1983/02/22City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL }~MBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda. D. Roberts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
POLICE DETECTIVE: Robert G. Schroeder
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Tom Favreau, Hotline Help Center at Melodyland, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council, presented to the
Finance Director, George Ferrone, the California Society of Municipal Finance
Officers Certificate of Award for Outstanding Financial Reporting. He
congratulated Mr. Ferrone on the award.
Mr. Ferrone, in turn, stated he was pleased to accept and commended his staff,
who was instrumental in the City again being presented with the award.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held January 25, 1983. Councilman Bay 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 Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS ACAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,210,990.§7, in
accordance with the 1982-83 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. 83R-56 through 83R-65, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
124
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claim denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Jean Rae Hight for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident caused by a defective floor
inside the recreation building at La Palma Park, on or about November 18,
1982.
B. Claim denied and referred to Governmental Programs Division, Markel
Services, Inc.:
2. Claim submitted by Catherine Coury for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officer at 1144
North Euclid, #37, on or about January 27, 1983.
C. Claim allowed payment:
3. Claim submitted by Robert S. Moore for personal property damages to
truck purportedly sustained due to an accident involving a City-owned
vehicle in a parking lot at 610 North Brookhurst, on or about November 25,
1982.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Project Area Committee--Minutes of January 25, 1983.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of January 20, 1983 and
February 3, 1983 (unapproved).
Co 105: Golf Advisory Commission--Minutes of January 20, 1983.
d. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of December 9, 1982 and
January 13, 1983.
e. 105: Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of December 9, 1982 and
January 13, 1983.
f. 156: Police Department--~onthly Reports for December 1982 and January
1983 and Fourth Quarter Crime Analysis, 1982.
3. 123: Authorizing agreements with The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
Company, in accordance with new commission rate schedule to be effective
March 1, 1983, for installation and maintenance of Telephone Company equipment
on City property for public use, and authorizing the Maintenance Director to
execute same.
4. 155: Granting a negative declaration for the construction of Water Well
No. 40 at the Southern California Edison Easement on the east side of
Brookhurst Street, north of Katella Avenue.
125
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
5. 159: Authorizing the substitution of Kinney Air Conditioning Company for
R. & H. Heating and Del's Service, R. H. Alexander Company, Petroleum
Equipment, Gary Herman Inc., Ron's Plumbing, and Solar Enterprises for Larry
Martin Plumbing, as requested by J. A. Stewart Construction Company, general
contractor for the Central Mechanical Maintenance project.
6. 160: Accepting the bids of Westinghouse Electric Corporation in the
amount of $22,915.08 for two each 150KVA three-phase padmount transformers,
Item No. 1, and two each 225KVA three-phase padmount transformers, Item No. 2;
and General Electric Co. in the amount of ~50,708.28 for two each 500KVA
three-phase padmount transformers, Item No. 3, and two each 1,O00KVA
three-phase padmount transformers, Item No. 4, in accordance with Bid No. 3944.
7. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-56: 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:
WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN SOUTH STREET, PHASE II, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 53-606-6329-27410-34340. (Bids to be opened March 24, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
8. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-57: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CYPRESS
STREET STORM DRAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-6325-E1260.
(Cornish Construction, contractor)
9. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-58: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENT TO PARTICIPATE AS A CONSORTIUM MEMBER IN
CONNECTION WITH JOBS PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZING THE }~YOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE AN APPLICATION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR DESIGNATION AS A SERVICE
DELIVERY AREA FOR EFFECTING SUCH PROGRAMS. (to be funded with moneys from the
Job Training Partnership Act)
10. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-59: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 16 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT
NO. 07-5055 A/TO AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
SUPPLEMENT. (to allow the City to provide matching funds equal to ten percent
($9,625) of the cost of upgrading the crossing protection at East Street and
The Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad tracks, with
reimbursement of one-half these funds to the City by the City of Fullerton
(RRP-M126(i)
11. 179/166: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-60: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO.
3200 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-156 NULL AND VOID. (to retain an
existing billboard on PfL zoned property with Code waiver of minimum setback
from the intersection, as a condition under approval under Conditional Use
Permit No. 2344)
126
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
12. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-61: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT NO. 64552, DATED
MARCH 17, 1981, WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT.
(extending the S.B. 620 funding allocation in the amount of ~524,009 to
June 30, 1984)
13. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-62: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75R-95 RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION
PROCEEDINGS NO. 74-75-20, NUNC PRO TUNC. (to correct a clerical error,
proposed RS-A-43,000 zoning on property located on the north side of Cerritos
Avenue, east of State College Boulevard)
14. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-63: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75R-96 RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION
PROCEEDINGS NO. 74-75-21, NUNC PRO TUNC. (to correct a clerical error,
proposed ML zoning on property located on the north side of Cerritos Avenue,
east of State College Boulevard)
15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-64: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(R/W #2800-45, Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-65: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Virginia M. Astier;'General American Life Insurance Co.; Louise M. Schmitz)
17. 123. Authorizing an agreement with the City of Garden Grove to provide
for parking enforcement services by the City of Anaheim in an area adjacent to
the Convention Center, from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily, for a term of three
years.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL ~MBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-56 through 83R-65,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION - FOXEY'S: Entertainment Permit
Application submitted by Jette Birgitte Holgersen, Foxey's, 1007 East Balsam
Avenue, to permit dancers on stage behind bar, seven days a week, 10:00 a.m.
to 2:00 a.m.
127
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the application requested
dancers on stage behind a bar from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
City Manager William Talley stated that the ordinance provided for those
hours. An applicant was normally told what they were allowed and then filled
the application out accordingly.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that perhaps they needed to change the time in the
ordinance; Mayor Roth stated rather than spending time discussing the issue at
each meeting when such an application was received, they should take a look at
the Code.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that applicable Code Section 4.18 did not
have hours in it.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that at the previous meeting, she requested that
the Council be supplied with a map such as the ones supplied with Planning
Commission zoning cases, so that they could determine whether a residential
area would be impacted by Entertainment Permit requests. The subject request
involved morning hours and there was usually noise, which could impact the
surrounding area.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, confirmed that the
subject business was located on the westerly side of East Street, south of the
Riverside Freeway. Nearby residential was a mobilehome park to the west.
Otherwise, surrounding properties were industrial.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject Entertainment Permit
Application. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue
consideration of the subject Entertainment Permit Application for one week.
Councilman Overholt also seconded that motion.
Councilman Roth thereupon withdrew his motion of approval.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that they needed to look into the matter further.
She wanted another week to ascertain the impact.
Councilman Overholt stated he seconded the motion for continuance as a
courtesy, but he would be opposed to putting absolute hours into an
ordinance. Once time was locked in, it would create more problems than it
would eliminate.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like the Police Department to check into
whether there had been any complaints at the address, or if the business was a
new one.
i28
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Detective Jack Schroeder reported that the business had been at the location
for a long time and he had not received any more complaints than a normal beer
bar. He did not believe that dancing in the morning would create more of a
nuisance. It was usually the bar maids who were doing the dancing. It was
entertainment, rather than people dancing, and they usually did not dance at
10:00 a.m. He also commented further that if they put a time slot on
Entertainment Permit Applications, they would have to change the
Dinner/Dancing Permit as well. He noted there was a large apartment complex
to the west and it was right next to the Metropolitan Water District
Percolating Basin.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would still like to see the hours in the late
afternoon rather than in the morning.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Roth confirmed for City Manager Talley that they were not expecting a
report, but the matter would be reconsidered in one week.
123/124: COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY SERIES C AND D - EXPANSION PROGRAM:
Councilman Bay stated he had no problem with the basic intent of the
resolution being proposed, but with the figures in the report from staff dated
February 10, 1983, Page 2, Item 3, wherein it stated for Fiscal Year 1984-85,
of the $3,566,000 debt service payment, all but $1,527,000 will be covered.
He felt the latter was an incorrect number and that instead, it should be
$839,000. He then referred to a memorandum from the Finance Director dated
January 14, 1983, breaking out the Management Plan for Reserves, making
certain that they were going to meet the Convention Center bills. Using the
same figures in that letter and subtracting from the grand total, the balance
would be ~839,000.
City Manager Talley recommended that the matter be trailed so that an answer
could be supplied by the Finance Director.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Talley reported that Councilman Bay was correct and
the figure on Page 2 of the subject report (Item 3) should be $839,000 instead
of $1,527,000, as confirmed by the Finance Director. Councilman Bay thereupon
offered Resolution No. 83R-67 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
124: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TRE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.01 OF COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO.
21, AS HERETOFORE SUPPLEMENTED, DIRECTING THE BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST
AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, TO APPLY ANY MONEYS IN THE REVENUE FUND
TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF THE NEXT SEMIANNUAL PAYMENT OF BASE RENTAL DUE UNDER THE
FACILITY LEASE.
129
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared ResolutionNo. 83R-67 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT SUPPLEmeNT - BALL ROAD CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN
ANAHEIM AND HARBOR BOULEVARDS: Councilwoman Kaywood, referring to report
dated February 14, 1983, from the City Engineer, noted that it stated
construction of the subject improvements should begin in August 1984. She
suggested that construction be held until after Labor Day,-because of the
congestion from tourists during the summer months.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated they could start anytime after the 1984
Olympics, and that was their agreement in their discussions with Traveland.
They would not proceed with the improvements in the summer.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-66 for adoption, authorizing
Supplement No. 15 to Local Agency-State Agreement No. 07-5055, dated August
16, 1977, to allow the City to add matching funds equal to ten percent
(~25,960) of the cost of providing raised medians, re-striping and a traffic
signal at Ball Road and Lemon Street (HES-L060(3). Refer to Resolution Book.
123: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-66: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 15 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, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-66 duly passed and adopted.
123: AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT - CONVENIENCE & SAFETY CORPORATION -
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BUS SHELTERS: City Attorney William Hopkins
briefed the Council on his report dated February 4, 1983~ recommending
approval of the subject amendment.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if she understood that the company was now
Convenience and Safety of Orange County.
Mr. Bruce Williams, resident of Westlake Village, president of Shelter Media,
answered "no." He explained that in September of 1982 they bought out
Convenience and Safety and the unit they bought was Convenience and Safety of
Los Angeles. They also acquired an option to buy Convenience and Safety of
130
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Orange County and were in the process of completing that acquisition. The
operation for the City of Anaheim's Shelter Program resided with exactly the
same management and people ever since the beginning.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had only good comments from the people
with regard to the bus shelters. They had served an excellent purpose and
were very attractive.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve an amendment to a License Agreement
with Convenience & Safety Corp., assigning the Agreement to Shelter Media
Limited Partnership and consenting to Shelter Media granting security interest
in the agreement to third party lenders, provided such interests are
subordinate to any liens in favor of the City, as recommended in the
February 4, 1983 memorandum from the City Attorney. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt posed questions of a legal nature
to the City Attorney relative to provisions of the licensing agreement, some
of which were also answered by Mr. Williams.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
i05: APPOINTMENT TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Appointment to the Youth
Commission to fill a vacancy expiring December 31, 1983--continued from the
meeting of February 15, 1983. See minutes that date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that the matter had been continued one week
for a report on the status and composition of the Youth Commission,
specifically with regard to the schools the present members attended and the
schools of the nominees.
Councilman Overholt stated even though he nominated Judith Kuramoto, Magnolia
High School, because she was truly outstanding, he felt the spread of
representation was important; Councilman Bay agreed and noted that Loara High
School in the past had been the backbone of the Youth Commission. He felt it
was important that they keep representation on the Commission from Loara.
Councilman Roth stated in the spirit of cooperation, he would withdraw his
nominee, Denise ~trait~, Magnolia High School: Councilman 0verholt thereupon
withdrew his nominee, Judith Kuramoto. (Both were nominated at the meeting of
February 15, 1983, along with Jocelyn Erwin, Loara High School.)
Jocelyn Erwin, Loara High School, who was nominated by Councilwoman Kaywood
the previous week, was thereupon unanimously appointed to the Youth Commission
to fill a vacancy expiring December 31, 1983.
155/144: NAME CHANGE - ANAHEIM-SANTA ANA-GARDEN GROVE-~,~TROPOLITAN
STATISTICAL AREA: Report dated February 17, 1983, from Intergovernmental
Relations relating to a proposed change in the name of the Anaheim/Santa
Ana/Garden Grove Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area to Orange County
Metropolitan Statistical Area--continued from the meeting of February 15,
1983. See minutes that date.
131
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated that instead of merely monitoring the situation as
recommended in the subject report, he would like to have a letter sent to both
Garden Grove and Santa Ana indicating Anaheim's concern over the proposed name
change of the statistical area, asking them to respond as to their feelings on
the matter.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that a letter be sent to Garden Grove and Santa
Ana stating the Council's concerns relative to the proposed name change by the
County, and asking the cities for their comments. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4395: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4395
for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4395: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-19, MHP (Mobilehome
Park) Overlay Zone, Del Prado, 1616 South Euclid Street, Satellite Mobilehome
Park, 1844 Haster Street, Plantation Mobile Estates, 1835 Manchester Avenue,
Del Ray Mobile Estates, 1849 Manchester Avenue, Ponderosa Mobile Estates, 2300
South Lewis Street, Sunkist Gardens, 1400 South Sunkist Street, and Orange
Tree Mobile Park, 1400 South Douglass Road)
132: FEBRUARY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MEETING: Councilman Pickler reported on
his attendance at the subject meeting wherein they were proceeding with the
plan required by the State. He would be requesting from the City Manager
someone who could work along with him, so he knew they were going in the right
direction. Specifically, when gate fees were discussed, he felt that input
from staff would be helpful.
111: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LUNCHEON: Councilman Overholt reported on his
attendance at the subject luncheon on Thursday, February 17, 1983, where the
Chamber was attempting to raise the initial equity contribution for the
building they were planning to construct next to the Civic Center. It was his
understanding from the reports in the newspaper that they netted ~60,000 from
that one function and they were to be complimented, as well as all of the
people who helped put it together. He would hope that the rest of the
business community who did not participate in the fund raising as generously
as they might have would now come forward to make up any difference, so that
they would have all the necessary funds to go forward. It was an excellent
~ffort and a tribut~ to ~rb L~o and th~ ~ntir~ organization.
128: RAMS POSSESSORY INTEREST TAX CASE: Mayor Roth stated that last week .the
Rams and the City won a big discussion with the County relative to the
Possessory Interest Tax applied by the County Assessor to the Rams.
Subsequently, he received a call from the Rams on Wednesday, when the final
settlement of $13 million was made, and also participated in a news conference
on the issue held at Bob Burns Restaurant in Anaheim. He appreciated the
opportunity to represent the City and was happy that the case was won.
132
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Feb~1983' 10:00 A.M.
106/164: STORM DRAIN DISTRICT NO. 8: Councilman Bay stated he had reviewed
the numbers and dialogue on capital ~mprovement changes. The report of · : Status Report Fiscal Year 1982-83 Capital
Improvement ~rojects;, ~vm ~,~ '
meeting started, seemed to be extremely complete in giving the oouncli n[~e
February 18,_1983 !S~b3~%~_ ,~= Assistant City Manager, rece~ve~ bef?[e~
present status of those projects. His concerns reverted to the initial
question, that being to get comments and dialogue from the Council on the
issue of whether or not they wanted to take earlier positions during and prior
to the makeup of the budget. If Council was in total agreement with the City
Manager's policy letter released in November and wanted to ask questions about
it or expand on it, if that could be done early in the process, that was the
important issue.
Council Members Pickler, Kaywood and Roth gave their input on the issue, which
was further supplemented by information and input from City Manager Talley.
At the conclusion of extensive discussion, Councilman Bay again discussed the
Storm Drain District No. 8 project as he had done the previous week, the
project having been delayed in its completion because funding was inadequate
by $150,000. He wanted to know the alternatives for providing that money to
keep the project moving.
City Manager Talley suggested that they direct the City Engineer to complete
the project and they would subsequently come up with the money. There were
three resources--there might be some funds left in Revenue Sharing, Community
Development Block Grant funds, or they could always borrow it from the Sewer
Fund and pay it back after July 1, 1983.
Councilman Bay stated he would like to see that project continued if it was
only a matter of $150,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the City Engineer to proceed with the
completion of Storm Drain District No. 8. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt questioned whether they had
sufficient background in order to know what impact that was going to have on
other projects. He was not in favor of "off-the-wall" decisions without
having the benefit of the scheduling of the fiscal impact. He suggested that
they wait until the City Manager provided a report and he would Then support
it.
After additional discussion, Mayor Roth stated that there was a motion and a
second requesting a report and that no action would be taken until they
received the report; Councilman Bay stated that was' not the motion.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon offered a motion that relative to
financing for the completion of Storm Drain District No. 8 in the amount of
3150,000, that the City Manager provide a report on the specifics of the
project in one week. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
133
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Before concluding, Councilman Overholt then gave input relative to his concept
of the budget and the budget process, emphasizing that he was opposed to
setting aside a time in each Council meeting to discuss the budget, since he
felt it was getting away from its purpose, that of an on-going tool 12 months
a year.
RECESS--CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor negotiations with no action anticipated; the City Attorney
requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with
no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:45 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:45 p.m.)
103: PUBLIC HEARING - SANTA ANA CANYON NO. 11 ANNEXATION: Submitted by the
City of Anaheim, to consider the annexation of approximately 164.9 acres
located easterly of the present City boundary from the vicinity of the
Riverside Freeway on the south to the boundary of the City of Yorba Linda on
the north and east in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road, including the SAVI and
Shorb Wells property.
Environmental Impact Report Nos. 230 (SAVI), 241 (Bauer Ranch) and 258 (Shorb
Wells) were certified as being in compliance with City and State Guidelines
and the State of California Environmental Quality Act on October 16, 1979,
March 23, 1981 and December 14, 1982, respectively.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director--Planning, reported that the Santa
Ana Canyon No. 11 Annexation was approved by the Local Agency Formation
Commission on January 12, 1983. Since not all of the property owners
originally consented to the annexation, a protest hearing was required under
the provisions of the Municipal Organization Act. The purpose of the protest
hearing was to determine the value of written protests, if any. To this
point, the City had not received any written protests in connection with the
subject annexation.
Mayor R0th noted that Mr. Jim Ericks0n was in the Chambers audience. He asked
if he had anything to add.
Mr. Jim Erickson, representative of the SAVI property, stated that they had
worked together closely with staff and were looking forward to doing so again
in the future. He specifically thanked Ronald Thompson, Planning Director,
Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director--Planning, City Manager Talley, and
others who he might have forgotten. They were looking forward to building a
project that would be of benefit to the City.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
134
__ Cit___~y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Febru~1983, 10:00 A.M~
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 83R-68 and 83R-69 for adoption,
approving Santa Ana Canyon No. 11 Annexation and consenting to the formation
of Assessment District No. 83-1 by the City of Yorba Linda. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-68: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM MAKING A FINDING REGARDING THE VALUE OF WRITTEN PROTESTS FILED AND NOT
WITHDRAWN IN ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR SANTA ANA CANYON NO. 11 ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ORDERING THE TERRITORY ANNEXED PURSUANT TO SECTION
35229 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-69: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONSENT TO THE FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 83-1 BY
THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL M~MBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-68 and 83R-69 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3319: Application by John and Anne Krajacic, to
establish a 2-lot subdivision on RS-iO,O00 zoned property located at 1106 W.
North Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum lot area, (b)
minimum lot width, and (c) required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-22, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, on the basis that there would be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for low-density residential land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts, and
further, denied Variance No. 331§.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by the applicant
and a public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. John Krajacic, 610 Campbell Drive, stated there was very little land left
in Anaheim which could be utilized and there was no place for people to stay.
His property at 1106 West North Street had a 900-square foot house on it that
was 40 years old. His intentions were to put a nice home in the back of the
135
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
existing structure where his daughter or granddaughter could live, or
eventually himself. If not his family, then maybe someone else. It was a
nice area and neighborhood, and he had moved on the house next door (1104 West
North Street). Something should be done with his property, since it was close
to 15,000 square feet. The street was a busy one, and all cars could park in
the back and there would be no need to park out front. Other such actions
were approved in the area where there was a house on the back of the lot. (He
later submitted a picture of a property at 1222 Belmont Street which contained
two structures on one lot.) He asked that the Council grant the requested
variance and that he be treated like anybody else.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Krajacic if when he bought the property he was
aware of the zoning; Mr. Krajacic answered he was aware, but he was also aware
that other people in the same area were granted variances to put up homes in
their back yards. He explained further that he bought the property about a
year ago and that he had checked with the City Attorney's office regarding the
State allowing units in back yards, but he felt it would be impossible in his
case because it would only allow for 600 square feet.
Mayor Roth then announced how the hearing would be conducted and asked first
to hear from those who were present in favor of the requested variance.
Mrs. Nancy Hulse, 508 Alvy, Mr. Krajacic's daughter, stated they should have
some freedom to do what they wanted. The lot was very large and the present
house was only 900 square feet. It was a waste of land. Her daughter lived
in the house and they wanted to build another house for her other daughter.
She felt there was only one person against the variance.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified for Mrs. Hulse that the zoning in the area was
RS-iO,O00, meaning only one house per 10,000-square foot lot.
Mrs. Wendy Laenger, 1106 West North Street, stated her grandfather owned the
house she was living in and she was speaking in his behalf. If he had not
bought the house to help her and her family, she would be living in an
apartment. He was trying to help her and her sister, so that they could live
together.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor, the Mayor asked
to hear from those in opposition.
Mr. William Voss, 1104 West North Street, stated he lived next door to the
subject property to the east. He and his neighbors were present at the
Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1983, and submitted a petition with
42 signatures in opposition to Variance No. 3319 and a copy of the petition
had also been sent to the Council. In the meantime, they went back out and
gathered another 28 signatures from people in the immediate area, and as far
as he knew, there were no double signatures, as had been indicated by Mr.
Krajacic. He thereupon submitted the second petition (made a part of the
record) and noted that signatures now totaled 70, and approximately seven
different families were present today who were opposed. The lot at 1106 West
North Street was for only one dwelling, and that was why they were present.
136
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
They felt it should stay that way. It was 10,000 square feet and there was no
reason for anyone to put an additional structure on it. He could put another
house in his back yard as well as the neighbor to the west of the subject
property and other property owners in the area. Mr. Voss also submitted
pictures of the subject property, showing seven vehicles parked in and around
it, with one on the lawn and one over the sidewalk area.
Mr. Dave Pritchett, 757 North West Street (corner of North Street and West
Street) first clarified that when the applicant moved the house in next door
to his property (Voss residence at 1104 West North), he did not know of
anybody who was against him. He was not against him either, but asked that
the house be brought up to City Code. If Mro Krajacic wanted to put two
houses on a lot, there were other areas where he could do so, but as
neighbors, they did not want him to do it in their area. This was spot
zoning, and of the 25 people he contacted when he gathered signatures for the
petition, he did not talk to one person who favored the change in zoning and
the lot split.
Before concluding, Mr. Pritchett stated he understood something was coming
through the State on "mother-in-law" housing. He felt that would be favorable
if it was controlled properly with certain stipulations, so that these units
could not be built merely for a monetary income of the property owner, who
might then leave, resulting in housing that was inadequate. They had a nice
area and were depending on the Council to keep it that way.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Pritchett by Councilman Overholt wherein he
(Pritchett) reported that he had lived on his property since 1969. Their
house was a move-on which they had built themselves originally located at 805
North Street. He had not obtained a lot split in 1963. Other properties with
houses on the back of their lots were closer to La Palma Avenue on West
street, but some of the lots involved were 350 feet deep in a completely
different situation.
Miss Santalthi then'clarified for Councilman Overholt that the lot split that
occurred in 1963, part of which was Mr. Pritchett's property, created two lots
in excess of 10,OOO feet each. Also, there was no property on North Street in
the area with two houses on the lot.
Mr. Claude Wilson, 1120 West North §treet, adjacent property owner to the
west, stated he built the house on his property 23 years ago. The previous
owner of the subject property, Mrs. Blackwell, sold the property to him. She
also maintained the subject property when she was living there. He was
opposed to the requested variance.
Mrs. Jane Liekhus, 1215 West North Street, stated that they all had what they
thought was a nice neighborhood with large lots which they enjoyed with
large-size homes. If Mr. Krajacic felt that he had so much property, it would
be advantageous to add on to his home to bring it up to the rest of the homes
in the area. She knew of no other properties with two houses on the lot. She
helped Mr. Voss obtain some of the signatures on the petition because she had
a great interest, as did her neighbors.
137
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
A. Charles Bona, 1140 Park Avenue, stated that he was concerned if they let
the gate open on one street, it would occur on other streets. They were the
next block, with homes ranging from $180,000 to ~200,000 and some of those
homes looked right into the rear of the subject property. They all wanted to
be nice to their children and he could build two houses on his property also.
Whatever the zoning of the property, that was why they were living there, and
they wanted to keep it that way.
Mr. Ted Seims, 1128 West North Street, stated he had been living at that
address since 1960 and at the time, it was single-family residential. That
was why he bought the property. He did not want to move into a subdivision
where all the houses were close together. He did not want to see the
neighborhood changed in any way.
The Mayor then asked for a show of hands of those living in the immediate area
who were opposed to the requested variance, and then those who were
supportive; there were 14 people present who were in opposition and one in
support.
The Mayor then gave Mr. Krajacic an opportunity to rebut and make his
summation.
Mr. Krajacic, after speaking to some of the issues raised, urged the Council
to grant his request.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-density
residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-70 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3319, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-70: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3319.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that while she could
understand and appreciate everything Mr. Krajacic was trying to do, the
subject property was zoned for one house on a 10,O00-square foot lot, and that
138
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
was a rare piece of property in Anaheim and something they had to preserve and
cherish in the City. She felt there was no question, with all of the
neighbors testifying and with no second units on that section of North Street,
that a change would be a terrible intrusion in that neighborhood.
Councilman Pickler earlier commented that the RS-10,000 zoning was in
existence in the area for many years and he, for one, could not see changing
the zoning, since it would only result in chaos. They had to maintain the
integrity of the neighborhood; Councilman Overholt stated that the other lot
splits which occurred well north of North Street on West Street were no
precedent for splitting the subject lot, since those other lots were a
different matter. He then gave Mrs. Laenger an opportunity to speak to the
issue of parking of vehicles on her property, which was broached by Mr. Voss.
Mayor Roth emphasized that there had been 70 signatures gathered in opposition
to the variance and m~ny people were present today to confirm their
opposition. Had the situation been reversed and the community been
supportive, he too would have been supportive. He was concerned, however,
over maintaining the integrity of the area, and if the variance were approved,
it would set a precedent in the entire area.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution denying Variance No. 3319.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-70 duly passed and adopted.
108: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2404: Application by East
Anaheim Shopping Center Associates, to permit a physio-therapy massage
facility on CL zoned property located at 2130 East Lincoln Avenue, #34.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-11, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project, since the Anaheim
General Plan designates the subject property for general commercial land uses
commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are
involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the
petitioner indicates no significant individual or Cumulative adverse
environmental impacts; and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2404.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by William D. Runneals
and Marie Tu Thi Nguyen, agents, and a public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
139
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Frank Wyland, Jr., 400 North Tustin, Santa Ana, attorney for the
applicant, first gave Mrs. Nguyen's background since she came to the United
States from Vietnam five years ago. She purchased a physio-therapy parlor in
1979 and within two or three months of purchase, she found out there was a
change from the rules that existed, and now her business was too close to
residential. She put her heart and investment into the business and at that
time, the City allowed her to continue her business, The Tender Touch, on the
basis of relocating. She still owed ~20,000 of the purchase price. She had
maintained the operation of The Tender Touch, and although he could not say
that there had been no problems, they were only minor ones. She enlisted the
aid of a good friend, Mr. William Runneals, a dedicated worker for Rockwell
for almost all of his adult life. For the past 18 years, he had been a
security guard in peace service work and never had one mark against him. He
decided to assist Ms. Nguyen in her operation to make sure there were not
problems, no matter where she was located. They found the subject location,
which was in an older shopping center, and as far as he knew, there were no
problems. His (Wyland) associate was at the Planning Commission hearing where
the basis of that meeting came down to a question of hours. He then explained
that there was a letter from the Police Department and he thereupon relayed
several incidents where the business was cited for some items that were not
according to the Municipal Code and which were subsequently rectified. Ms.
Nguyen was proposing, with Mr. Runneals, and within the basis of the Code, to
operate a very proper business in the new location, something that would be
helpful to the area. A good part of their clientele were referrals from
doctors and chiropractors. They were willing to operate within the
regulations of the shopping center. Most stores closed between 10:00 p.m. and
12:00 midnight, which was not unreasonable, but if the Council wished to limit
them to different hours, they would be agreeable. Ms. Nguyen wanted an
opportunity to recoup her investment. Further, one of the reasons for denial
by the Planning Commission was traffic. There were over 1800 parking spaces
in the center and the business was such that there would not be any increase
in traffic from their operation.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification that some of their customers were
referred by doctors and chiropractors; Mr. Wyland confirmed that was correct,
a large part of them. He also clarified for Councilman Overholt that they
would like to remain open from 9:00 a.m. to 12:OO midnight, but if they felt
10:00 p.m. was better, they would try to work within that time schedule. He
also stated in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood that to close at 5:00 or 6:00
p.m. would be unreasonable.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those either in favor or in opposition to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2404.
Dalora Hall, Hall of Frames, 2024 East Lincoln, stated they were definitely in
opposition and all of the merchants in the center that she spoke with were
against the business being located there. They had been trying to upgrade the
center. It was a family center and located behind it were older people who
lived in apartment houses on Westport, almost all of whom were retired. She
140
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
also stated that "a rose by any other name is a massage parlor" and it was not
the type of thing they wanted in the center. There were others who wanted to
be present today, but who were unable to come. There was a great deal of
opposition, and they were aware of what the operation was like when it was
located across the street. There were constant problems. She reiterated,
they did not want the business in the center. She then clarified for
Councilwoman Kaywood that those she talked to who were opposed were the
Country Store, Hallmark Card Shop, Euclid Beauty Supply, everyone around
them. She could not give an exact number of those in opposition and she did
not have a petition with her, but of all those she spoke with, no one was
supportive.
Mr. Gerald R. Ashbaugh, 1206 East Ava Drive, Leon's of Anaheim Beauty Salon,
stated he had been located in the center for ten years. Although the center
was old, the owner, Stuart Green, had told them for some time that as soon as
litigation relating to the sale of the center was over, work would be done on
it. They were looking forward to the upgrading of the center and he concurred
with everything Mrs. Hall said° In view of the notoriety, the type of
business being proposed received, it was something they were not ready for.
He knew of no one who was in favor.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Wyland
to make his summation.
Mr. Wyland deferred to Mr. Runneals to answer some of the concerns and
questions raised.
Mr. William D. Runneals, 414 Hillcrest, Placentia, stated that relative to The
Tender Touch, they were in the process of having a chiropractor on the
premises at ail times. If they got the location in the center, they would
also have him located there. The fictitious name of the company they were
going to establish in the center was College Accupressure Center.
In answer to questions posed by Council Members, Mr. Runneals relayed the
following: Mr. Carl Smith, the manager of the center, was not present today
because they had no opposition at all except from the Police Department at the
Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Smith told them that Radio Shack was moving
and they could have space No. 34. They were negotiating a month-to-month
lease only. Dr. Antles would be the doctor on the premises, and the two
doctors who were referring business were Dr. Hion and Dr. Colion, who were
presently located on Lincoln Avenue. They would be willing to cut their hours
down from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., six days a week.
Mr. Wyland then stated in concluding that it was nOt a massage parlor
operation and had not been one. Mr. Runneals could not have any blemish on
his record. He did not see him jeopardizing his career to run an illegal
business. The business dealt with accupressure and until today, they had no
idea there was anybody in opposition.
141
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Runneals then confirmed for Councilman Pickler that he normally spent two
or three hours on the premises in the evening. He was usually present to make
sure there were no problems and during the day, his partner, Ms. Nguyen could
reach him when she needed him if there were any problems.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Pickler asked the basis of opposition at the Planning Commission
hearing; Miss Santalahti it was from the Police Department's representative,
Sgt. Brantley, and there was a memorandum in the file.
Mayor Roth and the Council thereupon reviewed the memorandum.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject
property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that
no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the
Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual
or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-71 for adoption, denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 2404, upholding the findings of the Planning Commission, and
also due to the fact that testimony was received from business operators
within the center and a statement that just the notoriety of the business
involved alone was a detriment to the center. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2404.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-71 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:30 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
142