1984/10/09City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
ABSENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Darrell Ament
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
LIBRARY DIRECTOR: William Griffith
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
~SSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Don Dexter, First Presbyterian Church, gave' the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay 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:
"Toastmasters Communications Month in Anaheim," October 1984,
"Eleanor Roosevelt Centennial Day in Anaheim," October i1, 1984,
"Crime Prevention Month in Anaheim," October 1984,
"Safe Schools Week in Anaheim," October 15-19, 1984.
Belinda Drybread, Area Governor and Sam Eifferman, Division Lieutenant
Governor accepted the Toastmasters proclamation; Captain Dick Grey and
Sgt. Ken Br0tt of the Anaheim Police Department accepted the Crime Prevention
proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION: A Resolution of Recognition was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to recognize the important contribution and
sacrifice of the Chinese Railroad Builders and to Join in commending them as a
group of pioneers who played a major role in building the network of railroads
which was the transport base of America's industrial might in the 20th Century.
MINUTES: Councilman Roth moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings
held July 24 and July 31, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
971
168
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
_Councilman Overholt abstained on the minutes of Ju.ly 24, 1984, since he was
not present at that meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of ail 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, un_less after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Co~rncil Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,876,601.50, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
175/137: ISSUANCE OF $6~650~000 WATER REVENUE BONDS~ 1984 SERIES AND
ACCEPTING A BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF THOSE BONDS: Mr. Darrell Ament, Public
Utilities Assistant General Manager announced that as of 9:00 a.m. today, six
bids were received and opened on the subject bonds. He was present to
recommend that the bid be awarded to Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, the low
bidder. Mr. Bob MacDonald, James J. Lowrey and Company was present to discuss
the bond market briefly and to elaborate on the bids. Other principals were
present if there were any questions.
Mr. Bob MacDonald, President, James J. Lowrey and Company, Financial Advisor
to the City, explained the climate in the present bond market for Council's
information. In concluding his presentation, Mr. MacDonald stated that the
competition for the bonds was very good and the bid received from Paine Webber
Jackson & Curtis being recommended to the Council was an excellent one with a
true interest cost of 10.317 percent which compared favorably with the 25
revenue bond index of 10.88 percent. (See memorandum dated October 9, 1984
from the Public Utilities General Manager).
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 84R-396 and 84R-397 for adoption, the
first authorizing the Issuance of $6,650,000 Water Revenue Bonds, 1984 Series
of the City of Anaheim and providing terms and conditions of such bonds and
the second accepting the bid of Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis for the purchase
of $6,650,000 Water Revenue Bonds, 1984 Series, rejecting all other bids, and
approving the form of the Official Statement and taking certain related
action. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-396: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $6,650,000 WATER REVENUE
BONDS, 1984 SERIES OF THE CITY AND PROVIDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
BONDS.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-397: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF ITS $6,650,000 WATER
REVENUE BONDS, 1984 SERIES; REJECTING AI.L OTHER BIDS: AND APPROVING THE FORM
OF THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND TAKING CERTAIN ~m~ATED ACTION.
Roll Call Vote:
972
55
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-396 and 84R-397 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-398 for adoption, directing the
Issuance of Water Revenue Anticipati~m Notes in a minimum d~n~mination of
$25,000. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-398: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF WATER REVENUE ANTICIPATION
NOTES IN A ~INIMUM DENOMINATION OF $25,000.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MF2iBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-398 duly passed and adopted.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CAI.~NDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickier
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-399 through 84R-405, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Katherine Allen for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of a City crew at 2081 South Loara, A, on
or about July 31, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Leonard Dale Mattinson for indemnity based on
Superior Court Case No. 42-98-23, Waiter L. Murray, III, Nancy Murray and
Karen J. Murray, a minor, by and for her Guardian ad Litem, Nancy Murray, vs.
Leonard Dale Mattinson and City of Anaheim.
c. Claim submitted by Patricia A. Smith for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident caused by the condition of the street
at the southwest corner of White Star and Blue Star, on or about August 23,
1984.
d. Claim submitted by Daniel F. Burm for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City on West
Street, 1,638 feet south of Cerritos, on or about June 21, 1984.
973
166
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
e. Claim submitted by Carmen Marlo Rubino, Sr. for personal injury
-damages sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Department, on
or about June 22, 1984 at California Energy Bureau, 1219 North Tustin Avenue.
f. Claim submitted by Theresa Rose Corey (aka Maria Rosa Herrera
Alvarado) for personal property loss sustained purportedly due to actions of
the Police Department at the Police Station, on or about September 6, 1984.
2. Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Allowed:
g. Claim submitted by Charlotte Marcotti for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of City crew at 810 Redondo Drive East,
on or about.August 7, 1984.
3. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of August 22, 1984.
b. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of September 20, 1984.
c. 1~6: Police Department--Monthly Report for August 1984.
4. 123/125: Authorizing the Data Processing Director to enter into an
agreement with MAI Sorbus Service at a cost of $2,542.93 per month to provide
maintenance for City computer equipment on a 24 hour basis effective
December 1, 1984.
5. 180: Approving an offer of Rollins Burdick Hunter, Broker of Record, to
place an order for a one-year extended discovery period of September 17, 1984
to September 17, 1985 for public officials liability insurance coverage.
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Youth Services Program, Inc. (Y.S.P.)
in an amount not to exceed $31,500 to provide professional counseling services
in specialized areas to youth, for the term July 1, i984 through June 30, 1985.
7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the City of Brea to provide helicopter
patrol check services to them for purposes of fire suppression in the Carbon
Canyon area, at a cost of $175 per hour of flight, for the term September 4,
1984 through December 31, 1984.
8. 123: Authorizing an agreement with PRC Engineering Inc., for Phase I of a
Public Heliport Feasibility Study and possibly Phase II for Master Plan and
Environmental Assessment, in an amount not to exceed $130,500, said funds to
be provided by an FAA planning grant with City 10% match.
9. 160/123: Accepting the bid and authorizing an agreement with Toro Pacific
Distributing for the lease of new turf equipment in the amount of $157,572.60
for a period of 12 months with option to extend f6r 4 additional 12-month
periods; and accepting the offer of Toro Pacific Distributing for the sale of
current golf course turf equipment in the amount of $74,735, in accordance
with Bid No. 4113.
974
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
10. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to Motorola
Communication and Electronics, Inc., in the amount of $11,119.34, in
accordance with their quotation dated August 31, 1984.
11. 160: Accepting the low bid of Mills Ford in the amount of $33,422.37 for
one 34,000# G.V.W. Tilt Cab and Chassis, in accordance with Bid No. 4127.
12. 160: Accepting the bid of S&C Electric Company in an amount of $64,209.50
for three each P.M.H.-9 and one each P.M.H.-10 and four each P.M.H.-ll
three-phase sectionalizing switches with fused lateral taps, in accordance
with Bid No. 4130.
13. 160: A~cepting the low bid of Keith C. Ferguson Co. Inc., in the amount
of $11,215.92, to furnish and install 102 Everpure Water Filter units, in
accordance with Bid No. 4138.
14. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-399: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
REHABILITATION OF WF.T~L NOS. 106 AND 128 AND DEMOLITION OF WELL NO. 108 AND
W~.I.L AT MARSH~I.T. PARK, IN THE CITY OF ANAHIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 53-619-6329-02375
FOR WF~I.L #106, 53-619-6329-02384 FOR WELL #128, 53-619-6329-02398 FOR
#108, AND 51-619-6329-2404 FOR WELL AT MARSHALL PARK;. (opening of bids
November 3.5, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
15. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-400: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 16-843-7103-43160,
16--843-7103-43080, 16-824-7103-24080, and 16-822-7103-22080. (Allied
Sprinkler Company, Inc., in the amount of $144,100)
16. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-401: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE RIVERDALE PARK PICNIC SHELTER, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-822-7105-22080. (Warvi Construction,
Inc., in the amount of 39,969)
17. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-402: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAl.~ ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ~LL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF AT,T.
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD PHASES II AND III - MOHLER
DRIVE TO WEIR CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF ANAHELM, ACCOUNT NOS.
54-612-6329-01703 AND 54-621-6329-01714. (Colich & Sons (J.V.), contractor)
18. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-403: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RATIFYING THE EMPLOYMENT OF HAMPTON TEDDER ELECTRIC COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREFOR. (for emergency work, and
authorizing payment in the amount of $12,632)
975
154
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
19. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-404: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF A//AHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
20. 170/000/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4546: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .020 OF SECTION 17.08.385, AND ADDING NEW
SECTION 17.08.439, TO CHAPTER 17.08. OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. (First Reading)
21. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-405: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING AN INTENTION TO GRANT A FRANCHISE TO GOLDEN WEST REFINING
COMPANY FOR PIPELINES IN KNOTT STRF.~.T. (and setting a date for the public
hearing therefor, suggested date: November 13, 1984, 1:30 p.m.) MOTION
CARRIED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-399 through 84R-405 duly passed and
adopted.
173: APPLICATION - AP EXPRESS dba AIRPORT SHUTTLE TO OPFRATE AS A PASSENGER
STAGE COMPANY: Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California (initial application), the application of AP Express dba Airport
Shuttle for authority to operate as a passenger Stage Co. between points in
Los Angeles and Orange County and the Los Angeles International Airport.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the application was submitted by someone from
outside of Anaheim who, in her opinion, was looking to take off some of the
City's best market. She wanted to know if Yellow Cab and Fun Bus were aware
of the application.
City Clerk Leonora Sohl stated that the application was a preliminary one and
the Transportation Companies in Anaheim had not yet been notified but she
would advise them of the pending application.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the subject
preliminary application. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: FLEXIBLE COMPENSATION PLAN AND DEPENDENT CARE COMPONENT PLAN DOCUMENT:
Approving the Plan Document for the Flexible Compensation Plan and Dependent
Care Component Plan Document, effective November 1, 1984.
Councilman Bay stated he had no disagreement with the proposed plan, but had
two concerns relative to the plan in its present form: (1) The validity in
question that..the whole plan was based on proposed IRS regulations. He was
looking for assurance from the City Attorney that the City Council would not
be taking on any legal liability in approving the plan. (2) Staff report
dated October 2, 1984, indicated that there would be minor increased City
costs for the administration of the plan (see Page 5 of the report). He saw
.976
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
_no reason that there should be any cost to the taxpayers. The only way he
could go to approve the proposal was on the basis that whatever costs were
generated would be handled by the group participating in tn plan.
City Attorney William Hopkins first explained that his office had reviewed the
plan and saw nothing wrong with it. If the IRS should decide to modify its
regulations, it could cause some change.
Garry McRae, Human Resources Director, stated he believed there would be some
costs to the City but they would not know until after the fact whether the
forflx=ures would cover that cost so he could not represent that there would
be no cost to the City in the plan. There was no proposal at this time to
charge employees for participation in the plan.
After additional discussion between Council Members and staff, Councilman
Pickier moved to approve the Plan Document for the Flexible Compensation Plan
and Dependent Care Component Plan Document, effective November 1, 1984 as
recommended in memorandum dated October 2, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION ~ARRIED.
153: CREATION OF NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION - POLICE ADmiNISTRATIVE SERVICES
COORDINATOR: City Manager Talley referred to report dated October 2, i984
from Human Resources Director Gary McRae, recommending the creation of a job
classification of Police Administrative Services Coordinator at a salary range
XSR04, $2,167 - $3,250 per month effective October 5, 1984. One of the goals
of the administration was to civilianize wherever possible positions
previously occupied by Public Safety Employees. In this case, it involved a
position in the Police Department studied by the Police Chief and subsequently
civilianizing that position. The City also saved $5,300 a year and removed
somebody from the bargaining nnit, creating a job in salary range 04, a
proiessional, technical or management class. Thus, while they were meeting
their goal in civilianizing and cutting the cost of government, they were also
changing the ratio which was, in his opinion, the continuing goal of
administration but it also ran counter to some of the other comments that the
Blue Ribbon Committee, for example, brought up.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-406 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. §4R-~06: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-243 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT.
(Administrative Services Coordinator, Police)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-406 duly passed and adopted.
977
1,52
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
113/112: DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-407 for
adoption, authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two
years old in the possession of the City Attorney as recommended in memorandum
dated October 9, 1984 from the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-407: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: CO.UNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-407 duly passed and adopted.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Mel Aguilar questioned whether the proposed
destruction included documents t~at were inaavertentiy given to the Angels;
City Attorney Hopkins clarified that the documents involved had nothing to do
with the Angels and some of the records were 20 years old. It was a matter of
cleaning out the files.
Mayor Roth clarified that no documents involved in current litigation would be
proposed to be destroyed in any case.
114: PROPOSED RZORGANIZATION OF THE CITY'S NEGOTIATING TEAM WITH THE RAMS
ANGELS: Councilman Overnolt noted that at the previous meeting, he offered
three motions relative to the subject which died for lack of a second. (See
minutes of October 2, 1984 where the motioms were introduced). At ~h~ time,
he intended to offer the motions again but before doing so wanted to indicate
his willingness to trail the motions with or without a second in order to
discuss them as part of the City Attormey's Closed Session prior to any
action. He thereupon read the three-part motion from a verbatim transcript of
the motion provided by the City ClerK.
1) That the Council direct Mr. Tailey to withdraw personally from the
negotiating team that has been meetin8 with Rams personnel and Angels
personnel, and to designate a member of his staff to give staff support to
future negotiations.
2) That this Council appoint Mayor Pro Tem Pickler and Councilman
Overholt as a liaison team to meet directly, together with the attorneys
and the designated staff member, with Angels personnel and, as the case
may be, Anaheim Stadium Associates poersonnel at the earliest possible
date to explore the possibility of resolving the difficulties.
3) That the City Attorney and our special counsel, Rutan and Tucker, be
instructed to contact the Angels organization, I imagine their attorney,
to arrange for a meeting as soon as possible between their peace team and
our peace to attempt to bring this matter to a conclusion.
978
L49
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
No second was offered to the motion.
Councilman Pickler thereupon moved that the motion be trailed until after a
Closed Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated from a procedural standpoint,
if a motion was not seconded, the motion died. Thus, there would be nothing
to trail and the motion would have to be reactivated after the Closed Session.
Councilman Overholt then asked if there was a second to his original motion;
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion but with the proviso that it be trailed
until after Closed Session. MOTION CAR/LIED.
Later in t~ meeting (5:40 p.m.) after a Closed Session, Councilman Overholt
withdrew his three part motion.
Mayor Roth then stated that the Council had unanimously reaffirmed that the
Liaison Team between the City of Anaheim and the Rams and Angels would remain
Councilman OverhoA£ and himself with an immediate action to send a message to
the City's Special Counsel, Rutan and Tucker (Mike McCormick) that the Council
wanted to negotiate and were ready, willing and able to do so at any time. He
and his colleagues felt it was time to sit down and solve the problem.
114/127: LIMITING CAMPAIGN SPENDING AND/OR CONTRIBUTIONS: Councilwoman
'Kaywoo~ requesteu a report from the City Attorney on legal and constitutional
ways to i/mit campa/gn spending and/or contributions. She asked that the
report be submitted now so that the Council could take action for January 1,
1985.
City Attorney Hopkins s~ated that the report could be provided in two to three
weeks.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC LIBRARy BOARD: Appointment to'the Public
Library Boars ior the term ending June 30, 1987. (Ambrosi). This matter was
continued from the meeting of October 2, 1984 (see minutes that date).
Councilman Pickler moved to continue the subject appointment for one week.
Councilman Overhoit second the motion.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated when the Council
received applications where they did not know the person applying, she felt
uncomfortable making an appointment and suggested interviews be held.
Councilman Overholt suggested if any person wanted to contact him personally
or any other Council Member, they should feel free to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Brown Act prohibited a Closed Session on
appointments but she did not want to.put anyone in an embarrassing position
before the public'. She preferred that the Council talk to applicants at
the same time.
979
150
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Bill Griffith, City Librarian, in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, stated
~that-the appointment was not a matter of urgency; Councilwoman Kaywood
thereupon asked if Councilman Pickier was willing to continue the appointment
for two to three weeks.
Councilman Pickler was agreeable as was Councilman 0verholt in his second.
Councilman Bay stated he did not favor a public session but during the three
weeks talking to the applicants by phone or meeting with them was still the
best way to proceed. He did not feel that an interview was necessary on a
group basis.
Mayor Roth stated he felt the same way and that individuals could contact the
Council.
Councilman Overholt encouraged those who were interested in being appointed to
the Board to contact the Council.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion that the subject appointment be
continued three weeks to October 30, 1984. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTEE TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: Recommendation of
Magnolia School District Boar~ of Trustees an~ letter Sated September 26, 1984
to appoint Richard K. Shimeail to represent the District on the Park and
Recreation Commission and Louise H. DiM, arco as alternate for the term ending
June 30, 1985 (see minutes of September 11 and 18, 1984).
Mayor Roth quoted the following from the subject letter: #A School Board of
Trustees may recommend to the City Council any of its members for au appoint-
ment to a Commission of the City. The Council will use such
recommendation without prejudice as to the place of residency.of such
Trustee/Appointment."
The Mayor surmised that the Board was asking a waiver of the residency
requirement but that requirement was a part of the City Charter.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that was correct; City Clerk Sohl reported the
Board had already been so advised. She felt the Board was recommending that
the Council at some future time consider amending the Charter.
Councilman Overholt stated it would be helpful if the City Attorney could
provide a report as to the possibility of amending the Charter and the
ramifications with respect to the City's Boards and Commissions; City Attorney
Hopkins stated such a change would affect all Boards and Commissions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be opposed to waiving the residency
requirement. She also reported that from the Orange Unified
School District was sitting on the Parks and Recreation Commission as an
ex-officio member and all that it took was a specific invitation to a specific
person; Councilman 0verholt maintained then that the Magnolia School District
could have a non-resident ex-officio member sitting on the Commission also and
98O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
_leaving the regular representative vacant. He thereupon withdrew his request
to the City Attorney to submit a report.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to ratify the recommendation of the
Magnolia School District Board of Trustees to appoint Richard K. Shimeall to
represent the District on the Parks and Recreation Commission and Louise H.
DiMarco as alternate for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held September, 17, 1984, pertaining to
the following applications were submitted for City Council information. The
22-Day appeal expires on October 9, 1984.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2618: Application submitted by Redondo
Investment Co., to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL
zoned property located at 6324 East Santa Ama Canyon Road, with Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-188, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2618 and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2620: Application submitted by Redondo
Investment Co., to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL
zoned property located at 6304-08 East Santa Ann Canyon Road, with Code waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-189, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2620 and granted a negative declaration status.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3422: Application submitted by Pralle and Case No. 2, to
construct a 44-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at
1464 East La Palma Avenue, with Code waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-190, granted
Variance No. 3422 and granted a negative declaration status.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3423: Application submitted by Imperial Bank, to retain the
display of temporary flags for a new residential subdivision on P. M-3000 zoned
property located at the southwest corner of Canyon Rim Road and Serran0
Avenue, Tract No. 10941 (Rim Crest ViLlas), with Code waivers as follows: (a)
maximum number of flags, (b) permitted days of display.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-191, granted
Variance No. 3423 for 6 months and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination (Class 11).
5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-7: .Application Submitted by Pacific Lighting
Leasing Co., initiated by the City Planning Commission, for a change in zone
from ML(SC) to CL(SC) on property located at 5650 East La Palma Avenue.
981
148
City Ha~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-192, granted
Reclassification No. 84-85-7 and granted a negative declaration status.
6. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-6 AND VARIANCE NO. 3420: Application submitted
by Euclid Development Partners, for a change in zone from CO to CL, to
construct a commercial retail complex on property located at 1300 South Euclid
Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking
spaces, (denied) (b) minimum structural setback, (in part) (c) minimum width
of planter strip, (denied)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-186 and 187,
granted in part, Reclassification No. 84-85-6 and Variance No. 3420, and
granted a n~gative declaration status.
Councilman Overholt requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
on Reclassification No. 84-85-6 and Variance No. 3420 and, therefore, a public
hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
179: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-105: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
84R-408 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 84R-105nunc pro tunc, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2533 to correct clerical error. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-408: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-105 Nb-NC PRO TUNC, GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2533.
Roil Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-408 duly passed and adopted.
123 APPROVING THE IMPERIAL HIGHWAY ACCESS TO THE CANYON PLAZA SHOPPING
CENTER: Approving a proposed agreement in concept only with Canyon Plaza
'Shopping Center to provide permanent access to Canyon Plaza Shopping Center
from Imperial Highway. This matter was continued from the meeting of
September 18, 1984 (see minutes that date).
Submitted was a report dated September 2, 1984 from the City Engineer,
recommending that the Council approve the Imperial Highway access to the
Canyon Plaza Shopping Center on a leased basis.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated October 5, 1984 had been received
from Chart Lafebvre of the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center, requesting a one week
continuance of the subject.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present; Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney, was present
in the Chamber audience.
982
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -october 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth noted that some of the tenants of the restaurants and shops in
=the Center had called regarding the matter. He thereupon moved to continue
consideration of the proposed agreement for one week to October 16, 1984.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
131: UNIMPROVED PARCELS JUTTING OUT ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS: Submitted was a
report dated August 18, 1984 from the City Engineer which classified the
unimproved parcels into four priority ratings along with cost estimates.
Councilman Pickier expressed his concern and interest in eliminating some of
the subject parcels especially those heavily traveled and where they were
creating a hazard.
City Manager Talley referred to the priority list submitted listing those
parcels outside of the northeast industrial area that staff wou~d recommend if
Council were interested in securing the right-of-way so that improvements
could be completed. It would be necessary for the Council to change its
policy to indicate they were willing to proceed without the improvement of the
adjacent properties. With the priority list, they could cost each of the jobs
out unless the Council wanted to change those priorities. The list was
prepared on the basis of additional right-of-way needed to eliminate accidents
based upon the number of accidents that had occurred over the past three
years. He confirmed for the Mayor that the items were not budgeted. The
Council had available $500,000 less appropriations made during the budget
hearings which were for unspecified infrastructure improvements.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that would be changing a precedent on how the
City would proceed in the future.
City Manager Talley answered that the existing policy maintained for some
decades would chance and it wouAd probably remove motivation by other
properties to want to dedicate because they would then say, let the City do
it. If they started on the priorities, it involved approximately $1,163,000.
If the Council directed staff to get the job done, they would keep doing it
until they spent the money each year.
Councilman Pickler broached the situation at Ball Road and Knott Avenue where
17 accidents had occurred; Mayor Roth suggested that they direct staff to
prepare the necessary documents on that parcel (at Ball Road and Knott Avenue)
to determine whether the City could get the necessary ri§hE-of-way dedicated
and then the cost of that improvement.
Councilman Bay stated from the standpoint of precedent, there were two things
to consider, once the City moved on the first one, particularly if the total
cost were absorbed, there would be no motivation on the part of property
owners on any of the other parcels to initiate action to improve those
parcels. He cautioned the Council if they approved one, they would be taking
an irrevocable step relative to how the City was going to pay for future parcels.
City Engineer Gary Johnson stated if the Council was proposing to change the
policy, that they require the dedication in exchange for the improvements. In
the total cost of the five projects identified, eliminating the right-of-way
cost of $584,000, the cost would be reduced by half. It had been a long-
983
146
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
standing policy of the City and a successful one where very few parcels were
=required to be purchased by the City. The City had been very successful in
negotiating. If the Council felt these were high priority projects, they
could let them compete City wide with other capital projects. In the
Five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) an indication that they were priority
projects from the Council would allow staff to place the projects in the
program. That would be one methodology.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt they all agreed with the concern expressed
by Councilman Pickler, Bay, and the Mayor. He felt there should be a way to
develop a program on a project that was critical that would allow them to make
the necessary improvements without being concerned by the precedent that might
be established. He would like to see a policy that would be sensitive to
Councilman ~ay's concerns, which he (Overholt) shared, and yet be sensitive to
existing hazardous conditions.
Mr. Johnson stated, based on the discussion, his office could draft a policy
to recommend to the Council and a report could be submitted in two to three
weeks.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to receive and file report dated July 18, 1984
from the City Engineer regarding unimproved parcels jutting out on arterial
highways. Councilman Overhoit seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
111/106: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE (BRC) REPORT
-IMPLEMENTATION OF P~ECOM~DATIONS: See minutes of September 18 and
October 2, 1984 where the matter was discussed and subsequently continued to
this date.
Counctlm- Bay acknowledged the report dated October 9, 198~ from the City
Manager received Just as the Council meeting started (see memorandum dated
October 9, 1984 to the City Council from William O. Talley, City Manager,
subject: Response to selected recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce
June 25, 1984 Blue Ribbon Committee Interim Report. He also referred to and
commented on the minutes of the meeting of June 26, 1984 when the BRC report
was submitted. (Verbatim Transcript on file in the City Clerk's Office). He
intended that his motions stand as presented.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated since the Charter was adopted in 1963, the review
period on the budget was 30 days. The submittal date on the budget was moved
up for a period of two years as a result of the vote of the electorate, found
to be unworkable and the 30 day period was subsequently voted on again and
passed. She was not willing to make a change contrary to the wish of the
people.
Councilman Bay answered that the Charter merely set a minimum flow time and a
majority of the Council had the power to move receipt of the budget up to any
time it desired and had nothing to do with going against the wishes of the
people. The argument from the BRC and himself was that four weeks was not
adequate time to analyze the City's massive budget. The City Attorney had
answered the question that it was not in violation of the Charter to move
recipt of budget up one month.
984
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
After additional Council discussion relative to the timeframe for a budget
submittal, City Manager Talley explained that the Chamber did not get into the
budget process until mid June when staff called the Chamber. Relative to Item
Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7 (see BRC recommendations and October 9, 1984 memorandum
from the City Manager), during the presentation of the BRC report, the City
had agreed they would do those things. The City would be willing to meet with
the Chamber the day after the budget was presented to the Council. However,
he was questioning how much time the Chamber was pTepaTed to devote To analyze
the budget when the task was begun. If they could meet only one or two hours
every other week, he (Talley) would not want to back up the whole budget
process for a month under those circumstances. Backing the process up to
December was going to cause a problem from a morale and work standpoint but
even more important was the fact that none of the recommendations that were
made by the BEC dealt with any specific budget figure or plan but were
comments on how to put the document together differently, and the City was
agreeing to do that. He wanted to get to the point where the Chamber was
happy enough with the way the budget was crafted so that they could start
giving the Council recommendations on what they felt the Council should and
should not be approving as far as programs were concerned.
Councilman Overholt stated the issue was whether it was necessary to back up
the process one month to facilitate a complete review of the budget by the BRC
or by any other Committee or a portion of the City who may want to be included
in the deliberations. There seemed to be some confusion as to how strongly
the BRC felt backing the process up or shortening the process. It was not
possible to have both. He noted that Mr. Herb Leo was present in the Chamber
audience and asked for clarification.
Mr. Herb Leo, 2906 Bellamy, stated he had been on the BRC for at least two
years and the Committee was remiss last budget year in starting their
proceedings. The cooperation between City Manager Talley and the Committee
was exemplary. They simply made the motion relative to the timeframe because
when analyzing a budget of the size of Anaheim's, whatever extra time could be
afforded would be beneficial. They agreed with Mr. Talley that most of what
the Committee was doing was not specific and mainly because they did not have
the time to get into how much money the City was spending and in what areas.
Mr. Talley had made some changes in the last couple of years suggested by the
Committee and he had shortened the period of time the City spent on the budget
which was excellent. He felt if the BRC responded to Mr. Talley the minute he
presented the budget to the Council so that the Committee would have three and
a half weeks time, the Committee would do a better job on the 1985/86 budget
than on the last budget particularly if the same people were on the Committee.
Councilman Overholt surmised then that the recommendation would be to leave
the process as is, and if the BRC got right to work on it, it would allow
ample time for review; Mr. Leo stated that was his personal opinion. The
Committee had recommended it be extended. He did not recall if there was a
formal vote or not, but it was unanimous.
Councilman Bay stated his only concern was that the Committee and anybody else
who wanted to review the budget have adequate time to do so. It was his
985
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
~nderstanding that the BRC was going to work with City staff through the
process andhe did not see that occurring last year.
Councilman Overholt asked, based upon Mr. Leo's statement, did he (Bay)
propose to withdraw his first motion; Councilman Bay answered "no". He was
going to let it stand because it was a written recommendation of the BRC which
he understood was a unanimous vote.
Mayor Roth stated what he heard from Mr. Leo was that the Council should give
the Committee another opportunity to present their recommendations to the
Council in advance of adoption of the budget.
Councilwoman. Kaywood asked if Mr. Talley earlier was talking about making an
official presentation to someone other than the Council before the budget was
presented to the Council.
Mr. Talley answered if the Council did not have a problem with that, they
could give the Chamber a private screening before that Tuesday when the budget
would formally be presented to the Council, although staff would have filed it
before that time and made their presentations. On the preceeding Friday or
Monday in a Closed Session the Chamber would be given the same presentation
that the Council received after the budget became a public document. He
clarified that the budget became public when it was filed with the City Clerk.
Councilman"Roth thereupon withdrew his second to the motion previously made by
Councilman Bay relative to the recommenaation by the Blue Ribbon Committee
that a change in schedule of presenting the budget take place in such a way
that the Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) would be submitted by May 2, 1985.
The motion, therefore, died for a lack of a second.
Councilman Overholt then noted that City Manager Talley indicated he would
comply with Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7 without the Council taking a formal action
directing him to do so. That being the case, he asked Councilman Bay if he
would withdraw his motion on those items; Councilman Bay answered "no".
Mr. Talley then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he had made note of
those items last June and he thought it was agreed those were positive
suggestions that the City could incorporate, or they were already in the plan
as, for instance, No. 6. ~ta~f would make an additional effort to ~how the
BRC where those figures were in the budget.
Mr. Leo stated that since Item Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7 were all recommendations,
he saw nothing wrong in letting the motion stand and Council directing Mr.
Talley to take whatever action the Council felt was appropriate. He (Talley)
did implement practically everything the Committee suggested to him in the
past. In so doing, the Council would be confirming the Committee's
recommendations and approving what Mr. Talley was doing.
A vote was then taken on mOtions 2, 4, 6 and 7 previously offered by
Councilman Bay and seconded by Councilman Roth. Motions carried unanimously.
986
City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
~ouncilwoman Kaywood noted that the Items were agreed to last June by Mr.
Talley and they were implemented.
Councilman Bay noted that on No. 6 there might be some need for consultation
between City Manager Talley and the BRC on the definition of contingency
funds. The matter was discussed at the previous meeting (see minutes of
October 2, 1984) and as he understood, there may be a difference of opinion as
~hat the Committee and Mr. Talley defined as contingency.
MOTION: Councilman Bay then read Item No. 3 as follows: That the City
Councll direct that the total cost of salaries and wages (not including
bargaining units) in the budget be determined, and the percentage increase be
compared for the past three years (Blue Ribbon Report No. 7a).
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Tailey to comment; City Manager Talley stated
that it was not the BRC's motion and it had been substantially changed. He
expressed in his report the changes that were made and secondly he felt if
that information were presented as the BRC requested, it could cause the
'Council to possibly change other direction to management. He did not believe
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was something necessarily indicative of what
they were doing and the City also had in effect at present a bargaining unit
agreement signed for another three years. He had a problem the way the motion
was directed, that it could cast incorrectly the percentage increase as
skewed. He reiterated it would pose a substantial problem to the Council or
portray figures incorrectly and :hat was with reference to both Item Nos. 3
and $.
Mayor Roth stated he was going to withdraw his second to both Item Nos. 3 and
5 and discuss those in Closed Session before the Council took further action.
Mr. Leo stated it was not the intention of the BRC to request something from
the City Manager that would interfere with the functions of the City in
negotiations or in any other way.
City Manager Talley stated he did not have a problem doing that if so directed
as long as the Council understood what he believed the downside to be. He
would be happy to enlighten Mr. Leo privately as well.
Councilman Pickler asked Councilman Bay if he was withdrawing his motion;
Councilman Bay answered "no".
The motions died for lack of a secOnd.
105: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE - CHARTER RENEWAL - APPOINTMENTS: J. Laurance
King, Chairman, Project Area Committee, requesting renewal of the Charter for
the Project Area Committee; confirming reappointment and re-election of
current members; and appointments to fill two vacancies. This matter was
continued from the meeting of October 2, 1984.
Mayor Roth stated that Mr. Bill Erickson wanted to speak on the subject item.
987
142
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
_ Mr. Bill Erickson, 308 North Street, stated his concern was relative to what
Councilman Bay intended to do and what was the thrust of his bringing the
Project Area Committee (PAC) up at this meeting.
Councilman Overholt stated since there was no full Council at the last
meeting, Councilman Bay moved to continue the matter to November 13, 1984.
(Overholt) offered a substitute motion to continue the matter until today.
He
Councilman Bay then stated he thought he expressed himself clearly last week
when he made the motion to continue. The reasons he gave for continuance to
November was to get staff information regarding the functions of PAC. He also
remarked that PAC was required for the first two or three years of the
Redevelopment Program but the requirement under the law was not there after
that time. He suggested that the Council delay action because the action
would extend the Charter for one year with a request for two years. Extending
the Charter, in his opinion, needed more study and more Justification as to
the total function of the PAC.
Mr. Erickson stated if the thrust was the elimination of PAC, then he would
have comments to make but if that was not the thrust, then he would pursue the
matter no further.
Councilman Bay stated the thrust was to get more information and the time to
get that information. He thereupon renewed his motion to continue action on
the PAC to November 13, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was any reason
why the appointments could not be made at this time; Councilman Bay had no
problem with that if there was no legal problem.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed there would be no legal problem.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint Alan Clendenen and Warren
Hollingsworth to the Project Area Committee to fill two vacancies. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A vote was then taken on the motion by Councilman Bay to continue to
November 13, 1984 the consideration of renewing the PAC Charter for a term of
one year and confirming the reapp0intment and re-election of current member~
to expire June 30, 1985. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for a report from Norm Priest giving his input with
regard to renewing the PAC Charter for one year.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations and personnel matters with no action anticipated; The
City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential
litigation with action anticipated.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the
City Attorney concerning pending or potential litigation.
988
~ Anahetmz_California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9 1_~_~984, 10:00 A.M.
_ Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all members being
present. (1:45 p.m)
~J_~C-~O,~~~COND~TIONAL USE P~T NO. 2461: Application
u~m~ea oy ~lvlera Mobileho~f approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461, to permit two 14-story, 200-foot high office
complexes .on KS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 300 West Katella Avenue.
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 was certified by Council at the meeting of
January 24, 1984 as being in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act along with the statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-18, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 subject to certain conditions and the City
Council at their meeting of March 27, 1984, granted Conditional Use Permit No.
2461 subject to all City Planning Commission conditions including additional
conditions as stipulated in Resolution No. 84R-124 (see minutes of March 27,
1984). A rehearing was requested by the Attorney for the applicant relating
to the imposition of certain c~nditlons and the request for a rehearing was
granted by the Council at their meeting of April 3, 1984 and continued from
the meeting of May 15 and July 24, 1984 to this date.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PER_MIT NOS. 2460 AND 2467: Application
submitted by Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to consider amendments to Condition No.
23 to Resolution No. 84R-35, Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and Condition No.
18 to Resolution No. 84R-37, Conditional Use Permit No. 2462, as conditions of
approval, that the owner(s) of subject property shall pay its proportionate
share, and shall execute and record an agreement in a form approved by the
City Attorney's Office obligating owner(s) to pay its proportionate share, of
the cost of certain off-site public improvements and services pursuant to that
certain assessment district or benefit area to be hereinafter established by
the City of Anaheim, pursuant to the requirement of Development Agreement No.
83-01 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Stadium Associates, for
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460 and 2462, to permit a 17-story, 171-foot
high, 852-room hotel with accessory uses and on-sale alcoholic beverages on
proposed C-R zoned property and two 234-foot high, 180-unit condominium towers
with various Code waivers on proposed RM-1000 zoned property, respectively, on
property located at 300 West Katella Avenue. This matter was continued from
the meetings of July 14 and July 24, 1984.
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 was certified by Council at the meeting of
January 24, 1984 as being in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act along with the statement of Overriding Considerations.
A request for continuance was received and at its meeting of July 24, 1984,
the Council continued the public hearing to this date (see minutes of
August 24, 1984).
989
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
~ity Clerk Lee Sohl announced that letter dated October 2, 1984 had been
received from Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney, requesting that both items,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and 2462
be continued to November 27, 1984.
Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant, stated he was requesting the
continuance because the work they had done would be directly affected by the
outcome of the forthcoming November 6, 1984 Election with regard to
Proposition 36. They did not believe it would be in the best interest to go
through a lengthy hearing to discuss their proposal which involved the
establishment of an assessment district only to find that Proposition 36 would
have an impact.
The Mayor asked if anyone else was present to speak to the issues; no one was
present.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the rehearing on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2461 and the continued public hearing on Conditional Use Permit
Nos. 2460 and 2462 to Tuesday, November 27, 1984, at 1:30 p.m as requested by
the applicant. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Farano reported for Councilwoman Kaywood that not
all relocation problems with the tenants had been resolved. There were
approximately 20 residents left in the park at this time but he believed it
would be entirely vacant by January 1, 1985.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
134/155: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN ~NDMENT NO. 188 AND EIR
NO. 265 (OAK HILLS RANCH): To consider an amendment to the Lam~ Use Element
of the General Plan, alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including, but
not limited to Hillside Estate Density Residential, Hillside Low Density
Residential, Hillside Medium Density Residential, General Commercial, and
General Open Space for an area of approximately 600 acres bounded on the north
by the Wallace Ranch, east and south by the Irvine Company property and west
by the Texaco-Anaheim Hills Inc. property. This matter was continued from the
meetings of June 5, Ju~y 24, August 14, and September 4, i984 to this date
(see minutes those dates, specifically the minutes June 5, 1984 where
extensive discussion and input took place).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-85, determined
that after considering Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 265 for the
proposed annexation and development of Oak Hills Ranch and reviewing evidence,
both written and oral, presented to supplement Draft EIR No. 265, the Planning
Commission finds that EIR No. 265 is in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City and State CEQA Guidelines; that
economic, social and physical considerations make it infeasible to eliminate
all of the significant environmental impacts of the project which have been
identified in ELRNo. 265; that it will be necessary to complete planning and
provide for funding of a system of arterial highways having adequate capacity
to serve this project and other future developments in the region prior to
approval of zoning the property for development. However, the benefits of the
990
City Hall~.Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
p~oJect have been balanced against the unavoidable environmental impacts and,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
occurrence of the sigmtficant environmental effects identified in EIR No. 265
and as set forth above may be permitted without further mitigation due to the
following overriding considerations: 1) the project will provide a balanced
residential community to fill a need for housing an increasing population; 2)
the project is compatible with surrounding land uses; and 3) mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce the environmental
impact to an acceptable level; therefore, the Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council certify EIR No. 265 for the annexation and general plan
of Oak Hills Ranch and adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Plar~,ing Commission adopted and recommended to the City Council
adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 188 Land Use Element, Exhibit A, with
emphasis on the permitted number of developable dwelling units ranging from
zero (0) to 2,400 units, with the actual number of implementable units to be
authorized by the City at the time of approval of Planned Community (PC)
.zoning and subdivision approvals. As reported in addendum to the Planning
Commission Staff Report dated October 2, 1984 from the Planming Department to
the City Manager/City Council (subject: General Plan Amendment No. 188 - Oak
Hills Ranch), the Plam~ing Department subsequently recommended approval o£ the
subject amendment, Exhibit Bwhich was submitted by the applicant. As
indicated in the October 2, 1984 report (made a part of the record - also see
report dated September 28, 1984) between the June 5, 1984 Council meeting to
present, the Planning staff on several occasions met with the applicant and
his consultant in order to assist them in addressing the major issues
previously discussed by the Council. Page 2 of the report also showed a
comparison of the adopted General Plan, as well as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Assistant Planner, briefed the extensive staff report of
October 2, 1984. He explained that on June 5, 1984 the Council.considered
General Plan Amendment No. 188 which proposed to develop a mix of housing
densities (Estate, low and medium density residential) neighborhood commercial
and school facilities integrated with an open space system including
equestrian trail amd a park. The amendment would have theoretically permitted
from zero to 3,677 dwelling units over the 600 acre study area; however, the
applicant had requested a maximum of up to 2,400 dwelling units proposed in
mixed residential densities. After considerable discussion on that date, the
City Council continued the subject amendment to address three major issues,
i.e. - density vs. housing size, density vs. quality and fiscal impact. The
basic differences in the current proposal, Exhibit B, consisted of a reduction
in the total number of dwellin~ units from 2,400 (originally proposed in
Exhibit A) to 2,188 or a 9 percent decrease and an increase in commercial
acreage from 16.3 to 30 or 84 percent increase. (Other changes were also
outlined in detail starting on Page 2 of the October 2, 1984 addendum as well
as a lengthy discussion of ali the issues through the conclusion of the 11
page report).
Following Mr. Tashiro's presentation, the Mayor asked to hear from the
applicant or the appltcamt's agent.
991
City Hal/~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Jared Ikeda, Edaw Inc., 18002 Cowan Suite 100, Irvine, then gave a
narrated slide presentation with input from James Dennehy, Managing General
Partner, Oak Hills Ranch designed to address the three issues as stated by Mr.
Tashiro, the major points being as follows: (1) Relative to fiscal impact
would the existing General Plan, a maximum of 930 single family detached units
could be anticipated resulting in a negative fiscal impact of 5120,000. Under
their old proposal (ExhibitnA).L2_4Q0 units were proposed with 16 acres of
e ~ ~ve
commercial also resulting in ~xscal Ampact of approximately 5344,000. By
making the adjustments described resulting in 2,188 dwelling units with 30
.acres of commercial, they were able to get to a positive fiscal impact
annually of approximately $1,140. (2) Relative to density and the need to
increas~ that density, subsequent to the General Plan approved in 1977,
Proposition 13 was adopted, there was a significant increase in interest rates
and an increase in infrastructure and land costs resulting in an appreciable
increase in the price of homes. The house that one could buy in 1977 for
$100,000 to $160,000 was no longer available in that price range. It was now
$200,000 or above and it was necessary to offset those increased costs by
increasing density. (3) Relative to density vs. quality, the last group of
slides showed projects with a mixture of different densities developed in
other areas of Anaheim Hills and Orange County which were illustrative of the
kind of quality developments that had been accomplished both with project
densities below and above 11 dwelling units per acre.
In summary, Mr. Ikeda stated that the fiscal impact had been adjusted properly
to provide a positive impact. The plan had been balanced with an appropriate
number of residential units, commercial, open space and parks and it was a
fiscally sound project. The density range was from 1.5 units per acre, a
middle range of 3.8 to 3.5 per acre and 8 to 9 as well as 11 units per acre.
They were able to achieve those densities in their planning areas and
illustrated that it could be done. The q,,mlity issue would be addressed
during more detailed development design phases. They wanted to work closely
with staff and the Council to determine the type of unit and the amenities
that should be included.
Mr. Dennehy then thanked that staff and the City for being so patient and
understanding in the two years of work that had taken place. Staff had done
an excellent Job, not ou/y the Planning Department bur other Departments as
well.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 1601 Dove, Newport Beach,
representing Southmark Pacific, owners of the Anaheim Hills property, stated
they were not taking any position on the General Plan Amendment request other
than to provide Council with comments regarding how it may affect the A=aheim
Hills property. Their major concern being, how the increase in density would
affect the approved entitlements which they had on the site specifically
speaking of the remainder of the property available for development - areas 1,
2, 3, 9 and 10. In reviewing some of the other requested General Plan
Amendments, notably the Wallace Ranch property, they noticed the increase in
density proposed was going to affect the circulation system as well as other
992
City ~all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
service and utilities in the area. Southmark did not have any opposition to
%he increase ia density as long as'it would not affect those entitlements.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Elfend what was being planned for their
property.
Mr. Elfend answered there were some single family detached product and
multiple family. Directly south of and adjacent to the Bauer Ranch and
Wallace Ranch - Oak Hills area, there were some 1/2 acre lots single family
and some 10,000 square foot lots. If the General Plan Amendment were approved
today, it might affect the type of product planned in the future. They were
currently in the process of studying the area for Southmark but no studies
were available today to discuss with the Council.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Pickler asked Mr. Dennehy if he would stipulate to the four items
outlined by staff on Page 1 of the October 2, 1984 report, a., b., c., and d;
Mr. Dennehy answered "yes".
Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether the question on water reservoirs had been
resolved (see minutes of June 5, 1984 where the matter was discussed); Mr.
Dennehy answered that he did not think that had been resolved but he would
like to have his consultant address the issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested staff input.
Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineer Manager, reported that the water reservoirs
had been discussed with representatives of the Oak Hills Ranch and although
there was no resolution as to where a reservoir would be located On the site,
he felt there had been general agreement that Oak Hills Ranch and the other
ranches in the area needed to have the issue resolved prior to development.
He did not feel the issue itself needed to be resolved at this time as to its
location because there was not enough geographical or any other work done
yet. A determination would have to be made at a later date which could affect
the General Plan because a reservoir site could be quite large, in the
neighborhood of 9 acres, and could have an impact on what was shown in the
Exhibits. He also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the proposal would
have only a minor effect on the total water capacity in and of itself but
there would be a cumulative effect going out into the future and out into the
canyon.
Mayor Roth read the last paragraph of the staff report.
The Mayor asked to hear from staff because it seemed they were talking about
approving an amendment but yet they were not exactly approving it.
Mr. Joel Fick answered that General Plan itself set forth the overall general
designations of the land use patterns and how that would occur throughout the
area proposed for development. The density ranges on the General Plan and
each category only allowed for certain ranges. In this particular instance,
993
,136
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
the theoretical range was even higher than the 2,188 units but, if the
~pplicant was willing to stipulate to that, staff took the position that there
were no guarantees of approved density and density was not determ/ned until
such time as the Planning Commission approval was sought on specific Tract Map
approvals in the future. He also confirmed for the Mayor that the General
Plan Amendment would permit the applicant to propose a higher number of
dwelling units but it would not be determ/ned until the ~uture.
Mayor Roth stated the Council was always concerned that any development not be
subsidized by the City's taxpayers especially those in the "flatland."
Figures were presented that indicated there was almost a "push" relative to
fiscal impact. He asked if that was discussed With the developer.
Mr. Fick staled the applicant, in the last GPA proposal, Exhibit A, calculated
out to a fiscal deficit. The developer subsequently took another look at the
land use plan and proposed a different land use mix. They came up with a
revised project indicating there would not be a fiscal deficit to the City.
At the. General Plan level, staff found this to be acceptable but it would
require close scrutiny again as the Council had always given when planned
community zoning was proposed.
Councilman Bay asked if staff agreed with the figures that had been given by
the developer in ~heir analysis generally %o at least the theory the City
would be in a positive condition alonE with the contingency stipulations a, b,
c and d outlined in the October 2, 1984 staff report.
Mr. Fick answered those were exactly the parameters in which they viewed the
proposal.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Dennehy relative to Item A of the staff report
where it referred to the fact that approval of the amendment provided for a
range of from zero to 2,188 dwelling units, if he had a figure in mind for
development within that range.
Mr. Dennehy answered that with the next step, the specific plan, they would be
able to do the proper engineering and layout as Mr. Ikeda explained in his
presentation. Those were the elements that would be considered in determining
the final number of dwelling units. He did not have a specific number at this
time.
Councilwoman ~aywood asked Mr. Fick if the Council were to approve the GPA
even with the proviso relative to the range of units, did he foresee that
Anaheim Hills, Wallace Ranch, lrvine, etc. would be coming to the City to
increase the density on their properties.
Mr. Fick answered that the Wallace Ranch had a pending GPA and they were
interested in an increase in density. There was also a representation made at
the Planning Commission that Anaheim Hills was contemplating a density
increase as well.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to the City Attorney stated that the nature of
the GPA was a preliminary action. He wanted to be sure that the suggested
994
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
___report
stipulations by staff, a, b, c and d in the October 2, 1984Awere locked into
t%e approval. He asked if Mr. Dennehy's acceptance of those stipulations was
sufficient or if they should be conditioned; City Attorney Hopkins stated if
the applicant was willing to make stipulations on the record, that would be
sufficient rather than specifying conditions.
Mr. Dennehy thereupon stated that Oak Hills Ranch was stipulating to the
recommendations of staff as outlined in a, b, c and d of the October 2, ~984
staff report from the Planning Division to the City Manager/City Council.
Those conditions were as follows:
a. That the approval of the subject amendment does not guarantee the
development of 2,188 dwelling units but provides for a range of from 0 to
2,188 dwelling units, with the actual number of U~LltS to be determined by the
City at the time of the approval of the Planning Community (PC) Zoning and
subdivision approval.
b. That the future developments within the subject amendment area will
'conform with all of the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code Title 18
Zoning (i.e. setbacks, parking, bu/lding heights, etc.)
c. That the future developments within the subject amendment area will
conform w~th all requirements of ~he Ansi:elm Municipal Code Title 17
Land Development and Resources (i.e. grading, subdivision, etc.)
d. That the applicant establish a mechanism to provide an on-going
monitoring and transmittal of information to the City concerning future
developments within the subject amendment area to insure that if the proposed
magnitude of dwelling unit and commercial land uses, valuation, etc. vary from
that desc_ribed in the submitted fiscal Ampac~ report, that the positive fiscal
impact to the City is maintained.
Councilwoman Kaywood then inquired as to sales on the Canyon Heights project
in Anaheim Hills, Phase III; Mr. George Mason reported that of the 31 units
constructed as Phases I and II of Canyon Hills, there were 26 sales to date.
Of the 17 built as part of Canyon View, there were 10 sales to date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 265 - CERTIFICATION: Councilman Roth moved
that after considering Draft Environmental impact Report No. 265 for the
proposed annexation and development of Oak Hills Ranch and reviewing evidence,
both written and oral, presented to supplement Draft EIR No. 265, the Council
finds that EIR No. 265 is in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the City and State CEQA Guidelines; that economic, social and
physical considerations make it infeasible to eliminate all of the significant
environmental impacts of the project which have been identified in EIR No.
265; that it will be necessary to complete planning and provide for funding of
a system of arterial highways having adequate capacity to serve this project
and other future developments in the region prior to approval of zoning the
property for development. However, the benefits of the project have been
balanced against the unavoidable environmental impacts and, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the occurrence of
the significant environmental effects identified in EIR No. 265 and as set
995
t34
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
forth above may be permitted without further mitigation due to the following
bverriding considerations: 1) the project will provide a balanced residential
community to fill a need for housing an increasing population; 2) the project
is compatible with surrounding land uses; and 3) mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project to reduce the environmental impact to an
acceptable level and, therefore, the Council certified EIR No. 265 for the
annexation and general plan of Oak Hills Ranch and adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. Coancil~an Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-409 for adoption granting General
Plan Amendment No. 188, Exhibit "B," subject to recommendations a, b, c and d
in staff report from the Planning Department/Planning Division to the City
Manager/City'Council dated October 2, 1984 and as stipulated to by the
applicant (see above). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-409: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHED1 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 188, EXHIBIT "B."
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaw~ood stated she was going to vote
against the amendment but wished the applicant well and hoped that the
even=uai project would be an asset. She -was, however, concerned with setting
a precedent on a tremendous increase in density. If no other were to come in
with requests for density increases, it would not be the same thing as the
problem she was looking at right now.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-409 duly passed and adopted.
103: MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to request concurrence by the City of
Orange of annexation of 30 acres to Anaheim located in Anaheim's sphere of
influence. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOT~ON CAP~IED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (2:50 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:55 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONHENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 267: To consider
Environmental impact Report No. 267 for the proposed development of an
automobile sales and service center on approximately 10.6 acre parcel of land
located on the south side of Ball Road, east of the Orange Freeway (Route
57). Submitted was a report from the Planning Department dated October 1,
1984, recommending that the Council receive and consider public testimony on
996
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
EIRNo. 267, conclude the public ~earing, and continue action on the subject
ELR until October 23, 1984.
Mr. Joel Flck, Assistant Director for Planning, first briefed the subject
report; Mr. Philip Schwartze, Vice-President, Philips Brandt and Reddick, the
firm who prepared the EIR, then narrated a slide presentation describing the
subject 10 acre site and the conditions existing on that site.
The Mayor than asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Chuck Warner, 2548 East Gelid, stated he had lived in the area 23 years
"and called the subject area, "Wrangler Sanctuary.' It was four years ago when
he saw a flock of 60 to 80 Black Night Crown Herons eariyone morning and he
realized theh that there was something important on the site. Having taken
bird identification related classes, he personally identified some 52 to 54
species of birds in the 10 acres and there was evidence that approximately 11
of the species nested tn the area annually. The site was also a stopping spot
along the Santa Ama River for the subject classes. It was a refuge and it was
usually 2/3rds filed with water the year round. This year, however, the
Burris Sand Pit was drained thus reducing the water level on the site. It was
a unique area with a freeway on one side, Ball Road on the other and a
spreading basin on the east side. One of the reasons the birds picked the
site w~s due to the faut that it ~ras the only area along the river that was
never disced for percolating purposes. It was a natural wetland and the
birds adapted to it and made it their home. He did not see the site as an
Auto Center. The trend was to cluster auto centers in one area and he could
not see isolating only one dealer in an area that was not compatible for
commercial use. He wanted to see the Santa Aha River Basin greenbelt kept as
wide as possible. The sanctuary provided bird wildlife for the rest of the
Samta Aha River and there was no other such site around because that was where
the birds were breeding.
Mr. Ken Maas, 1963 Cardiff, Newport Beach, stated he was the owner of the
property to the west of the site. He agreed totally with Mr. Warner. He
wanted time to be taken so that when the winter months arrived the Council
could also enjoy the site as a sanctuary.
Nancy Hollis, 1715 South Nutwood, also agreed with everything Mr Warner said
and further reported that the Boy Scouts used the site in identifying birds
and for environmental projects along with just natural enjoyment of the area.
She would like the site preserved if possible.
Donna Mackiewicz, Sea & Sage Audobon Society, stated it was the position of
her organization that the area be preserved as a natural habitat and that no
development plans be proposed for the site. It was a wetland although at the
present time it was dry. It was beautiful during migrating time and she
reiterated the request that it be preserved.
Madeline Krpam, 1127 South Chantilly, stated she agreed with everything Mr.
Warmer said.
997
.132
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ i984, 10:00 A.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Councilman Roth moved to
close the public hearing. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue action on Environmental Impact
Report No. 267 to October 23, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEAR/NG - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2609: Application submitted
by Karcher and Associates, to expand a drive-through restaurant and add an
outdoor dining area on HL zoned property located at 3110 East La Palms Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-171, 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 ia no substantial evidence that the project will
.have a significant effect on the environment, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 160, subject to the certain conditions.
A review of the Pl-nning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of September 11, 1984, and public hearing scheduled
this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. R/chard Renna, 1200 No. Harbor Boulevard, representing Carl Karcher
Enterprises, was present co answer quea-rlons.
Council~n~man Ka~wood stated she set the matter for review based on the number
of people in the industrial park surrounding the restaurant complaining about
the young people loitering, creating vandltsm, noise and Just being In the
area in the evening hours. Nobody was objectlu~ to the expansion, but to the
operation during evening hours. If Carl's was to close at 10:00 p.m., she did
not believe there would be any such problems.
Hr. Renna stated his firm would definitely have a problem with that.. A sale
study had been performed resulting in findings that Friday and Saturday
evenings between 10:00 p.m. and 12 midnight the business transacted
approximately 5 percent of their weekly sales and thus any change would have a
definite impact.
Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed it was not her suggestion but the property
owners who were experiencing problems and they were suggesting that the
problems occurred late at night and if Carl's closed at 10:00 p.m. that would
solve the problem.
Mr. Renna stated that the restaurant was open 24 hours a day and 'no change
was anticipated.
In answer to questions posed by the Mayor, Hr. Renna explained that the
Planning Commission attached a condition to the approval requiring a security
998
City HaLI~ Anahe/m~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - October 9} 1984, 10:00 A.M.
guard. He confirmed it had been their practice of late to have a security
guard on duty on Friday and Saturday night from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. They
also stipulated at the Planning Comm/ssion hearing that they would pick up any
litter on weekends originat~ng from Carl's premises. They had sent letters to
Hr. Carl Sator to that effect and at a subsequent Planning Commission hearing,
he (Sator) requested that Carl's give him a letter stating that their security
guard would somehow look after his property on weekend evenings and call the
police if any ili~Ealactivitywas observed. They wereretuctant to do so at
first. They then sent the letter prior to September 1, 1984 but Hr. Sator
said he was leaving the first of September and would be out of the country for
approximately one month. The letter did not address the question of security
guards but on/y the litter. Subsequently, Hr. Sator and two of his tenants
filed letter~ of protest to the Council. In the meantime, they consulted
with their Counsel and another letter was sent by Carl's on September 28,
1984, agreeing that their security guard could observe Hr. Sator's property
and acting as any other private citizen, would call the police if any illegal
activity was observed.
The Hayor asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Hr. Carl Sator, Owner of the Sterling Business Complex, stated he had several
negotiations with Carl's and they resolved some problems such as trash pick
up. Relative to security, he drove by the facility last weekend on Friday
night at 12 midnight and Carl's was catering mainly to Juveniles and this was
not oriented to the business community. His business complex was in the
middle of the F~mtly Fun Center and Carl's and at 12 midnight the restaurant
was filled with youths. His main objection was the fact that the business was
gettfn~ its money mainly from the youngsters when the location was in the
industrial area and should be catering instead to industry. He also did not
object to the expansion and his main concern was to have peace for his
tenants. If Carl's provided security, it had to be such that he would have
recourse that it would in fact be performed. The Police Department said they
would not come out unless the owner or someone was present. If the security
was forceful enough, the problem would resolve itself. If the kids knew that
they could not loiter, then they would leave or another solution would be for
the business to close at 10:00 p.m. weekends only, Friday, Saturday and Sunday
nights.
The Mayor asked Nr. iator if he had seen any benefit as a result of the
security guard; Mr. iaCor answered "no," At the present time, the guard was
not watching their property and he did not see a guard on Friday night.
Councilman Overholt then posed questions to Hr. Sator revolving around the
issue of a security guard being provided by Carl's for six hours, from
10:00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings and if that would solve the
potential damage to his (Sator's) property.
Hr. Sator explained they had talked with their Counsel who indicated that the
guard could not go on to other people's property because of the liability
involved; Counctlman-Overholt surmised if that were the case, then Carls'
would have to close at 10~00 p.m.
999
{20
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL M/NUTES - October 9~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
i--ika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, then explained for
Councilman Pickler that relative to parking and'traffic, that the proposal met
current Code requirements; Traffic Engineer Paul Singer confirmed that the
drive-thru restaurant and lane met the Code which was designed to provide for
optimum circulation. He did not anticipate that any on-site problems were
going to exist. The intersection was very busy but it was the nature of the
Intersection which was partlcuXarly busy during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
The applicant had agreed to close one driveway in order to facilitate
circulation which would improve the situation substantially. Counci~man Bay
then gave an overview of the traffic flow and circu~atton problems at the
intersection since he had utLtized it everyday since 1960 and particularly
emphasized that what had evolved over time was one particular problem, that
being the left turns going into Carl's using both driveways, with vehicles
making left turns instead of going to the intersection then makin~ a U-turn
and coming back to go into the restaurant from the south lane, thereby
delaying the whole left turn pattern all the way back to La Palms because the
light was triggered. It was his contention if the Council did not want that
.problem to get worse, at this time, the City should figure out a fixed median
that protected ~hat le~t turn Zane eliminating the hold up and waiting of
people tryin~ to tun left to go into Carl's. He knew 'there was room to do
that but wanted to know what it might cost.
After input from the Traffic Engineer, Councilman Bay estimated they were
talking about approximately $?,500 for a 300-foot long X l-foot wide median.
Mayor Roth noted that two issues were involved; a security guard to protdct
the adjacent industrial area, and a median to preclude added traffic flow
problems at the intersection. Carl Karcher Enterprises would have to know
what effect this would have on their project in deciding whether or not to
expand the facility. He suggested that the matter be continued to give time
to prepare specific cost data.
Mr. Renna agreed that the viability of the project would depend on the return
on investment and ,mless they knew the costs involved, they could not make a
decision as to whether or not to proceed with the expansion.
Councilman 0verholt stated he was going to insist that Mr. Sator's property
have security protection during those six evening hours; Councilman Pickler
asked the City Attorney if Carl's decided not to expand that facility how
would the City be able to have the facility closed at 10:00 p.m. on Friday'
through Sunday evenings.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that it would be necessary to review the entire
CUP to determine what zoning actions were involved. It would have to be
analyzed to see if there were any violations.
Councilwoman Kay~ood stated that this vas a prime industrial area for the City
and Carl Karcher Enterprises had been a great asset to the Anaheim community.
She felt very stronsly about preserving the integrity of the industrial area
and when commercial activity was permitted in an industrial area, it was meant
to serve the industrial community. However, in the evenings when the problems
occurred, that was not the case and that problem must be dealt with.
1000
City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit
No. 2609 to November 13, 1984, with the idea that during this period, the
problem of protection for the adjacent industrial area be resolved as well as
more specifics provided and a solution arrived at relative to a median to
preclude additional traffic flow problems at the subject intersection.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CAR/LIED. (3:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:40 p.m.)
149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4545: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance
No. 4545 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4545: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 0FANAHEIMADDING NEW
SUBSECTIONS .2120, .2130, .2140, .2150 AND .2160 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF
CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING
AND STOPPING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4545 duly passed and adopted.
CANDIDATE'S NIGHT THURSDAY~ OCTOBER 4~ 1984: Councilwoman Kaywood thanked
Storer Cable TV for being at and filming for future broadcast the Candidates'
Night held at the George Washington Community Center sponsored by the Central
City Neighborhood Council. The League of Women voters provided the
moderator. The program was going to be shown three or four times on Monday
and/Tuesday nights during the month of October with exact dates to be provided.
148: EDUCATIONAL TASK FORCE ON PROPOSITION 36: Councilman Pickler announced
that the Orange County League of California Cities was a part of the County
Educational Task Force on Proposition 36. A letter was received from Norma
Hertzog who was heading the Task Force asking for a liaison from the Council.
He had spoken with Councilwoman Kaywood who indicated she would be happy to
represent the Council and he suggested that she be appointed to the Task Force.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that Councilwoman Kaywood be the liaison for
the Council on the County Educational Task Force on Proposition 36.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:45 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY C!-wILK
1001