1979/02/13~%ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE SUPT.: Albert L. Merriam
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George H. Edwards
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: John Anderson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Robert Kelley
FIRE CHEIF: James W. Riley
INVOCATION:
Invocation.
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
Reverend George Brown, Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
FLAG~ SALUTE: Councilman E. Liewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
approved by the City Council:
Anaheim's Weekend of Love - February 16 - 18, 1979
The proclamation was in recognition of the Knights of Columbus Community Fair
organized to demonstrate the abilities and talents of the handicapped and was
to be presented at a later date.
146: PRESENTATION - SANTA ANA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCY: Mr. Ed Just, Director
of the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency, stated that at an earlier meeting
of the Agency, Counc~ilman Roth, who was in attendance representing Anaheim, felt that
there were enough matters taking place that the Council should be brought up to
date. He explained that a few years ago, they were able to get legislation through
Washington, D.C., to get the River Project authorized for at least the Phase I
General Design Memorandum Studies for the Santa Ana River, which were now under-
way. Just today, he received an informational brochure on Phase I and, if anything,
Jt presented a few more problems for the Agency. They were originally talking about
a total project cost of $755 million for the protective works for the River,
and those costs had now escalated to $990 million, and local share (non-Federal)
costs were up from $80 million to the lowest estimate which was $105 million, with
costs ranging from $105 to $430 million. They did not know where those funds were
going to come from. They had started putting aside their share, and they now had
$1 million which took three years to accumulate.
On February 28, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., the Corps of Engineers was to hold its first public
hearing on Phase I in the Garden Grove City Council Chambers, with subsequent meet-
ings to follow in Riverside and San Bernardino, covering the three counties most dras-
tically affected by the project. Last week, Don Hudson from Cypress and Jack Yader from
Newport Beach accompanied him to Sacramento to discuss the matter with the legislators
79-176
Ci.t~Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
and to tell them that in view of Proposition 13, they did not know where local
funds were going to come from. They also asked that the State go back to pre-
1973 legislation where the State paid non-Federal costs for the Flood Project.
The State's normal expenditures were approximately $3 million for the entire
State for flood work, and they were ~tartled to learn of the need of costs
ranging from $85 to 215 million, adding to that the fact that the money was
needed in Ils years since that was when the Corps of Engineers was expecting
to complete Phase t. Before the project could be sent on to Washington, there
must be assurances from the non-Federal interests that they would meet their share
of the costs. Neither the State, L~or the local governments, could do that at the
present time.
The first week in March, tht:. Nation. a£ League of Cities was holding their annual
meeting, and the normal proced~re foz~ th~, pas~c few years had been for him (Just)
t~, accompany the delegates ~rom Orange County to the meeting, and prior to arrival,
they were setting up a number of meetings. They were to meet with General Robinson,
~,'ho was the District Engineer £n Los Angeles a few years ago. He was now Deputy
Ii, rector for Civil Works, ap.d there was a new Director in Los Angeles and a new
Division Director in San Franc~.:~co. tie noted in reviewing the material received
today that it was also .~;ent to three members of City staff, and he advised that they
rake a hard look and see what areas would present problems to them. Over the next
1!~ years, they would have to iron out all the difficulties along the entire length
of the River, such as what the format ,of the River would be, whether it would be a
c~;ncrete vertical wall channel al! the way through, etc. If they could get those ~-'
questions resolved, as well as financing for the necessary improvements, construct5
~ould start as early as seven years. Councilman Roth had informed him that Council n
Overholt would be representing Anaheim at the League meeting. He was counting on
bls help since the experience factor ±n Washington, D.C., had been that elected
officials open doors much faster than appointed ones.
(iouncitman Roth stated one point that was important for Mr. Just to bring out was
the priority, statewide, relative to the possibilities of the flooding of the Santa
?,,~ a R~ver.
Just ex~la£ned that :i~t -;~t~ta ,2~ }~f'.'er had been identified by the State as
worst p~>te~tial flo,~! i:~:::;:.~ _~. .:,~,:: /:;t,~t,,, and the Water Commission had given
that: designation ~.:r ,. ~ ia~t ~:hr,~ y~:at-s. The Corps of Engineers went even
f[~,ther and advised Jt ~as '.[~e ,'~):~,t: potential threat west of the Mississippi River.
i ~nci[nan Roth ~tat~:J t:.~t :;.~'~':~e~d i~u: greatly, especially considering the
]~ng ~h~- River, increasing the potential hazard.
maintained that the Agen.v and th,:,st~ it served were fortunate to have Mr. Just
their Director, considering hi~; e:~m~'+~ .~ ~ [se and experience.
Mr. .lust contimied th,~t ~,ne ,:i: :i~ mai~ points of the contention between local
interests and federal intercsl::; was ,~h~ther or not there should be a Mentone
Dam. Federal interes'._s did n~>t believe they should pay for a Mentone Dam. The
extra $325 million wa.~ needed i~ that- one project alone. Federal interests were
saying that lt~cal interests war,ted the dam, thus they should pay for it. They had
found :ine only way they would haw~ a project was for all three counties to main-
tain their support, and the only ['>ro~e~:t on which they were in agreement was the
Mentone Dam.
79-177
Cit~_~all~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the possibility of the federal government giving more
money on the basis that Proposition 13 in California had turned over about $2
billion more to them?
Mr. Just stated there were a few things that might have a bearing, such as whether
or not Governor Brown was going to run against President Carter in the future, but
otherwise all the old fo~uias were ~'up in the air." Last September the President
issued a new water po]icy, and the Corps of Engineers were now saying that they
would not send anything back to Washington unless it was in compliance with the
President's water policy, qq~at policy called for locals to pay 25% of the cost
and the State another 5% [~f any f]ood project. In view of that, the only grounds
~n which they had to ~p~t~ ~r~ e~ther the State would pick up the total cost
or that Congress would overr~!e ~he President and say that they would not abide
bY the suggested water po]~y~
(]ouncilman Kott stated that h(~ believed the federal government should be told that
they had to contrlbute more or pay f'~r the whole thing in view of what California
had done. As well., they had proclaimed the River as being dangerous.
The Council thanked Mr. Just for his presentation.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Kott moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, speci~ic request is made by a Council Member for the read-
lng of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $7,525,862.02, in accordance
w~th the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
Cliff bt&gqAGER/DEPARTMENTAJ., MOTIOiN CONSENT CALEND~LR: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman R<~tb~ ~!~.~ fc~l!owing actions were authorized as recommended
~y the ?urchasing Age.a~ ~
160: Bid No. 3496 - ~ne (ll ~ a'~]or n~nted scrubber - Award to Marco Equipment
C~]~mpany, $23,457.80.
160: Resurface 22,147 feet <)f the conco[~rse floor in the view level of Anaheim
Stadium- Award to Kemiko, Inc~, $22,530.79.
MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF E~UIPMENT .- SiX VACUUM SWEEPERS - BID NO. 3494: Mr. A1 Merriam,
Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent explained for Councilman Kott the difference
in gasoline and maintenance costs of the proposed vacuum sweepers compared to the
regular broom type sweepers.
79-178
City H__all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the purchase of six vacuum sweepers from Public
Works, Inc. in the amount of $273,909.43, as recommended in memorandum dated
February 7, 1979 from the Purchasing Agent. Councilman Seymour seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
140: ARCHITECTURAL FEES FOR HILL AND CANYON LIBRARY: On motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, $30,000 was appropriated from the Council
Contingency Fund to be used wfth $25,000 from the Library budget for architectural
fees for the Hill and Canyon Library, as recommended by the City Librarian in
memorandum dated February 7, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
103: WINSTON-SUNKIST J~NEXATION: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-83
for adoption, as recommended in memot~andum dated February 5, 1979 from the Director
of Planning Ron Thompson, requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to
commence proceedings for th~ proposed Winston-Sunkist Annexation, 7.63 acres
located northwest of Winston Avenue an([ Sunkist Street. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-83: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTINC TUE COb~ENCEbIENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESICNATED AS WINSTON-SUNKIST ANNEXATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overhott, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
Mayor declared Resoluti,~n N,,. 79!?-83 du]y passed and adopted.
[75: TRADITIONAIRE STREET LIGHT L[i~I!NA1RES FOR THE CANYON AREA: Mr. George
Edwards. Elec:tri~:al Superinte:,dent, <la:ified questions posed by Councilman
K(,~t as: outlined in detailed memorandum dated January 30, 1979 from the Public
U" ilit'ies General Manager.
'~,'.. motion by Counc ii. ma~ l?ti:, ~'..',,~.~c! v,'.' Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed
st:andards and s~:~ ifi~-at~,>m ~ ~ th~ ~ ~
~ ,; ,~,~,ant-type Traditionaire street light
~:~m~na~res f;~r tl~e ~{~ta -M-~, (,~;~7~:.~- ~o,~,:im Hills area were approved. MOTION
(biRRIED.
~.?~: BUS SHELTER PRO('.RA~I: ,Aty. i:]erk l.~,nda Roberts announced that Mr. Jean-
C!aude I,eRoyer of American items !i2~eiters wished to address the Council on the
s ubj ec t.
MiT. John Anderson, Assistant Planner, briefed the Council on the report of the
Pianning Department/Planning Division dated February 7, 1979 listing recommendations,
background of the Bus Shelter Program, Bus Shelter Development Criteria, Review of
De~ign Considerations, analysis of companies' proposal and design alternatives,
attached to which were recommended amenities to the Bus Shelter Development Criteria_,_`
design worksheet, an overview of companies' proposals and various configurations
showing possible modifications and related amenities. Mr. Anderson supplemented
his presentation with slides, wherein he elaborated on the many aspects of the
program which had been under consideration for some time (a copy of report dated
February 7, 1979 with attachments on file in the City Clerk's office).
79-179
City _Ha.l.l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Anderson also explained that in the attachment - Matrix of Bus Shelters Survey
Responses - American Shelter Company previously indicated they would not be
willing to build a percentage of shelters without advertising, but since then,
£ndicated they would be willing to accommodate no-sign shelters to an extent. As
well, they had provided staff yesterday with a sketch of the new free-standing
amenity package. He further explained that the designs prepared and submitted
by the seven interested companies were essentially of two types--Type A with
minor variations, and Type B (see Figure 3, analysis of companies' proposals--
overview). Shelter Top advised that they had a revised design side panel reduced
f~om 88 inches to 72 inches minimum in order to be more easily accommodated on
9--foot sidewalks. Convenience and Safety informed them that they had considered
~ new revolutionary design shelter which they shared with staff, as of last week,
~i~ich was basically a wrap aro~.md unit.
h~ concluding, Mr. ,~derson explained that in terms of staff design, after they
explored both Type A and B, Type A seemed to be the most acceptable design.
~ well, amenities should be '~ble to be accommodated even if those amenities were
.~ot considered appropriate at this ~'ime. Bidding could be handled by the Traffic
}?.~gineering Division sinc~ tt~> wo~'ked with the OCTD.
Councilwoman Kaywood commended Mr. Anderson on his presentation.
Councilman Roth refei"rred t<~ Page 2 oi the report, last paragraph pertaining
t~ telephone installation, indicating that the City of Anaheim would pay a $39
installation fee, plus a monthly fee of $7.
M::'. Anderson stated that they were not recommending the telephone, but should
there be a desire on the part ot any of the agencies to provide a semi-public
service, there would be a means to accommodate that. They were recommending that
the shelter be so designed that a phone could be accommodated and if so, there
w~_~re two types of service available.
(Jouncilman Roth also commended Mr. Anderson on the report.
Mayor Seymour expressed his compliments on the fine presentation and then asked
Mr. ~M~derson if the ¢~CTi~ ~,..~ t r_a_lly in ,oncurrence with staff's recommendation
and if so, did ~h~.y i.~,t:~ad to 'dso it as a model in the County.
Hr. Anderson referrea t~ ~,h,.~ i>C'FD'.~:; representative, Diana Long.
Ma. Diana Long, Coordinator of Information Aids for the Marketing Department of
OCTD, stated that they concurred with the staff report on all the design criteria
for bus shelters. Iqaey had spent a great deal of time with Mr. Anderson in going
o,~,er every detail. Of greal'est concern to them was that the shelter coordinate with
their information signing ?zogram, a~d that it be consistent with that program
w{~ich was county-wide. A shelter coald provide many things, and they insisted that
~*. give all the basic criteria shown, that it provide shelter and give information.
Speaking at her level, sim did not think that the Transit District at this point
would recommend that a standardized design be transmitted throughout every city
i~ Orange County, but she could get a reading on the matter from the General
Manager and Board of Directors, if so desired.
79-180
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour reiterated that his concern was that the shelter meet all OCTD
criteria; Ms. Long confirmed that it did.
The following representatives were present from their respective companies to
give input on their bus shelter designs as they had done in the past:
Mr. Jean-Claude LeRoyer, President of American Bus Shelters in Santa Ana, first
explained the different types of shelters which they manufactured. It was
their opinion that bus shelters must be a place to protect people from the
elements, and the added gadgets such as telephones, clocks, etc. caused in-
convenience and obstructions. Wheelchairs could not be accommodated if someone
was using the telephone, and such amenities further diminished the size of the
shelter. They had designed a special unit fo~ Anaheim where it was possible to
accommodate a telephone, bus s~l~edule, waste receptacle and bus stop panel. The
design was simple, flexible, and easy t¢~ install. The bus schedule format they
were using was the one already used by OCTD, and it was easy to change. The waste
receptacle was very modern in shape. They had experienced very little vandalism
with their shelters. The company had s~gned contracts with eight cities in the
past months, with shelters having already been installed in Orange County and
Los Angeles County, and they had already received compliments on those shelters.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how often maintenance was performed on the shelters
and if trash receptacles were included ~n the shelters now in existence.
Mr. LeRoyer stated that they would clean the shelters twice a week, but they would
also check the shelters every day. They had 23 units in place at present in
Fullerton, Brea, Stanton, Lynwood, Carson and Los Angeles County, and they were
starting to build in Santa Ama this week. There were no trash receptacles in
existing shelters because they designed that particular shelter only for Anaheim.
Mr~ Bruce Will~ams, Convenience and Safety Corporation, first stated that the Planning
Department was to be commended on the quality of the job they did. He was certain that
~o,.ne of the questions would be answered ~ the RFP, but he wanted to assure the
~c,~ncii that the shelter ~,'~>mi,a~ ~_~f ~ould be considered the agent for the
~-~':ephor~e, which meant t!~ ~i~<~ w.~>~,id ~e the liability of the installation charge.
!.i~ .~o~t~nued that the ,)nj i,~:-~ .~,:: i~ i~d again which might be answered in the
~FF, ~,'a~ ~elat:iv~, ~., q~.~ ~t ~ '~'~ i~ .~pent approximately 468 hours in the
s~t ~'~:-ets ~f Anaheim ::~in,:e ~h~~ iai,!, t i~. they met with the Council, and the results of
the study were forward~d ~o ,~:~ ~;~pmber by mail. He was again offering that
information which he b¥ough~, witi~ ~im. '~'~th the help of OCTD, they analyzed
403 stops, although that did ~.~¢~t ~:?rt~s~nt the entire bus stop population of Anaheim.
They found 69 critical bus st~p areas ar,.d photographed each one and added a
data sheet which they made ava(fable to tt~e OCTD and Planning staff. There were
181 stops identified as a reasonable environment for shelters. After elaborating
further, Mr. Williams indicated that a shelter program of roughly 100 units might
be in order in the C~ty.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked where Mr. Wil]Jams mentioned there had been changes
and bus stops should be reloc:~ated, she wanted to know at whose expense that
would be.
79-181
(j!ty Hall_z_Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Williams answered that ideally what they were saying was that the signage
for OCTD was actually going to be on the shelter itself. Thus if there was a
cost in relocating, [t would probably consist of the removal of the sign in
place at present. As to whether or not that would be the responsibility of
the shelter company or Public Works, was a negotiating point.
Mr. Fred Droz, Bustop Shelters, warned the Council and suggested that the
design be kept clean, practical and fairly efficient. The more gadgets added to
the shelter, the more problems of upkeep, and other incidents would occur. They
spent a million dollars designing their shelter and to that end, the shelter
which finally evolved through the Planning Department was very similar to the
shelter located at 1616 West Katella, the bus stop shelter which had been in
place for over a year. He noted that when the Council began investigating the
possibility of a bus shelter program, they were worried about signage and now
the sign possibility had almost quadrupled. He reiterated that the only comment
he wanted to make was that the, shelter design be clean and simple, without being
concerned with adding amenities to ~t. He was in support of staff's recommendation
particularly because it was for Typ~ A, which was their design. He also had no
opposition to a bidding process.
Councilman Overholt not:ed in figure 3 of the subject report a company called Bus
Shelters of California, Inc. He asked Mr. Droz if that was his company; Mr. Droz
answered, "no". Councilman Overholt continued that the reason he asked was due
to the fact that the report indicated there was no response to the questionnaire
from that company, a~d he was certain there was probably some confusion between
Bustop Shelters and Bus Shelters of California. He wanted to know if they
were one and the same company~
After a brief discus~sion with '.~t~ff, it was presumed that Bus Shelters of California
S ~
was meant to be Bustop ~he~ters of California.
Droz then confirmed for ~qo~n(~ilman Overholt that although they did not respond
the questionnaire, they met with Mt-. ~aderson and Pam Lucado when the original
(Jesign was created ar;d as we]i~ during the continuing process.
M~. Jim Dunlap, Shel~er [,?~ ~,-~ ~ :~t. ated that although they did not concur
~:~ompletely that Type A ~:hould b~.~. t~, ~u~ly type shelter built in Anaheim, they
~ere of the opinion .i~ac t~er~, ~;bouJd be a combination of the two, perhaps because
o~ the extra revenue that '.~uid .:~c'c~'u~ to the City. They knew from the studies
~hat the revent~es fr~,,m ~ht: F'~7,.~ · :-;!~eJ~er would be considerably lower than stated,
and in addition, their had th~ fi~,×ibility of being able to reduce their signage.
~?he $900 figure per ~sheite~- per yea~' ~bown on the matrix was not only for a four-
~!ded shelter, but also c~o ~ld be for a ~:hree-sided. They realized they were the only
Type B shelter, but they believed consideration should be given to them as well.
He concurred with Mr. Williams (C&S) ~hat there were many stops in the City that
should be serviced by she!ters;, amd many others would be amenable to their particular
design.
Mayor Seymour asked if the si~e o~ the panel on the top of the shelter was at
all consistent with the size of panel vertically placed in Type A.
79-182
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dunlap answered "no" because it was a different format altogether and one whic?
the buses carry. They worked in conjunction with Transit Ads Corporation of
California who were their sales representatives. There were many formats avail-
able besides the two shown. They had stayed with that design because it was
attractive to advertisers, and [t was considerably more amenable to their adver-
tising program.
The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone else who wished to speak to the matter.
Mr. Herb Eggett, 904 South Spruce, Ocange County Senior Citizens Transportation
Committee, stated he was very much disturbed at what he was seeing and hearing
today. They started out some time ago to appeal for shelters for the elderly
and other bus riders, and .s~nc,: ti~en, ~us traffic had increased tremendously.
As far as he was concerned, Anaheim had moved in the right direction in selecting
a provider to get shelters b,.~]t. Hc~ had viewed the designs and spoken with Mr.
Anderson, and he saw amenities they never asked for in the first place. He saw
a section of the bench cut away for wheelchairs, but he maintained that no wheel-
chairs would be going into the shelters. Dial-a-Lift had been expanded in Orange
Co~nty, and the handicapped were well ?rcwided for. Easy-Rider service had been
~stituted in many cities but ~tii] there were no shelters. He referred to the
~helter built by Bustop ~ver :, '~e~ ag,~ where Councilwoman Kaywood and Council-
n~.an Overholt were in attendan~pe when it was dedicated. He was certain they
liked what they saw. It was a bus ~top shelter that was very simple, very functional
and all they were asking for. By this t~me, 15 or 25 could have been built. He ~
did not care about amenities and he did not think that riders cared about them
either. The area had just gone through one of the most severe winters, but again
without bus shelters. They w~e !~h~~ u.~ers, taxpayers and voters and yet they
c~.~,~ld not get what they wanted~ H~ ..zrged that as soon as possible the City
(ouncil draw up a ccntra~t ~ith the ,:o~npany that put up the shelter at 1616 Katella,
sc; that they could get on with the program.
Mayor Seymour responded by exp]aluJng what they were trying to achieve was to
a;,::ertain what staff considered to b, the safest, most durable, most efficient
s~elter, and then have a b;.ddi~.v~ i,-~:~,.e~-: that would guarantee the best possible
tinancia] r~turn to ti~e ~tiz<~. !!~. E~gett was saying that they should not
proceed in that manner, ~ut i.~'~-~.i~ad go with Bustop because he liked the shelter.
Mr. Eggett countered that was ~o~ what he was saying, but that they were still
stuck on dead center.
'th~_~ Mayor stated that what they a.~ked th~, last: time was for staff to amalgamate
ail the proposals and designs and come ,ap ~.zith a design that they felt, in their
professional expertise, was s~fe, eff:i,~i~nt and wou]d do the job. They were now
about to make a decision and approve a design and send it out for competitive
b i dding.
Hr. Eggett claimed that the ,.:,.~?an~e:-~ we:'e quite capable of designing shelters
and bringing their designs t:o the City fc~r selection without expending further
time and effort to come up ui[h designs the company already had, and the shelter
should be built now. That was his protest.
79-183
~_i~.ty Hall_z Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Considerable debate and discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Eggett ensued revolving
around the issue, after which Councilman Overholt asked for the approximate time
frame that would be involved in the process.
After discussion w~th staff, .it was ascertained that if the design criteria was
approved today, it wouid be approximately 60 days to award of contract.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated he was the third vote who adopted the process
under which they were now operating, and he assured Mr. Eggett after a lengthy
discussion with him previously that there was no attempt to delay the program, but
[~heirs was an attempt to bring to Anaheim the very best for the citizens. He
~hereupon moved to approve t?.~e amendments to the Bus Shelter Development Criteria
~ outlined in the staff rep~;rt~ page 2, ~A.6.) Minimum structural setback from
~urb: from--18 inches to 2_9~ j.j~5~h__e.s_; (A.6.) Minimum sidewalk Clearance: from
~ feet to 36 inches; (A~8~') Min~mom distance from intersection: from 80 feet
[o as per Safe ~ppr__oach ~5peed Chsrt and approval of Traffic Ensineer; and (A.8.)
Permitted shelter location: from far side of intersection only to as per Safe Approach
~peed Lq~art and appro_va___l_~.9_~J~_f_fj~_~E_n~lneer. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED~,
Councilman Overholt moved tha~ the Type A bus shelter design be selected as the
alternative to be pursued. C~;uncilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3975: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 3975 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3975: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER
4.07 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BUS SHELTERS.
Before closing, Mrs. Pat Bayley, 801 North Loara, stated that she took strong
exception to Mr. Eggett's comments that they did not need space for wheelchairs.
She explained that the Orange ~;ounty Transit District had joined a consortium
~,~th Denver and Seat~ ie to pr~'.v~de for the purchase of Line Haul accessible
buses, which meant tber~ wet~ld be people in wheelchairs at bus shelters. Thus
~-be would appreciate thc sh~lter ~ompanies' consideration for wheelchair accessibility
~,_3 the shelters~ She w~ ~.,~r~ai~ ih.~t they were all aware of the 504 accessibility
regulations of the federal .aovt,~'nrn~nt-.
Mayor Seymour stated [hat ~-~!~e rould be assured that the design criteria the
(ounc':! just adopted wo~,~!d i r~¥ide for ,~,heelchair access.
~.ounci~man Overholt asked Jf action was necessary to extend the bus shelter
companies' agreements; Mr. Anderson explained why no action was necessary.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the joint meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency and the City Council to order, all members being present. (3:10 P.M.)
79-184
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
161.123: PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY,
ROBERT EUGENE AND SHARON LYNN BENTLEY: A joint public hearing between the Anaheim
City Council and the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was held to consider a proposed
participation agreement with Robert Eugene Bentley and Sharon Lynn Bentley for
sale of certain real property located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue
and Harbor Boulevard within Redevelopment Project Alpha.
Report from the Community Development Department was submitted recommending that
the Redevelopment Agency and City Council approve the initial study determining
that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment or result
in a substantially or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment
and does not require the preparatio~ of an Environmental Impact Report; that the
sale of land for private dew~lopment be approved and execution of the Participation
Agreement by the Chairman and Secretary of the Agency be authorized; and that
concept drawings for the proposed development be approved.
Executive Director Norman J. Priest noted the location of subject property and
advised that two buildings were proposed for the approximately 87,114-square foot
site, one a 13,000-square foct bank w~th offices, the other a 23,000-square foot
commercial office building. He briefed the contents of the Community Development
Department report and recommendation and the Summary of the Proposed Participation
Agreement prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Health
and Safety Code. tie advised that the plans were consistent with the Redevelopment
Plan and Guide for Development, and the proposed developer has agreed to partici-
pate in the streetscape along Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, as recommended
in the Guide for Development.
Mr. Priest called attention t;o architectural renderings posted on the east wall
of the Council Chamber, pointing ont the building elevations to front on Lincoln
Avenue and Harbor Boulevard.
Maycr Seymour asked if Member's ~,?- ~i~e Rodevelopment Agency/City Council had any
¢tt]~stiOnS.
Councilman Ro. th stat~d it wa. ~ ~-~ , n~.~c~r~:[anding that the E1 Camino Bank would
oc~.~upy the proposed bank-i~g a~ ~, and he inquired as to the bank's future
plans.
Mr. Priest reported that ~!ii. ,Tam]no iJank would move into the new facility, vacating
their present quarters~ whick are leased from the City.
In response to question by C,:~mci]man Kotr~ Mr. Priest advised that as shown on
the plot plan, Lincoln Avenue was in realigned form; however at that point the
alignment was very close to Ihe original.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Redevelopment Agency/City
Council.
Mr. Robert E. Bentley was present and stated he was in accord with the Staff
Report presented this date.
79-185
_C_i_ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked ~f anyone else wished to address the Agency/Council; there
being no response, he declared the public hearing closed.
On the recommendations of the Community Development Executive Director, Councilman
Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-84 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ROBERT EUGENE BENTLEY AND SHARON
LYNN BENTLEY FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND HARBOR BOULEVARD IN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT ALPHA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
Mayor declared Resolution No~ 79R-84 duly passed and adopted.
In accordance with the reconm~endations by the Executive Director, Mrs. Kaywood
offered Resolution No. ARA79-11 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
R£SOLUTION NO. ARA79-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE ~NAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ROBERT E. BENTLEY AND SHARON LYNN BENTLEY
FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTH-
EAST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND HARBOR BOULEVARD.
Roll Call Vote:
AY ES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
(P~ariman Seymour ,[ecJare. d Resoluti:~s No. ARA79-11 duly passed and adopted.
~ the recommendations of ti~e !~xecutive Director, Councilman Kott offered
Resolution No. 79R-85 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-85: A RESOLUTI. ON O~~ THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO A PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ROBERT EUGENE BENTLEY AND SHARON LYNN BENTLEY
FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
LINCOLN AVENUE AND HARBOR BOULEVARD;APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF SAID REAL
PROPERTY; CONSENTING TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BY THE
AGENCY; AND APPROVING THE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO.
79-186
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-85 duly passed and adopted.
Mr. Kott offered Resolution No. ARA79-12 for adoption, as recommended by the
Executive Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA79-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANA}{EIM REDEVELOPM]ZNT AGENCY
MA/ilNG CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY
THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO A PARTICIPATION AGREEbfENT BETWEEN
THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ROBERT EUGENE BENTLEY AND SHARON LYNN
BENTLEY FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND HARBOR BOULEVARD; APPROVING THE PROPOSED
SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY AND THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PER-
TAINING THERETO: AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID PARTICI-
PATION AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA79-12 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: On motion by Mr. Roth, seconded by Mr. Kott, concept drawings for
the development proposed by Robert E. Bentley were approved by the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency. MOTION CARRIED.
161: REPORT - PROJECT ALPHA DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS: At the request of Mayor
Seymour, Mr. Priest briefly reported on development progress in the Redevelopment
Project Alpha area, as follows:
The 100-unit Village Center for Senior Citizens is 93% complete. The new
Security-Pacific Bank building will be completed this month. Demolition and
land clearance for the Towne Center is continuing. The new City Hall building
is well under construction. Currently, negotiations are underway for an office
building at the corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard, and two other commercial
office buildings are under discussion. The Community Redevelopment Commission
will be considering three substantial developments for Office Block A and
the block south of the Towne Center, which will not involve existing historic
structures. Neighborhood Preservation activities are continuing, and the
installation of neighborhood street lights has been completed in the Rose Street
and Vine Street area.
On behalf of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and City Council, Mayor Seymour
extended sincere appreciation to Mr. Priest and his staff for the very real
progress which has been made.
79-187
~t__y__H_all_~ ~%naheim_~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Roth m~ved to adjourn. Mr. Kott seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNED: 3:23 P.M.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1902 AND NEGATIVE DEC-
LARATION: Application by Robert D. Etchandy et al, to permit retail sales of
furniture on ML zoned property located on the east side of Tustin Avenue, south
of La Palma Avenue.
~he City Planning Commissio~ pursuant [o Resolution No. PC79-1 declared that
the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act and further denied (~onditional Use P~ '
erm~t No. 1902.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Floyd Farano, Attorney
for the applicant, and a public hearing scheduled and continued from February 6,
1979 to this date at the request of the applicant's attorney.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Louncilman Roth noted that on the information provided, it stated that required
parking was for 259 spaces and the applicant was willing to provide 292 spaces.
~s 5antalahti stated that ti~,~ park£ng was for the other industrial buildings as
well, and confirmed the 292
i~ouncil, man Kott also noted that th~ applicant was calling the operation wholesale,
and the Planning Commission retail.
Miss Santalahti explaine~l that ti~,~ ~'i~om~ission felt that they were a typical retail
operation, rather than s;~me~.hi~g which had traditionally been considered as wholesale.
At present, the City Code did ~o~ gl~ze any clear distinction between the two types
~-~f activity. The ]omm~-~-;ion'~ fe~i~g was that the use would attract the general
p~bli¢;, and it wa~ not i~mited ~o people working in an industrial area. That
was their overriding objection ~,o ~h~. use.
Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman Aw~nue, Fullerton, attorney for the applicant,
submitted packets to the Council Members and the City Clerk which contained data
and exhibits that he would be referring to during his presentation. He was
requesting approval of CUP i902~ to conduct a furniture warehouse showroom
business on Tustin Avenue bc~tween the Riverside Freeway and La Palma Avenue.
His was going to be a lengthy presentation because he was going to try to give
the Council as much information as possible, recognizing that the subject was a
delicate one in Anaheim in that it was attempting to use property designated as
industrially zoned for so-called commercial purposes. He anticipated that he
would be able to show the Council that there were extenuating circumstances.
~e 4 to 3 vote at the Planning Commission level denying the application had put
~ld Key Furniture in a serious d~lemma.
79-188
Anaheim, Califcrnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 197,9,
City Hall ~
Mr. Farano then briefed the Council and further expanded upon the data submitte
to them which was made a part of the record, pages 1 through 6, containing an
introduction indicating the drastic changes that had taken place in the retail
furniture industry since 1972, the details of the present proposal, the location,
and the various reasons why, that ]ocation would not affect the industrial uses in
the area, stipulations relative to the proposed use, and statistics regarding a
traffic impact. A rendering of ~i}~ builing was also displayed on the Chamber wall,
and Mr. Farano also submitted ar(!~itectural renderings to the Council depicting
similar developments in ~tber cities. He then referred to Exhibit No. 2, which was
a map of the area, also '~howing the site of the warehouses, as well as photographs
depiciting surrounding land uses which served to identify the impact areas between
the Riverside Freeway and !a Pa]ma, and secondly, La Palina Avenue northbound to the
City limits between Kraeme~ aud Imperial. Exhibits 3 through 6 showed in bar graph
form the average store--'.~ehicle traffic for Gold Key Stores in San Jose, Van Nuys,
and Costa Mesa during~ a ~,_hre~.-wee~· ' period at various hours from 10:00 A.M. to
7:00 P.M. Exhibit 6 deait with traffic projections on Tustin Avenue between La
Palma and the Riverside Freeway, 1977 census. Using the 1977 traffic census
figures published by Anaheim, they projected 1979 and 1980 traffic figures and
used the formulas set forth by Anaheim to determine peak area p. rojections as
shown in Exhibit 6~ Th~', ther took ~he number of actual cars in Gold Key parking
lot shown in Exhibit~ 3, 4, and ~ and compute~ the percentage of overall traffic
that their traffic would bear to all traffic traveling on Tustin Avenue between
the Riverside Freeway and i,a Palma. The results proved to be almost infinitesimal,
resulting in .05% of the c ' .
,vera~l traffic After further elaboration, Mr. Farano,
concluded that their ac~al traffic counts and projections and actual experienc
was such that not only was traffic going to be insignificant as presently con-
stit. uted on Tusti~ Avema~, but ~,.iso the hours of traffic themselves would not
interfere.
He then referred t,? }:ixl:i!~£t ~i i b. -'as a letter sent to eleven companies in the
area giving a descript, ic>~ ,!' t.i~ ?z',jection in the manner in which he described
i~ to the Count, il, as well ~: tl~. ~arae material that was forwarded to the Council
pr~:vi;usty. Of tl:, : ,~:. .:. i,:~ti~;~- re,~:ived, four were positive, one was negative,
tb~ fifth wa= .i ,, mp~ ~,~ t~ ' , !t,!.~, but stated they did not think the project
was a goocl idea ?>~.l ~ ~ ~:-a t i . ie also talked to Diane Anderson of Rockwell
who indicated 'i,~e, w, ?~ .~ :! ~ia:-, ic~ about the development, but would rather see
Golci Key In ~!~,~l. ,, ,~ ~- ~ ~ -, ::h~:,~' uses.
The concept they ~erc p~'~pc>~,i;~ was nothing new and an important fact in consider-
ation of the application was tibet the proposed site was exactly on the very 'edge of
the industrial area. There was a distinction between any retail use being in the
exact core of the industrial area, than being on the outside edges.
He then referred to and submitted a Los Angeles Times newspaper article of
November 5, 1978, elaborating upon a planning technique that had been developed
and would be used by the Irvine c~)mplex near E1 Toro. The plan was to surround
industrial areas with buffers or quasi-industrial, quasi-retail uses, something
other than pure industrJal. It was his opinion that one of the things they
were looking at was the ability to provide for companies, such as Gold Key, that-.-
were neither commercial and certainly not industrial, but closer in their opera1
characteristics to industrial. The idea was not to try to introduce retail
79-189
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
traffic into industrial areas but to recognize the support needed for it. In
its proper place, it was a useful planning tool.
Concluding, Mr. Farano stated that (.;old Key was very mindful of the delicate
nature of the whole subject. They had participated in studies conducted by the
Chamber in order to further protect the industrial area, and Gold Key was not
interested in injuring the industrial zone.
In answer to a liue of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Farano relayed
the following: Rockwell did not say that they would rather see Gold Key located
in the area than any industrial use, but that they would prefer Gold Key over
other uses they could think of; the sales tax for purchases would go to the City
cf Anaheim even though delivery would be made from the Costa Mesa warehouse;
there was no room for storage of furniture at the proposed warehouse, thus patrons
woald not be pulling up in cars and trucks to pick up merchandise.
Mr. Farano then referred to Exhibit 8 listing 15 conditions which the petitioner
was not only willing to abide by~ but also urged the Council to adopt to insure
~ome protection relative t~ ~i~e indus~r~al area.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth asked staff if the Conditional Use Permit could have stipulated
the hours of operation.
Miss Santalahti answered "yes" and further stated that they had done so previously
i~ other cases.
Councilman Roth then continued that the only deep concern he had was regarding
traffic since he had observed the serious traffic problem on the offramp from
the Riverside Freeway to Tustin Avenue between 6:30 and 9:00 A.M. every morning.
~e petitioner stated that conm~encememt of operation would be 10:00 A.M. and
~f they would stipulate to that starting time, it would alleviate his concern.
(~c';uncilwoman Kaywood asked wl;~at the Chamber of Commerce had to say about the
project; Mr. Farano ..~tated that they, ~ade a presentation to the Industrial
Committee of the Chamber, and they did not take a position.
(,o~ncilman Kott stated he was quite impressed with the presentation which was
very thorough in researching the traffic count, the description of the project,
how it would operate, etc. He believed that the applicant had done everything
possible to satisfy City requirements in terms of displays, windows, parking
and the like, and it appeared that they were willing to conform to all conditions
~n the industrial area. He a~so did not: see any findings indicating the
c>peration was retail~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
79-190
City Hall~ Anaheimz California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-86 for adoption approving Conditiona7
Use Permit No. 1902 and reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-86: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1902.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood commented that Wickes Furniture
was proposed to be strictly a wholesale and warehouse facility, and no one ever
thought it was going to turn out as it did. Thus she was concerned about giving
up any more industrial area. The letter from Warner-Lambert and the comments from
Rockwell, although they could be interpreted in any way, were not an endorsement
of the project. At the ioint meeting of the Planning, Redevelopment and Housing
Commissions (see min~:~e~ Dec~mber 19, 1978) a deep concern with the intrusion
of retail uses in the fndustr~a] area was expressed. They had also received a
letter from the Chamber prev~iously indicating that they were very much opposed
to such encroachment. A.~ w~,~]], the Planning Commission vote of 4 to 3 was not
unanimous, and she would therefore have to oppose the CUP and uphold the Planning
Commission recommenda ~ i ohs ·
Mayor Seymour stated he wou~d ~peak in favor of the resolution. In that joint
meeting, the City Counci! stat~d to the Commission that they should be applying
imagination and creativity to ~-he type of planning taking place immediately
adjacent to the freeway arteries in the City, and they should look to the imagin
ative and creative planning and zoning taking place in cities such as Irvine,
Mission Viejo and Fountain Valley and others, whereby quasi-commercial uses
were being approved. H~ ma~ntalned that the subject use, with all the restric-
tions, clearly fell ~intc'. that category and would be of extreme benefit to the City.
He also recalled the Wickes propo,~a[, and he agreed that it was not exactly what
he thought the Planning Commission and the Council had approved at that time. On
the other hand, he had neve~ received a letter or a call objecting to the Wickes
operation. Many things were changing, and they had to broaden their thinking. The
concept of industrial us~ i~'~ ~dern development was indicating there were transi-
tions, and one was the t~a~t ton f~om pure industrial use to a quasi-industrial,
quasi-commercial u~e_ and ~ subject project fit that description.
Cou~Icilman OYe~i,.oi~ ,~ k~~. ~ ~ih~ e~>iu~.ion ir~corporated the 15 conditions
s~ipulated to b7 [~ app i.<~.~t i~l hi~ E×hibit No. 8, pages 1 and 2, and if so,
he would support ti~e q)pi~ ~ ~ e,i~es~; the Mayor answered that those
stii;u]atJon.s we]~e in~ iud~.j~.
A vote was then take:~ ,'~; ~i-~e ~or'-~g~ ~i, i~.esolution, including the 15 stipulations
made by the petitione~-~
Roli (]all Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL Mi'iMB [~RS
COUNCIl. MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
(~verbo!t. Kott, Roth and Seymour
Kaywo o d
N<~ne
The biayor declared Resolution No. 79R-86 duly passed and adopted.
79-191
C_j.~v~y_Hail_~_~_~_~aheim~. California -- COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 149, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
EIR NO. 222: To consider alternate proposals of ultimate land use for property
located on the east side of Knott Avenue, approximately 660 feet north of the
centerline of Ball Road, and to consider the Noise Element of the General Plan.
%he City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-8 approved Exhibit A
(low-medium density) for the subject property and that said General Plan desig-
nation shall be implemented by single-family residential zoning, and further
recommended that a negative declaration be approved for amendment of the Land Use
element, Area I, on the basis that the project area has been reviewed as well as
an Initial Study and Staff finds no significant environmental impacts. In addition
the City Planning Commission considered Environmental Impact Report No. 222 and
finds that no significan~ environmental impacts would be mitigated by the requirement
for conformance with established City and State codes, policies, plans and ordinances
and the Planning Commission f~rther recommended that the City Council certify
E~vironmental Impact Report No~ 222 as being in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and with the City and State EIR guidelines. The City
P~anning Commission further recommended that the noise element of the General Plan
be adopted and that the City Council request staff to prepare a Noise Ordinance
consistent with the model No£se Ordinance prepared by the State Department of
H~alth and the County of Orange.
Land Use: Mr. Joe]. Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, briefed the Council
om the staff report dated January 15, ]979 relative to the subject, consisting
of one land ~se case (Area I), as well as consideration of the Noise Element to
the General Plan. He asked that the City Council consider each element separately
with a blanket resolution on the General Plan at the end of discussion.
Relative to Area Il, M~ F~ck r,_~i:,orted that it was a property owner-initiated
I;~,neral Plan Amendment to change the current low density residential designation
t~ low-mediu~ density residential. It was the intent of the property owner to
;~eek RM-4000 zoning and to construct an 18-unit condominium complex on 1.7 acres
,~>~ the s~bject proper~y ~hou].d rbe C~:neral Plan be amended. It was comprised of
!~w. par~'els on the east side o! No~'~h Street located north of Ball Road. The
~taff report outlined a ,.<~mp,:~r'~on c~f impacts associated with the existing General
~'lan low density des£gna~ hu~ a?.i impacts associated with the proposed low-medium
<Je~nsity change reflected ~n i!ixhlbzt "A"~ The Planning Commission recommended that
Exi~ibit "A" be ado~,~e~.., :,~H~ ~ ~ ,.~l~::il~.z~me implementation by single-family zoning,
which was also the use req~;t,~'j by s~rrounding neighbors of the subject property.
~4~bsequent to the Plant,lng ~:<a~a ss~.~n meeting, the applicant, Mr. Picar, verbally
i~..dicated to staff that he planned to proceed with development under the
Planning Commission recommendation, and he was present today to speak on the issue.
Mz. Jack Picar, 310 Lorinda: Long B~ach, stated that he had worked with the property
~wners and staff and bad sev¥~ra] Plan;~ing Commission meetings on the project. The
property owners and P]anning Commission were in agreement with the resolution as
nc~w presented showing develoF~meut into single-family homes on 5,000-square foot
lots implemented by the iow-medium density designation. He was working to
develop the project within those guidelines and would accept the decision of the
(:ouncil on the matter. He also wanted to give a summary of how he came to that
~osition. His origina~ proposal was for an 18-unit, 2-story townhome-condominium
to be developed under RM-4000 zoning standards which the adjacent property owners
objected to. They were opposed based on (1) density, (2) condominiums were no
79-192
_City H__al,1,___~aheJm.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
better than apartments, and (3) 2-story development. Even though the property ~
under single-family zoning, he was not allowed 2 stories. His original proposal
would have allowed him to offer housing at a low cost. With the price of land
and the time involved in development, the higher density would have allowed a
lower cost of the finished product. Also with single-family homes, he had to
build a larger home to help offset the cost of the land. The selling prices of
the homes were d~rect!y related tc ~he cost of the land, and land costs had
skyrocketed. He maintained that ~n order to develop affordable housing, density
was the answer.
He concluded that he was willing to work to develop the project within the
resolution that was agreed to at ~he last Planning Commission meeting.'
The Mayor asked if anyone w~hed to speak on the land use element of the subject
General Plan.
Mr. Bill Allenbaugh, 844 Columbus Street, owner of adjoining properties stated
that most of the residents of the area were called away and he was the spokesman
for the group. Their req~est was tLat the Council adhere to low density because
they did not want hig~ density in the area.
Mayor Seymour stated !or purposes of ~larification that as he understood, Mr.
Allenbaugh was representing a numbe~ of home-owners in the area who were
obviously concerned over the possibility of high density. He wanted to know if ~"
Mr. Allenbaugh had di.~.~i~s.~d among his neighbors Mr. Picar's most recent
proposal ~hich cai]ed for sing]e-family detached type zoning, but rather than on
60xl00-foot lots, which was typical in their neighborhood, they would be on
50x 100-foot lots.
Mr. Allenbaugh answered z~i~al t~' bis knowledge, they were not aware of that
proposal, but they would favor the single-family units.
Councilman Roth asked i~ th~r main objection was to 2-story condominiums; Mr.
Allenbaugh answerec! ti~ev ~p~sed to condominiums and/or apartments.
]?here being ~o f~.~r~i~e~ ~'1~,~> wi:~hed to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing on ti~.~ iand ~ ~ ~ em~ as~-~ect of General Plan 149 and the Negative Declaratic
thereto.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO]~/F ~ ~b]GATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council finds there would be no significant
individual or cumulative enviromental impacts due to the approval of this negative
declaration; that no sens~tive environmental impacts are involved in the Land Use
Element, Area I, of the {~enera] Plan -amendment No. 149, and that the initial study
submitted by staff indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impacts, an(~t ~s therefore exempt from the requirement to prepare an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: On motion by Co~cil~nan Kott~ seconded by Councilman Roth, Land Use
Element Exhibit "A" ~[lo~..-medium density) was approved for the approximate
2 acres located on the ea~:t side o[ iqnott Avenue, approximately 600 feet north
of the centerline of Ball Road, provided that said General Plan designation shall
be implemented by single-fam~.]y residential zoning. MOTION CARRIED.
79-193
City Hall, Anaheimz California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Noise Element: Mr. Fick deferred to Mr. Robert Kelley, Associate Planner, who
would speak on the Noise Element of General Plan Amendment No. 149.
Mr. Kelley explained that some months ago, the City had engaged the services of
John VanHouten, acoustical consultant, to prepare a Noise Element to the General
Plan which he presented to the Council for consideration (made a part of the record).
The Element consisted of objectives, policies, standards and programs that were
used as a basis for making decisions affecting the noise environment within the
City. It also included an extensive amount of data and maps on the actual noise
environment as it existed and as it was projected toward the future. Mr. VanHouten
was present to answer any questions the Council might have.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the Noise Element of the
General Plan.
Mrs. Fredna Jackson, 431 South West Street, explained that she started trying to
get help to mitigate noise in her area since 1976 relative to the activities of
the Southern Pacific Railroad and truck traffic on West Street and Santa Ana
Street, but without success.
Mr. Kelley reported that yesterday a report on the railroad noise problem was
submitted to the Planning Commission and would be forthcoming to the Council in
another two or three weeks.
The Mayor asked Mr. Kelley to share with Mrs. Jackson, as well as the Council, what
was contained in the report as far as how it would ease the situation under which
she and others lived.
Mr. Kelley then summarized the results of the study. The railroad traveled through
the residential area on Santa Aha Street and passed a number of residential streets
which crossed the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. In traveling down those tracks,
the trains would blow their whistles and this continued for a considerable time
during the night. Due to the increased traffic on that line, it had been a matter
of increasing concern to residents in the area. Because of the particular config-
uration in that area and the fact that many homes were built as close as 50 feet
from the tracks, it was difficult to determine if anything could be done to
mitigate the matter. They d~d consider the possiblity of a noise barrier. However,
because residential streets cr~>ssed the tracks, it would be ineffective to construct
a noise barrier, as well as being very expensive. In addition, they also considered
the possibility of the individual homeowners taking some action in insulating their
homes. The recent credits now available for energy conservation could be of
some value to the individual residents in helping to reduce noise inside their
homes. They also looked at the Noise Ordinance which was passed over a year
prior prohibiting the railroad from sounding whistles at guarded crossings.
All of the crossings were not guarded, but the railroad continued to blow whistles
even at crossings that were guarded. That was the essence of the report presented
to the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Jackson explained that she had been in contact with the Public Utilities
Commission, Federal, State, County and City agencies, as well as Councilwoman
Kaywood and Councilman Roth. The residents in the area had not slept a night
in many a year. The PUC stated that they could install lights in the vicinity
79-194
Ci__ty Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
where the track curved and federal funds would pay 90% and the city 10%. She
believed there were solutions to the problem.
Mayor Seymour asked clarification that crossing arms were installed at each
intersection, the City's Ordinance would then prohibit the Railroad from
blowing whistles at guarded crossings. If that be the case, he wanted to know
if the City would be in a legal position to take the Railroad to court if they
continued to do so. If so, he asked if it would be reasonable to make a
recommendation to the Planning Commission to consider that aspect and submit a
reconmaendation to the Council ~o investigate the funding.
Mr. Kelley explained that there were five crossings involved and he had discussed
the matter with the ~'raffi(, Engine~r who pointed out first that State funding for
such guards were on a priority basJs. Due to the low volume of traffic on the
streets involved, the chances of getting any Federal or State funding was practicall]
nil. Even with crossing guards, the Railroad was continuing to ignore the
prohibition.
The Mayor asked C~ty Attorney Hopkins if the City went to court on the Ordinance,
would the Railroad counter with the fact that the crossings were not guarded and
also if each and every crossing was protected, that their argument would not then
be valid.
Mr. Hopkins stated first that the Railroad would argue that the crossings were
guarded. Consequently, the Cits~ would have a much better chance in court if th~
were guarded.
Mrs..~ackson stated it w~as t~er understanding that the Railroad was operating on
a franchise which expirt~,d i~ ~961)~ Thus, Anaheim owned Santa Ana Street and the
train was operating on a fran(~hise agreement. She was now told they did not
know who owned the street, ~hat t}~e Southern Pacific did not have the right of
way, etc.
Mayor Seymou~~ stat~d ~i~!~ ti~,~ ~'~(~'ommendation that was submitted to the Planning
Commisssion, the app~.>prtat~ ri:n~'~ t,) provide answers to the questions Mrs. Jackson
was raising ind f~)r '~i~( ~.~u~ ii t~ .~>nsider positive action to solve that problem
wo~Jld be when ~) ! !~un~ g .~>~nm~)~ion ret~ommendation was submitted to them. In
the interim, M~ .lac~kso~ >;i~),a!d ~uOm~t to Mr. Kelley any and all questions so
that when the maturer ,'amt~ ba?i( ?o t~e Council, they would have all the facts and
hop~_fully could provide ~om~ ~!.llef t~rough some positive decisions.
II, ere being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing on the Noise Element of the Ceneral Plan.
Environmental Impact Report No. 222 - Certification: Environmental Impact
Report No. 222 having been reviewed by the City Staff and recommended by the
City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines
and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting
upon such information and belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, that Environmental Impact Report No. 222
is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and
State guidelines. MOTION CARRIED.
79-195
qJ~t.Y Hall2_Anaheim, California -* COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the Noise
Element of the General Plan was adopted and Staff requested to prepare a Noise
Ordinance consistent with the model Noise Ordinance prepared by the State
Department of Health and the County of Orange. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-87 for adoption approving an Amendment
to the General Plan designated as Amendment No. 149, Exhibit "A" for Area I, Land
Use, and the Noise Element. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-87: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 149
EXHIBIT "A" FOR AREA I. '
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL biEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The blayor declared Resolution No. 79R-87 duly passed and adopted.
139: OPPOSITION TO TERRITORIAL AUTO INSURANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 79R-88 for adoption urging the maintenance of an equitable system
of Territorial Ratings on automobile insurance in the State of California. (see
minutes February 6, 1979) Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-88: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
URGING THE AMINTENANCE OF AN EQUITABLE SYSTEM OF TERRITORIAL RATINGS ON AUTO-
MOBILE INSURERS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL bIEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Over'holt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared RcsoJ~ltion No. 79R-88 duly passed and adopted.
105: YOUTH COMMISSION TERMS7: ['he City Clerk advised that terms were inadvertently
not designated to the recent!¥ appc>inted Youth Commission and it would be appropriate
t'3 now do so. Councilwoman Ka>,wo,~d offered the name of Beth Fujishige, Christine
Murphy and Bruce Underwood for two-year terms ending December 31, 1980 and
Nancy Bounds, Nancy Ttnibodeau .and Joe Ra.~.gel for the one-year terms ending
December 31, 1979.
Mayor Seymour was of the opinion that the entire Council should be involved
in making those decisions. His concept was to have a drawing of names for the
length of terms, three of those names would be for the term ending December 31, 1979,
two for the term ending December 31, 1980, and one for the term beginning April 1,
1979 through December 31, 1980.
Councilman Kott stated he wanted to hear the basis for Councilwoman Kaywood
wanting to name certain Commissioners to certain terms.
79-196
_City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered, based on the interviews they had with the
candidates and the letters submitted, as well as the Council feelings she
thought she perceived, she believed her choices represented what the majority
of the Council felt. She was suggesting Beth Fujishige to replace Susan
DeLesk, which seat would be vacant April 1, 1979, so that she could be attending
the meetings and be a member of the Commission immediately the following month.
The Mayor stated the Council preferred to draw names for terms and that was how
such situations were handled in the past; Councilwoman Kaywood was of the
opinion that they would get a better decision if they did not use that system.
Names were then drawn ft'o~ tt~e. te~n ending December 31, 1979: Councilman Roth
drew the name of Nancy i;;~mnds; C~ut~[iman Kott, Beth Fujishige; Councilwoman
Kaywood, Bruce Underworld, ~<~r the term ending December 31, 1980:-Councilraan
Overholt drew the name ~'~[ Nancy ~ibodeau; Councilman Seymour, Christine
Murphy and Joe Rangei, with Mr. Rangel's term to start April 1, 1979 through
December 31, 1980 as the replacement for Susan DeLesk.
123: FIRE TRAINING CENTER - .JOIhI POWERS AGREEMENT: Fire Chief James Riley
referred to his memorandum dated February 7, 1979 with attachments and explained
that the intent of the addendum to the original Joint Powers Agreement was to
provide protection to the individual cities so that those cities would not suffer
any liability in loss should a member of the employee group in another city be
injured at the fire train2ng center. The employees at the fire training facilit''~
were considered to be joint employees of all three cities.
Councilman Kott stated t~:~a~ the amendment was passed by all the cities and the
fire employees involved ~1! agreed to it.
Councilman Kott offered ~<es~.[ution No. 79R-89 approving an addendum to the Joint
Powers A~thority with G,trdtm Grove and Orange in connection with the fire training
facility, to create a ]~[n'. empio,fment relationship for municipal employees
trained at the facil~t,? i~,::~r t.~ Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79it-8~?~ ~'.L>~f~L~ ~ [_~,~' OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE FER~
,~'~ i ~ ..~ A~q ADDENDUM TO THE JOINT POWERS AGRE~ENT
WITH THE CITfE ~, )~ '.; d{l)i~?4 t~i.:C'~[.] c. Lbi~',~" "(~E' IN CO~ECTION WITH A FIRE T~INING
t?A~7iLLTY & AUTHORi ZIN(~ l'~iE ?~%TOR ?~D CiTY CLE~ TO EXECUTE SAID ~DEND~ ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY
Rol1 Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL btEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-89 duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COb~IUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Councilman Roth nominated
Donna Gaston as appointee to the Community Services Board for the term ending
June 30, 1981. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the nomination. On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, nomination for appointee
to the Community Services Board were closed. MOTION CARRIED.
79-197
C_ic~ Ha...ll., Anaheim_t California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated it was therefore the unanimous choice of the Council that
Donna Gaston be appointed to the Community Services Board for the term ending
June 30, 1981.
102: VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT - SUPPORT FOR ACQUIRING STATE SUBVENTION MONIES:
Councilwoman Kaywood reported that the Vector Control District lost 60% of
their funding as a result of Proposition 13, but their work continued and is
necessary to the health and welfare of the entire County (see minutes of
February 6, 1979). She thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-90 for adoption
supporting the efforts of the California Mosquito and Vector Control Association
and the Orange County Vector Control District in acquiring State subvention
monies from the State Legislature. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT OF THE EFFORTS OF THE CALIFORNIA MOSQUITO
AND VECTOR CONTROL ASSOCIATION AND THE ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT IN
ACQUIRING STATE SUBVENTION MONIES FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEP~ERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-90 duly passed and adopted.
156: TOWING INCIDENT: Councilman Kott stated he was dismayed to receive two
additional complaints relative to towing companies because he presumed that
such incidents had been precluded with the City's new towing Ordinance. He
questioned the status of such complaints in conjunction with that Ordinance.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that Lieutenant Randy Gaston had discussed the
~atter with him and the case in point was one involving a tow truckand apparently
a lift truck which was stuck i~ the m~d. It was something they felt was a
private agreement betwee~ tt~e tow tr~ck operator and the firm whose lift truck
wa~ disabled. ~b~- City'~ O~di:~auc~ Jea]t w~th illegally parked vehicles, and
~:~h was not the ~<i~ i~ C}~is incide~t,
L~eutenant Gaston then elab,.raced ~pon the incident for purposes of clarification,
concluding that the resolution .~,f ~hat matter was difficult for the City or the
Police Department to enter into, ~ince it was a private matter involving the
~un Bus Company and the towing operator.
Councilman Kott then asked the status of W&W Towing.
Lieutenant Gaston reported that W&W Towing had undergone a change of ownership
and supposedly a person by the name of Ben Hale had purchased the operation and
in the transition the name was changed to Ben's Towing. Mr. Hale had been
making requests for consideration of being included back on to the rotational
list of Police authorized towing companies, but that had not taken place as yet.
He explained that there was an Ordinance in the final stages at present sUmmarizing
the policies by which the Police Department selected towing companies to be placed
on that list.
79-198
Ci___t.y Hal!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that in the future when a question arose that the
Council go through the normal channels and first get a written response. She
was concerned that: Lieutenant Caston had to waste three hours of his time waiting
for the subject to be taken up at the meeting, as well as the fact that it was
wasting taxpayers' money.
148: OCTD - CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: City Clerk Roberts referred to the
request from the OCTD for assistance in providing new appointments to the
District's Citizens Advisory Committee as outlined in letter dated January 4, 1979
from members of the Board of Directors. She also confirmed for Mayor Seymour
that they would accept more than o~e appointment.
The Mayor then ststed h~ could make the appointments himself, but preferred to
bring the matter ~o ~he !']ou~c~] fo~ ~ecommendation.
Councilman Roth stated that there was a gentleman he tried to call today who lived
in the canyon who offered his services. He thus asked that the matter be held over
for one week, during wh~,~h time be would try to contact that person for possible
appointment.
Councilman Overholt stated that i~ would be a good training ground for people who
wanted to get into conununity service, and he knew of a couple of people who also
had talked to him~
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, appointments
the Orange County Transit D~strJct Citizen's Advisory Committee was continued for
one week. MOTION CARRIED.
148: COUNTY TASK FORCE TO CONSIDER PROPERTY TAX EQUITY ISSUE: Councilman Seymour
moved to designate Mr. R~ck Erickson, Mayor of Garden Grove, as the representative
from the Consortium Cities to a County task force committee to be formed to
examine the comparative <~osts for County services paid by City and County residents.
Councilman Overhoit seco~d~d the motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR _.!Tj~j!f~! <).~ .~m~i~>~'~ 'by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the f~[lowi~,~ a, ~i,~s w~e ~thorized in accordance with the reports and
recc~n~nendation~ fu~'~i.~.~h~ ~ .~ .~, .,~,un~[l .Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORREaPONDENLE: [~1~,: ~: ~iowing ~:~;rrespondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 171:
Controller :;f the 5tare ~:~ ia] ifornia, report from Kenneth Cory showing
the estimated arm>unt of revenue to be apportioned to each city and
county by tb.e ~rate Coatr~ller during the 79-80 fiscal year.
b. [07: Planning Department, Building Division - Monthly Report for January 1979.
c. 17:3:
Before the Civil Aeronautics Board, Frontier Airlines, Inc. applying f,~
exemption authority between Las Vegas, Nevada and Orange County/Santa
Ana/Anaheim, California.
79-199
Ha. il_, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
2. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10476: Submitted by Sand Dollar Development, Inc.,
to establish a 2-lot, 235 unit condominium subdivision on proposed RM-4000 zoned
property located on the north side of Chapman Avenue, east of the centerline of
Harbor Boulevard, submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 78-79-26
Variance No. 3071 and EIR No. 222. '
The City Planning Con~ission, at their meeting of January 29, 1979, approved
Tentative Tract No. 10476 for 218 units and certified EIR No. 223.
3. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10617: Submitted by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
to establish a 27-1ot, 25-unit planned unit development on proposed RS-HS-10,000(SC)
zoned property located on the east side of Imperial Highway, south of Nohl Ranch
Road, submitted in conj~nctJo~-~ with Reclassification No. 78-79-25, Conditional
[.!se Permit No. 1935, EIR Ne 224 and request for removal of specimen trees.
T~e City Planning Commission, at their ~neeting of January 29, 1979, approved
Tentative Tract No. 10617 amd certified EIR No. 224.
MOTION CARRIED.
~t8: CLAIMS FILED AGAINST THE CITY: Councilman Kott questioned the City Manager
relative to the circumstances of a claim involving a City-owned vehicle which
allegedly caused damage to another vehicle.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and asked the City Attorney whether a discussion
i~ public of a case that might go into litigation could be damaging to the City.
,~ii~y Attorney Hopkins answered that the~ mere citing of the facts would not
~mpair the claim which was alre~ady in the public record. However, he would
n,~ want to go beyond that in v~ew of the potential litigation, but merely stating
what happene~ would b~ ac:cep~:ab]~.
Manager Tal]ey thereupc~. ~laborated upon the claim to which Councilman Kott
r~ferred.
On motion by Councilman Kott~ a~c.~nded by Councilman Roth, the claims filed
against the (.~ity w~r~., denied and ref~rred to the City's insurance administrator
as recommended.
~, Claim submitted by Richard l.~ ~acLennan, for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by Anahc, im Police on or about November 4, 1978.
2. Claim submitted by Daniel Dwayne Jensen, Dwayne Jensen, and Regina Jensen
for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim
Police on or about October 29, [979.
~. Claim submitted by Robert J. Kelley, for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of improperly marked hole in pavement on or about
January 6, 1979.
.4. Claim submitted by Dale Nuzum Construction, for vehicle damages purportedly
sustained as a result of negligent operation of City-owned vehicle on or about
January 16, 1979.
79-200
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - (~UNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
5. Claim submitted by Mrs. Esther K. Helm for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of a fall caused by negligently placed island divider on
or about October 28, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-92
and 79R-93, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recon~nendations and
certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar
Agenda. Refer to Resolution B~ok,
169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-92: A ~;:SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETEILMININ(i T~ PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PI~LIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SLURRY SEAL
CONTRACT, IN THE CITY OF ~NAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-232-6340-00002; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING ~FHE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SF~LED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened Marc~ 8, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-93: 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 ~ND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AN!
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FAIRMONT BOULEVARD FLOOD
D~GE REPAIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (ACCOUNT NO. 01-232-6340-FRMNT)
(MacWell Company, contractor-)
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL P~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
Overholt:~ Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
The Mayor declared Re~o]~.~t~.~ No~,;~ }9[~-92 and 79R-93, duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP - i'~LAC~i' NO. ]0107: i~c. veloper Warmington Development Inc;
tract is located south o~ N,'~h]~ Ranch Road and east of Imperial Highway and
contains 78 proposed RM-400i)(14C) zoned lots.
i~ motion by Councilman k~:;th, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General i~[an, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 10107,
as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 5 1979
MOTION CARRIED. ' ·
ORDINANCE NO. 3970 THROUGH 3973: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3970
through 3973 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ....
79-201
~..it_~__H_al__~l_~_.Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
i01: ORDINANCE NO. 3970: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM (A) APPROVING AN AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FACILITY LEASE DATED AUGUST 31,
1978 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA) STADIUM, INC.
(A PUBLIC LEASEBACK CORPORATION), (B) APPROVING AN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE SITE
LEASE DATED AUGUST 31, ]978 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CITY OF ANAHEIM
(CALIFORNIA) STADIUM, INC. (A PUBLIC LEASEBACK CORPORATION), AND (C) AUTHORIZING
FHE b~AYOR A_ND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER SAID AMENDMENTS.
166: ORDINANCE NO. 3971: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUB-
SECTIONS .0211, .0221, .0222, AND .0231 OF SECTION 18.05.069 OF CHAPTER 18.05,
FITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MIINICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (service station signs)
156: ORDINANCE NO. 3972: .A2~ ORDINANCE OE THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 7,
CHAPTER 7.28 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 7.28.030 THEREOF
RELATING TO LOITERING.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 3973: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING
SECTIONS 1.04.110, 1.04.120, 1o04.130, 1.04.150, 1.04.160, 1.04.190, 1.04.210,
~'~.04.280, 1.04.390 OF CHAPTER ]~04, TITLE 1; SECTION 1.05.020, 1.05.030,
J.05.040, 1.05.050 OF CH~LPTER 1.05, TITLE 1; SECTION 1.16.010 OF CHAPTER 1.16,
i'iTLE 1; AND SECTIONS 1]~04~.070 OF CHAPTER 13.04, TITLE 13 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING 'FO THE DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Mayor Seymour noted, relative to Ordinance No. 3973, he received a copy of the
F£nance Department Organizational Chart dated February 1978 showing the Treasurer
co be under the Assistant Finance Director who was under the Finance Director.
it was his ,mderstanding that what the Council directed was that the Treasurer be
on~ a dotted line, showing the reporting relationship to the City Council.
blr~ Talley stated that was correct. The chart to which the Mayor referred was
~ncorrect, and it would be amended accordingly.
A vote was then taken on the f~regoi~g Ordinances.
Cai] Vote~
3YES:
ABSENT:
COUNCII, MEMBER~ $
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
~ve~:r~!~ Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance N,~. 3970 nhrough 3973 both inclusive duly passed
and adopted. ' '
i42: ORDINANCE NO. 3974: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3974 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
79-202
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3974: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1,
CHAPTER 1.04, CHAPTER 1.05, CHAPTER 1.16; AND TITLE 13, CHAPTER 13.04 BY ADDING
NEW SECTIONS 1.04.110, 1.04.120, 1.04.130, 1.04.160, 1.04.210, 1.04.390, 1.05.015,
1.05.020, 1.05.030, 1.05.040, 1.05.050, 1.16.010, 13.04.030, 13.04.040 AND
13.04.050 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION
OF THE CItY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
I~e Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3974 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3976 THROUGH 3978: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3976
through 3978, both inclusive for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3976: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(88), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3977: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(19), RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3978: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-25(6), RS-5000)
119: 1984 SUMMER OLYMPICS: Councilman Overholt first passed out a brochure
to the Council on the 23rd Olympiad Summer Games to be held in Los Angeles and
reported that he and Councilman Kott attended a Lincoln Club of Los Angeles dinner
where he had the occasion to meet Mr. John Argu, Chairman of the Southern California
Olympic Games. Mr. Argu was very enthusiastic about having those Games throughout
Southern California. Anaheim was ~lated for handball and possibly other sports.
Mr~ Argu also spoke of being ~n close contact with Mr. Liegler, Convention Center
S
· tad~um and Go]f Cou~-se~ (~eneral Manager, in that regard. He (Argu) said he
would be delighted t~' come to A~aheim to address the Council to give more details
of the forthcoraing (~ivmpic
Councilman Kott complimented Councilman Overholt on the context he made at the
dinner relative to bringing various sporting events to the City which could be
a big plus for Anaheim.
148: ORANGE COUNTY LEA(;UE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DUES ASSESSMENT: Councilwoman
Kaywood reported that at the League meeting, Thursday, February 8, 1979, Councilman
Overholt was on the Assessment Committee and did a fine job on that Committee.
The Committee agreed to a $500 base for every city in the County and.subsequently
it was voted on and unanimously approved by the entire League.
Councilman Overholt stated that the matter of proportional voting was discussed,
and it was decided that there was a great deal of homework that had to be done
before taking any action, but the Committee would continue to consider the
proportional voting issue.
79-203
~'it Hail, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
t73: FINE FOR DEFACEMENT OF BUS SHELTER: Councilman Roth stated that there
was a gentleman in the Chamber audience who had spoken with him during the
?ecess and who had been present during the bus shelter portion of the meeting.
He expressed his deep concern relative to people defacing and spray painting
bus shelters when and if they were built. He recommended that when the shelters
were built that some type of sign printed in both English and Spanish be included
i.~ the specifications of the bus shelters~ stating the amount of the fine imposed
for defacing government property. He thanked the gentleman for making the
~z ugges tion.
~61: CITY-WiDE MAILING ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPFiENT PROJECT: Councilman Roth stated
that lust before the meeting he had a discussion with Norm Priest, Executive
D~.rector o~ Community Deve!opm,;m~ ~ ative to all of the things that were happening
ii~ the downtown Rede~e]~pment area. A question that was posed to him (Roth)
?onstantly revolved ~round the number of buildings being removed from the downtown
~rea. He suggested to Hr~ Pries[ tha! a very inexpensive type of publication be
~nitiated called, "What is Happening in Downtown Anaheim." It would be very
helpful as a means of public infermation to keep people informed of all the many
f~rm commitments the Agc~ncv has relative to downtown Redevelopment.
iT~e Mayor asked if he, was suggesting ~ City-wide mailing.
'~]ounciiman Roth answered that ~f nothing else, the publication should be available
~or those who wanted to be ir~formed as to what was happening, particularly the
recap Mr. Priest had given today at the public hearing.
~!avor 5~eymour stated that h~ s~pported the idea and would take it a step further
by recommending a City-wid~i mailing. In driving through downtown, it was obvious
that a great change ~as ~aking place and although the people on the inside were
z~'are of what was happen~ng~ the people on the outside were not.
~O~ION: Councilman Roth moved that a City-wide mailing to inform the citizenry,
"W~at is Happening in Downtown A~aheim," be published. Councilman Seymour seconded
t~e motion.
i~,~,fore a vole was tak~m, man ~,,.~,~,~ asked where the money for such a
:'~blica~ion wou.[d ccm~- [ ,}~n, :,~,~,>~ ~q~3~mour answered, from Redevelopment funds.
{k unci~woman Kaywood sugge~ed ~a~ ~hev first check with Mr. Priest to see if
funds were avai~ ' ~
- ~able for su,.:h ~ p~blJcatfon.
The Mayor stated that the motion would be ~;ubject to the availability of such
funds.
A vote was then taken on ti~e foregoing motion with the addition that the mailing
?:e subject to availability of funds in the Redevelopment Agency budget. MOTION
CA RRI ED. ~
Councilwoman KaF~wood asked the City Manager if they had acquired the public
service postal rate that 3ames Ruth was looking into, because that rate would
make a great difference Jn the cost of mailing.
79'204
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13~ 1979~1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley stated that he would check into the matter.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed into Executive Session.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:50 P.M.)
(5:05 P.M.
153: RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR PROGRAM MANAGER~: Councilman Seymour offered
Resolution No. 79R-94 for adoption establishing new rates of compensation for
Program Managers, effective February 2, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-809 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO AND ADJUSTING RATES
OF COMPENSATION FOR PROGRAM MANAGERS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-94 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:50 P.M.