Thompson.
The Planning Commission in their Resolution No. PC84-86, recommended that the
Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 195 - an amendment to Anaheim's
adopted and certified housing element. The updated involved no change to
established City goals and policies as presented in the adopted housing
element. The revision was an addendum to the current housing element updating
selected techn/cal figures in the following sections: housing needs, land
inventory, housing constraints, energy considerations, and housing programs.
Mayor Roth asked for clarification that the General Plan Amendment did not
change density nor did it affect existing zoning regulations or laws presently
639
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
in place; Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, confirmed that was
correct.
Mayor Roth stated that there had been a misconception on the part of some
citizens due to misinformation that the Council was going to allow densities
up to 90 units to the acre. That was not true and it was not the intent of
the General Plan Amendment to change densities or zoning in the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what potential development it was that proposed 90
units to the acre; Mr. Fick that it was the Mazza proposal in the downtown
area, but it never reached a stage where it was presented for consideration to
the Planning Commission or the City Council. It was only presented on a staff
level to the Community Development Department staff.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Bob McCorkle, 607 North Zeyn, representing the Central City Neighborhood
Council thanked the Council for the correction that was read into the record
tonight. It addressed many of their concerns and they were satisfied with
that. It was important to point out, however, that had not the Central City
Council raised those concerns, the mistake apparently printed in the negative
declaration would have been sent on to the State. In the course of doing so,
they circulated a small petition for the purpose of demonstrating the
sentiments of the residents of the central city. The petition contained 323
signatures and it addressed the issue of changing the density from 36.5
dwelling units per acre to 90 dwelling units per acre. (Petitions submitted
and made a part of the record).
Mayor Roth emphasized that 90 units to the acre was never considered by the
Council or the Planning Commission; Mr. McCorkle stated it was published in
the negative declaration. He then answered questions posed by Councilwoman
Kaywood.
Rita Ray, 1927 Chateau, first stated that she had seen the staff report which
stated that the Council was considering such density. She then addressed the
issue of density in the City as a whole and also expressed her concern over
what she considered to be an abuse of the EIR reports and studies. Numerous
projects had been approved granted a negative declaration status relative to
environmental impact because they were small. However, her concern was
relative to the cumulative impacts of such projects. She did not see how the
City could have all the growth projected in a limited area without seriously
impacting existing neighborhoods because of the housing that would be needed.
She felt it was time for the Council and City Manager Talley to plan a
reasonable future for the City of Anaheim.
Tim Huth, 1701 South Nutwood, expressed his views regarding a possible drug
problem in his neighborhood.
Nancy Hollis, 1715 South Nutwood, stated she wanted to substantiate Rita Ray's
comment. She was also present at the staff meeting with Mr. John Anderson
referring to GPA 195, page 7, which stated, "including higher densities (up to
90 dwelling units and cluster development) .... " At the meeting they
640
7~
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
questioned the use of the negative environmental impact wh~le raising the
density three times. That document was already sent to Sacramento 45 days
ahead of time.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and stated the proposal for 90 units as
explained was not presented to the Plannin~ Commission or the Council. It was
one developer's proposal and now it was gone and over with. Mrs. Hollis
stated that 90 units to the acre was approved by the Planning Commission on
April 30, 1984; Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mrs. Hollis was talking about
the negative declaration but the proposal for 90 units to the acre was never
brought forth but merely stated someone had requested that density. It was
not now being proposed nor would it be proposed.
Mrs. Hollis stated it was sent to Housing Development in Sacramento. It was
not proposed to the Council.
Mr. Fick clarified the statement was not a part of the Housing Element or the
Housing Element Amendment, merely a statement they thought the audience that
would be reading the information would understand, but that was obviously not
the case. The staff report was not sent to the Department of Housing and
Community Development. The 90 units per acre was not referenced in the
negative declaration and perhaps the issue could be alleviated by having the
parenthesis statement stricken from the staff report at this point in time.
The Housing Element Amendment portion was forwarded to the State as
recommended by the Planning Commission for their review and comment as
required bp law. The staff report was merely staff's s,,mm~ry to the Planning
Commission and Council and that was not forwarded. He confirmed for the Mayor
that nothing that said anything about 90 units to the acre went to Sacramento.
Mrs. Hbllis asked if the preliminary draft map of the vacant land use done by
Mr. Anderson was forwarded to Sacramento.
Mr. Fick, to correct his last statement, explained he was just informed by a
staff member that the sum-~ry staff report for ease in review by the State
staff was forwarded in conjunction with the Amendment.
Councilman Bay surmised then that Hr. Fick was now saying that it did go to
Sacramento; Hr. Flck answered, yes but not as a part of the Housing Element
Amendment or the Amendment that was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission but merely as addendum information.
Councilman Bay confirmed that he had not seen anything submitted to the
Council proposing 90 units to the acre much less having approved it. Relative
to the Housing Element, he voted against it when it was originated because it
was initiated by staff in Sacramento in the first place. At this time, he was
trying to ascertain why so many people in the central city neighborhood were
concerned. He wanted to know the issues and where they felt the Council was
not listening to them. He did not understand the concern he was seeing today.
Mr. Bob Renzo, 114 East Wilhelmina, stated that 90 units per acre would
frighten anybody but they were satisfied at this point that the whole idea of
90 units per acre was going to be stricken after his conversation with Mr.
641
City H~!i~ A~aheim~ Cs_lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Tashiro this past week. What frightened the central city, especially those
close to or involved in the redevelopment area, was increased density. They
were in favor of decreased density in the downtown area. Further, their
streets were not being paved and they had asked that they be done through
block grant funds. They had also asked for increased lighting and increased
policing through the alleys. They did have the NET Program but still no
patrolling in the alleys. Most problems relative to burglaries occurred
through the alley area. There were also problems regarding code enforcement.
Although things were working better for them, they wanted the City to work
closer with them. They were afraid of people looking in their windows from
high-rise buildings and also heavier traffic. They wanted to know how those
problems would be answered. Currently there were no schools in the central
city area. Increased densities would increase problems.
Councilman Bay stated the concerns expressed were not much different from
those received from all over the City. He thought when the Council set up
four neighborhood councils in the City, when the people in those neighborhoods
had concerns, they went to the neighborhood councils who in turn would bring
those concerns to the City Council. In the last three to four years the
Council added approximately $3 million to the Police Department budget and
crime percentage had been reduced all over the City back to the 1979 rate. As
well, the neighborhood watch program had been very effective. Yet, he got the
implication that those present were coming to the Council as antagonists and
the Council had not heard their requests yet. They were not new requests and
they were not easily resolved in one area versus another. Further there had
always been a concern about redevelopment ever since it started in 1974.
Councilman Overholt then addressed the issue of schools in the central city, a
subject which had been broached by Mr. Renzo in his presentation. Further, he
emphasized that anytime citizens had questions, they could contact any Council
Member by telephone and they were encouraged to use that avenue of
communication.
Joel Fick then answered a question posed by Sheryl Boyd, 607 North Zeyn,
wherein she referred to a statement made by Mr. Tashiro that there were
certain considerations whereby higher densities were allowable. He explained
the cap on all densities in the City was 36 dwelling units per acre. The
subject of higher density was instigated in considering the Gfeller property.
At that time there was a very special circumstance associated with the
property (located on Lincoln Avenue near Beach Boulevard) because it involved
an old dump site causing very serious problems with an existing mobile home
park development. As a result, there was a general plan amendment approved
and staff received direction from the City Council and Planning Commission
along those lines. The general plan text was amended to make more flexible
the provisions that in certain specific areas, such as the downtown area or in
other specific areas where infrastructure would allow or accommodate more
intense development, it was conceivable that higher densities could be
approved. Staff had been trying to make the point that any type of a more
intense use would require a public hearing before either the Planning
Commission or City Council, he emphasized and reiterated there was no
designated area in the City that would permit any development more intense
642
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
than 36 dwelling units per acre without a public hearing before the Planning
Commission and/or City Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was with reference to RM-1000 which was 44
dwelling units per acre maximum and at that time there was a heated discussion
that the Council was not going to allow it to be applicable everywhere and
anywhere in the City but that it would have to be brought in case by case.
In concluding, Ms. Boyd stated that she worked as did most of her neighbors
and that was a problem because the Council was not really accessible to the
general population.
Councilman Bay explained that there was a hotline available to the citizens as
well as the neighborhood councils. He then explained how he first became
involved in density problems as a private citizen and what he and those
involved did to accomplish their goal of bringing their concern to the City
and gaining a positive outcome. He felt that 70-80% of the citizens fears
were due to lack of information about their facts. He also pointed out that
he, the Mayor and Councilman Overholt were also working people and that
Councilwoman Kaywood spent many hours in her position as Councilwoman. They
were not full time Council Members with large staffs and there were many ways
for citizens to find out factual information without going to a public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood, speaking from her 14 years of experience, both on the
Planning Commission and Council, explained that when they had night hearings,
nobody went to those meetings unless they were specifically involved with an
agenda item. What the Council did now in response to requests for a night
hearing on crucial items was to grant such requests.
Mr. Kay BJorn, 1707 Nutwood, first asked, because of the many rumors, what was
planned for development on South Nutwood; Councilwoman Kaywood explained that
there was a proposal that had been submitted to the Planning Commission and
continued several times, now expected to be heard at the end of June.
Mr. BJorn also stated that he had phoned staff and wrote a letter but had
received no response thus far, even his letter to the Mayor; Mayor Roth
suggested that Mr. Bjorn rewrite his letter and he would see to it that a
reply was forthcoming.
Mr. Richard Curtiss, 419 East Sycamore, reported that on May 31, 1984, the
Central City Neighborhood Council had a meeting in the Washington School where
they received a flyer that was distributed concerning the 36 units and 90
units to the acre which had now been explained (the flyer had Previously been
made a part of the record). They did not have all the answers at the meeting
relative to the issue presented and when he subsequently called Councilwoman
Kaywood, she relieved him of his concerns at that time. He then explained
that he too had written letters and made phone calls but he rarely received
responses. He contended that code enforcement needed more help. The density
issue was a problem. Driving down Sabrina which was to the left of where he
lived at the corner of Sabrina and Sycamore Street, there were many apartment
complexes on Sycamore and almost every few years they got a new apartment
complex. Perhaps they as citizens were not getting the education they should
643
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
from the City and perhaps were not goin~ to the Council and asking questions
they should be asking. He did not feel they should have to or want to go to
the City and ask the Council all the questions but that the education should
be coming from the Council's side of the podium. That meant the Planning
Commission and other staff people as well. Perhaps City staff and central
city or all the neighborhood councils needed more communication between each
other.
Mr. Fick, in answer to a question raised by Mr. Curtiss, relative to the
zoning on Sycamore Street where he (Curtiss) lived, it was possible that the
parcel might have been one of the properties zoned as far back as the 1940's.
He believed in 1947 there was a large portion of the central city zoned by an
approved map. Staff would be happy to check and report back and also on the
garage conversion broached by Mr. Curtiss.
Mr. Dale Stanton, 1509 Harle, stated he had been before the Council previously
on the issue of density in 1972, specifically relative to the Cerritos-Walnut
area upon which he elaborated. He was appalled at putting 36 units of
anything on an acre. It was not possible to get around in the City. The
reason Proposition A failed was not because of the freeway that would have
been built but because they did not get to the root of the problem and that
was increased density.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that as long as she could remember, apartments
were 36 units to the acre. That was not a change. The 44 units to the acre
was a specSal case, in a specific area, and not City-wide. What they did have
that they did not like but imposed upon the City by the State, if a developer
said he was going to build a minimum of 25% affordable housing, the City was
required by law to give a 25% maximum density bonus.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-230 for adoption, approving an
amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan to update housing needs,
goals, policies, plans and programs City-wide. See the Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-230: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A REVISION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DESIGNATED AS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 195 PURSUANT TO SECTION 65588 OF THE
GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was going to vote "no"
because he voted against the incursion of the Housing Element in the General
Plan in the first place.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that by their action there was no change from
the existing Housing Element.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
644
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-230 duly passed and adopted.
106: AUDIT DISALLOWANCE - FISCAL YEAR 1981 UNITIFIED AUDIT OF THE ORANGE
COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize a payment to
the Orange County Manpower Commission in the amount of $10,486.28 from the
Council Contingency Fund for payment in full of audit disallowances in
connection with the Fiscal Year 1981 Unified Audit of the OCMC and its
sub-recipients. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY MANAGER: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to approve an amendment to Section 11 (B) of the employment
agreement between the City and the CityManager. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. Councilman Bay voted no. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (9:00 p.m)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
645