1980/10/2880-1374
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of. the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF GENERAL MANAGER: Tom Liegler
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
PURCHASING AGENT: Richard Jefferis
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Alario
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE STAFF ASSISTANT: Sharon Hepburn
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Johnny Carlson, West Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"American Business Women's Week" - March 16-22, 1981
Mrs. Flo VanHorn accepted the proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan-
imously adopted by the City Council, to be presented to Mr. Gene Autry, on the
occasion of his being honored as the "Sportsman of the Decade of the '7Os" by
the Orange County Sports Celebrities at their 10th Annual Banquet, November 18,
1980.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the
minutes of the regular meetings held June 10 and July 29, 1980 were approved,
subject to corrections on the meeting of July 29, 1980. 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 ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST ~HE CITY in the amount of $1,036,722.23 for the period
ending October 17, 1980 and $1,135,453.63 for the period ending October 24, 1980,
in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
80-1375
C~.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were autho-
rized as recommended:
a. 160: Bid No. 3679--Two Slurry Seal Machines. Award to Slurry Seal,
Incorporated, $52,760.44.
b. 160: Bid No. 3702--Two, 48,000-Pound GVW Truck Chassis with Tandem Drive.
Award to International Harvester Co., $70,369.10.
c. 164: Continued the award of Dwyer Drive Storm Water Pump Station Contract
(Account No. 11-790-6325-E0130) to November 4, 1980.
MOTION CARRIED.
160: AWARD OF PURCHASE ORDER FOR CIVIC CENTER FURNITURE: Waiving the need for
advertised bidding and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase
order in the amount of $58,331.76 to McMahan Desk, Inc., for Harper manufactured
furniture and miscellaneous items for the Civic Center.
Councilman Bay questioned the unit pricing on the following items listed in an
attachment to memorandum dated October 23, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent:
credenza--Leo Cr-D 51869 WW, $628,06; chairs--Leopold TC/ll080/B, $550.56;
files--Leopold S-drw. lat. 52347/WW, $399.28; Demi Sofa, $450; 7' Exec. Couch,
$285; Sofa, $650. He asked what offices those items were going to and why
they had to buy furniture at those luxurious prices.
Mrs. Sharon Hepburn, Facilities Maintenance Staff Assistant, answered that the
furniture was for the Public Utilities General Manager's office or his lobby.
Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant Utilities General Manager, explained where the furniture
would be located in the Utilities Department and why they felt it was necessary.
Councilman Bay was of the opinion that the top of line equipment was expensive
and if he had spotted those prices on past orders, he would not have voted
for them.
Mr. Richard Jefferis, Purchasing Agent, then explained for the Mayor why they
were not going out to bid on the equipment.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that spreading the cost over 50 years, buying
once instead of~twice could be a savings.
Mayor Seymour stated he was going to join Councilman Bay in his opposition. He
felt it was extravagant and if he, too, had any idea of the type of furniture that
had been purchased in the remainder of the Civic Center, he would have opposed it
at the time.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the request be sent back to staff for review
and resubmittal to the Council and that the cost be pared, or if the top of the
line equipment was necessary, that it be justified. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
I
/
.//'
80-1376
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 80R-473 through 80R-477, both inclusive, as recommended.
Refer to Resolution Book.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-473: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-3, TRACT
1097, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-676-6329-11270-37300 & 25-676-
6329-11270-37300. (Steiny & Company, Inc., $10,250)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-474: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-4, TRACT NO.
1392, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-676-6329-11210-37300 & 25-676-
6329-11210-37300. (Smith Electric Supply, $12,066)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-475: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: SCHWEITZER PARK IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 16-817-7103. (Mark A. Henne, $17,800)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-476: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: EUCALYPTUS PARK DEVELOPMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 16-803-7103. (Industrial Turf, Inc., $354,931.10)
128/152: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-477: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO CLOSE ALL
KNOWN INACTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-473 through 80R-477, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
80-1377
C.ity Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
174(CDBG)/177: ESTABLISHMENT OF A WAITING LIST FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Council-
man Overholt moved to adopt the policy for establishing a waiting list of eligible
buyers for the Affordable Housing Program, as recommended in memorandum dated
October 21, 1980, including Attachment I and II, from the Executive Director
of Community Development, Norm Priest. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth questioned whether or not they obtained
a credit report on the people requesting that they be placed on the priority
list which might save time and effort by first eliminating those who were not
even eligible to be on the list.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, explained they
first qualified applicant by income. Normally, they would also pull a credit
report. Whether or not they did so on all applicants, he did not know. If
so, the funds to do so would be expended out of Block Grant Funds.
Councilman Bay, referring to Attachment II of the subject report, noted Item 4
under "preference will be established by the following point system: Persons
whose adjusted family income is below 120% of HUD median--5 points." He asked
if below 120% was not a mandatory requirement for all; Mr. Priest answered
that was correct.
Councilman Bay then questioned why give points for a mandatory requirement that
was a prerequisite to even getting the loan. He suggested since they ga,ze points
for those below 80% of median, that they make it 100% of median, since 120% was
a foregone conclusion.
Mr. Priest thereupon conferred with staff who indicated there would be no prob-
lem in following the suggestion. He stated they would go with 5 points at 100%.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Priest had yet to provide the Council with his
staff's recommendations relative to preventing speculation.
Mr. Priest stated that the recommendations were not indigenous to establishing
the list. Their aim was to place people into housing. They expected very soon
to come back to the Council with suggestions and thoughts on preventing spec-
ulation, but the two were not tied together.
Mayor Seymour stated that he wanted to be sure they were not tied together.
He then asked, after the list was compiled and they came forward with rec-
ommendations relative to speculation and/or resale price control and found
they were unable to live with those, what happened to the list.
Mr. Priest answered that it would go right on. He reiterated it was their
aim to establish first-time buyers. Before they placed those buyers in homes,
they would be back to the Council to discuss the whole issue of speculation
prevention. They did not anticipate being able to formulate the list immed-
iately. If they could not live with the resale controls, they still would
have qualified buyers first time out. The affordable projects were ones that
did not involve public expenditure.
80-1378
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how they would be able to control length of occupancy
in order to prevent speculation.
Mr. Priest answered that they anticipated that ultimately they would have a
program where a certain number of years would be required. Currently, the
program in and of itself did not do so. Theoretically it could be a matter
of a few months. He wanted to make it clear that in terms of the time, the
Council could adopt a policy relative to anti-speculation by one act, but it
would take them sometime to get the program in place.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted it clear that she would not be in favor
of a program where there was no restriction on resale whatsoever. With denpity
bonuses that had been given and whatever else, within just a few years, tJose
projects would escalate to the same price as others around them and thus degrade
everything in Anaheim.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
174: REALLOCATION OF $40,000 TO REBATE INCENTIVE PROGRAM FROM THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT: Councilwoman gmywood moved to
authorize the reallocation of $40,000 from the Community Development Block
Grant contingency account to the Rebate Incentive Program account, to provide
incentives to homeowners for property improvements during fiscal year 1980-81,
as recommended in memorandum dated October 14, 1980 from the Executive Director
of Community Development. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
174: DEMONSTRATION PROJECT - PATT STREET NEIGHBORHOOD: Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to authorize the establishment of a demonstration project in the Patt
Street Neighborhood to assess the feasibility on an Owner-Occupied New Con-
struction Incentive Program, using a portion of Community Development Block
Grant funds, as recommended in memorandum dated October 22, 1980 from the
Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/174(CDBG): RESIDENTIAL RENTAL AGREEMENT - RICHARD AND IRENE GUZMAN: On
motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, a Residential Rental
Agreement was authorized with Richard and Irene Guzman for property located at
225 East La Palma Avenue as part of the Part Street Neighborhood Improvement
Project, and approving the tenant condition~; cf tl, f-~ I'-.-:~.~f~:g Assistance Payments
Contract between the City and the Housing Authority for the property located at
225 East La Palma Avenue, as recommended in memorandum dated October 21, 1980
from the Executive Director of Community Development. MOTION CARRIED.
123/174: AUDIT SERVICES RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
ACT (CETA) BY PRICE WATERHOUSE: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by
Councilman Bay, an agreement was authorized with Price Waterhouse and Co. in
an amount not to exceed $15,000, to provide audit services relating to the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) programs operated by the
City, as recommended in memorandum dated October 21, 1980 from the Human
Resources Director, Garry McRae. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1379
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
123/153: SELF-FUND EMPLOYEE DENTAL PLAN AND SELECTION OF CALIFORNIA DENTAL
SERVICE TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATION SERVICES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
approve the recommendation to self-fund the employee indemnity dental plan
and accept the proposal from California Dental Service to provide administra-
tion services for the program at a monthly fee of $1.67 per employee, effective
January 1, 1981; and directing the Human Resources Director and City Attorney
to prepare the necessary agreement documents therefor, as recommended in
memorandum dated October 22, 1980 from the Human Resources Director. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/153: 1981 RENEWAL RATES OF VARIOUS EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS: Councilman
Roth moved to approve the 1981 renewal rates for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
INA Health Plan of California, General Medical Centers, Family Health Program,
Supplemental Dental Plans, Inc., Dental Health Services, and Vision Services
and Vision Service Plan; and directing the Human Resources Director and City
Attorney to prepare the necessary agreement documents therefor, as recommended
in memofandum dated October 22, 1980 from the Human Resources Director. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
118/123/153: ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEE MEDICAL PLAN: Councilman
Roth moved to accept the proposal of First Fund Insurance Administrators, Inc.,
to provide claims administration services for the City's self-funded employee
groups medical plan at the monthly rate of $4.35 per employee, for the year
1981, with a 7.2% increase in 1982 and a 7.8% increase in 1983; and directing
the Human Resources Director and City Attorney to prepare the necessary agree-
ment documents therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated October 22, 1980
from the Human Resources Director. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, a Mr. Paul Ashton, Senior Vice President of Galbraith &
Green, the City's medical claims administrator since 1975, requested to speak.
Mr. Paul Ashton, first submitted a booklet to the Council entitled--"City of
Anaheim--Review of Proposed Change in Administrators" dated October 28, 1980
(on file in the City Clerk's office). He then briefed the Council on the data
contained therein, first giving the background leading up to the start of the
business relationship with the City, covering a period of nearly five years. He
then elaborated upon specific points contained in the four-section of the
booklet (F, Section I--Service; Section II-Present Status; Section III--Trends,
Costs and Problems of Change; and Section IV--Summary). Particular emphasis in
his presentation was placed upon the following: Refund from other coverages
when other insurance-was involved, was currently at 23.8%, whereas anything over
10% was considered good. It meant that of the dependent claim submitted, 23.8%
were paid by other plans. There would be a loss of the 10% prescription drug
discount given at Sav-On to holders of Galbraith & Green indentificati0n cards.
A new administrator would not know how much deductible credit carried over from
1980 and the employee would not get any credit for them unless they brought it
to the attention of a different administrator. Currently there were 71 claims
processed for every i00 employees which was excessive and with cooperation of
the City Personnel Department and Employee groups, the trend could be reversed.
If that problem could be attacked, it would solve the problem of the higher
fee. He also noted that under Section II, first paragraph, the indication of
$1.25 savings per employee should be instead, $.90.
80-1380
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Ashton referred to the summary page wherein it indicated
that resultant savings due to a changeover would be one-half of one percent.
For the tramatic change that would be caused by the changeover, it did not
seem to be a right decision. He reiterated, they felt they could attack the
problems and resolve them. If cost was a factor, then a change should not be
made.
Councilman Roth questioned if, when they made their conversion into software,
they advised the City of that conversion. He considered it important
enough to keep clients advised of any changes that would affect service, but
it appeared it was an afterthought after the problem occurred. He also ques-
tioned relative to the small claims under $25, if they tried to educate the
employees to do something different so that they would accumulate their bills
and then submit them at one time, instead of many times throughout a certain
period.
Mr. Ashton felt that they had not done as much as they should have in that
regard.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the bid data submitted would remain firm; Mr.
Ashton answered if they could work on a very positive program to encourage
employees to reduce the number of claims submitted, they would be happy to
keep their fee at last year's rate, or $4.45 an employee. They had increased
that amount this year due to the increase utilization.
Mayor Seymour noted that the fee for the first year for First Fund Insurance
administrators was $4.35, whereas if they continued with Galbraith & Green,
they would have to initiate the new education process relative to consoli-
dation of claims submitted and yet pay $.10 more per employee hired. He asked
to hear from staff on their proposal.
City Manager William Talley first reviewed the process they followed leading
to the recommendation that they accept the proposal of First Fund Insurance
Administrators (see October 22, 1980 memo from the Human Resources Director).
In concluding, he stated his reaction to the situation, when somebody approached
them after five years telling them all the things that they could do, he won-
dered why they had not been doing them.
Mr. Tom Tyre, Benefits & Training Manager, stated that he had not had an
opportunity to see the documents submitted by Mr. Ashton. Galbraith & Green
had done a very credible job and they had not had any particular problems with
the services they provided. They were not necessarily changing because of some
immediate service problem. However, relative to the remarks made regarding the
coordination of benefits figures where, he believed, the amount of $260,000 was
mentioned, if that was for a one-year accumulation, that seemed to be larger
than his recollection of the current situation. On a one-year basis, it was
in the bid specifications where the coordination of benefits recoveries were
less than 10%. Secondly, employee organizations unanimously and without any
coaching felt that the presentation by First Fund offered some of the
improvements that their members were talking about. It was true that they
were very recently notified about the changes in Galbraith & Green computer
80-1381
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
systems and some of the problems being experienced because of that, but they
had been in contact with them most of the year concerning some eligibility
problems that seemed to linger on and as of a month or so ago, had not yet
been resolved. The representatives of the employee organizations had been
contacted by employees who had experienced some of those problems and the
employee organizations recommendations were unanimous for First Fund.
Councilman Roth asked if he saw a problem relative to the deductions that would
be owed to employees; Mr. Tyre answered that the new administrator would be
processing claims as of January i, so that anything received on or after
January 1, regardless of date of service, would be administered by them.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked in the event that the number of claims processed, as
stated in the documentation, was a larger amount than anticipated, would they
(First Fund) be raising their price to the City.
Mr. Tyre answered "no". They would be entering into a three-year agreement
on a per employee, per month fee basis.
Councilwoman Kaywood also asked if there was something First Fund did about
either discouraging or not allowing separate, continual small claims before
the deductible was reached.
Mr. Lee Grover, William Mercer & Company, consultant, answered that First Fund
did not have any specific program, but they made a presentation to joint labor
and management groups asking them what type of information they had been
receiving currently. They made some suggestions at that time to the different
groups relative to holding meetings to educate the employees which should be
a continual process, thus making it easier for the employee when submitting
claims, as well as reducing costs to the City.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/153: TEMPORARY HELP SERVICE CONTRACTS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
authorize the Human Resources Department to solicit proposals from firms inter-
ested in providing temporary help services and to implement the second year of
the outside agency temporary help program, as recommended in memorandum dated
October 22, 1980 from the Human Resources Director. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay noted that when using temporary help
up to this time, it was mostly in the clerical area, but now they were going
into higher priced classifications, he wanted to know where staff budget
visibility and control were.
Mr. Garry McRae, Human Resources Director, answered that there was a line
item for a contract for this particular purpose.
Councilman Bay questioned if the City Manager received monthly feedback on the
situation. He wanted to know if it was highly visible to management levels as
to how m~ch temporary help was being utilized.
Mr. Talley answered that he did not get a monthly report but a quarterly report
on the usage by department and classification. They also controlled by total
80-1382
City Hall., .~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
work hours so that under no circumstances could temporary help be used other
than as a substitute for other work hours. They could not collectively exceed
the total work hours Council authorized in any given program in the City. He
also confirmed for Councilman Bay that the program could displace the need for
a permanent employee.
Councilman Bay stated that he was a great believer in temporary help for peaks
and valleys and workloads, but reiterated he wanted to make sure it was highly
visible at all times.
Mayor Seymour wanted to know what their analysis as to percentage of use for
peak workload relief, vacant position relief, vacation and illness.
Mr. McRae stated that he did not have an analysis of how the work was dis-
tributed, but he could provide that information. He suggested that they
proceed in soliciting the proposals and submit that information to the
Council when submitting the recommendation for next year.
Mayor Seymour stated that as he was aware, he had opposed the temporary per-
sonnel situation before on the basis that he did not think it was necessary
when people were on vacation or when a secretary was out for a day or two, and
he continued to believe that. If they were talking about peak load, then he
concurred with Councilman Bay.
Mr. McRae stated the increase in use over the year reflected the fact that
temporary help was being used more and more for peak load activity. If for
vacation and sick leave, it was typically an extended vacation or sick leave
absence. At present, they were in a very tight clerical marketplace, and
they were using temporary agencies to replace people during periods between
incumbents which permitted them to keep the daily business flowing. He felt
that the majority of hours had not been used for the kinds of things about
which the Mayor was concerned.
Discussion and questioning then followed between the Council and Mr. Talley
relative to additional aspects of the temporary help program during which
the Mayor stated he was opposed to the concept until such time that he had
been provided data that would demonstrate that it was peak load usage. If
so, then he could see some cost efficiency as described.
Councilman Overholt stated that the requested action before the Council at
this time was authorizing a solicitation of proposals. The conceptual difference
was something they could discuss at the time the proposals were submitted and
recommendations made. He, too, requested the information that was previously
requested by the Mayor; Mr. Talley stated it would be included in the staff
report.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
123/174: OCTD, BUS PASSES FOR CETA YOUTH PARTICIPANTS: On motion by Council-
man Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, an agreement was authorized with the
Orange County Transit District to provide bus passes for economically disad-
vantaged youth, effective October 1, 1980, as recommended in memorandum dated
October 22, 1980 from the Human Resources Director. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1383
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:20 P.M.)
The Mayor first announced that the brush fire in Yorba Linda being fanned by
the high winds, had jumped the Riverside Freeway and undoubtedly those attending
the meeting from that area would be interested in getting back to their homes.
He asked, therefore, if there would be any objection by those present to hear
the first two public hearings, to hearing the third public hearing first. There
was no objection.
PUBLIC HEARING - FINALIZATION OF RS-HS-22,000(SC) ZONING FOR RECLASSIFICATION
NOS. 72-73-51, 73-74-22 AND 74-75-14 IN THE MOHLER DRIVE AREA: To amend con-
ditions of approval and finalize RS-HS-22,000 zoning for property known as the
Mohler Drive-Del Georgio Road area, consisting of approximately 450 acres
located southeasterly of Santa Ana Canyon Road between Anaheim Hills Road and
Eucalyptus Drive.
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, thereupon briefed the
Council on her report dated August 28, 1980 recommending the proposed action
as outlined above.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that item 3 of the proposed resolution, "That the
owner(s) of subject property shall install street lighting on all streets
within the area as required by Utilities General Manager at the time the
property is developed." As she recalled, there were to be no street lights
in the Mohler Drive area, and the residents did not want them.
Miss Santalahti confirmed that was correct and that was a condition in one
of the three resolutions on the property. Street lighting would be required
only in those instances where specifically required although generally, none
of the public streets would have street lighting.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. George Johnson, a resident of the Del Georgio area, asked if the parcels
were going to subdivided into one-half acres or anything smaller.
Miss Santalahti answered that the current proposal did not involve any sub-
division. That would be entirely up to the property owners. This would just
finalize the one-half acre zoning, and it would not affect anything physically
until any building would take place. At that time, subdivision or parcel maps
would have to be submitted. It was all going to be one-half acre parcels right
now and when someone filed for a subdivision, they would advertise that fact in
order to notify the public. They would know then if it would be one-half acre
or one acre.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified for Mr. Johnson that it would be a minimum of
one-half acre.
Mr. Donald Vanderbilt, resident of Country Hill Road, asked to see a map of the
property; Miss Santalahti thereupon provided the requested map.
80-1384
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Margaret Tushand, a resident of the Broadmoor-Northridge tract, stated, on behalf
of her Homeowners' Association, she was present relative to the parcel of land
that was deeded to the City for a park, called Fairmont Park. According to the
map, it was located within the reclassification. She wanted to know if the
subject proposed amendments would change the nature of-that property.
Miss Santalahti stated it would have no effect whatsoever and that the property
would remain a park.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there being no response, he
closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-478 for adoption, as recommended.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-478: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-248, 73R-477 AND 74R-524 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION
NOS. 74R-200 AND 74R-209 RELATING TO ZONING RECLASSIFICATIONS. (72-73-51,
73-74-22 and 74-75-14, RS-HS-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-478 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4176: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4176 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4176: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51, 73-74-22, 74-75-14,
RS-HS-22,000)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3144: Application by James D. Baker III,
Jone Marie Baker, to construct a single family dwelling on RS-7200 zoned pro-
perty located at 563 Paseo Ganado, with a Code waiver of permitted location
and orientation of structure (continued from the meeting of September 30, 1980
at the request of the applicant), was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-121, ratified
the Planning Director's determination that the proposed project fall within
the definition of Categoraical Exemptions, Class 2, as defined in Paragraph
2 of the City of Anaheim Evironmental Impact Report Guidelines and is there-
fore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR, and further,
denied Variance No. 3144.
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.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
80-1385
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. James Baker and his wife Jon ~arie Baker, first wished to address the reason
for denial of the requested variance by the Planning Commission. They believed
that their request would not only bring about a distinct improvement of the
hill, but also that it would not set any precedent due to the very unique
nature of the particular lot. Mr. Baker did not think that anyone could point
to another lot in the Anaheim Hills area that had all the features of the
subject lot. It was approximately two acres in size and had no encumbrances
by a homeowners association for maintenance of the slopes on the undeveloped
portions of the lot (a rendering of the proposed home was posted on the Chamber
wall). It was large, had street access, and the lot they were asking to be
split off was over one acre in size. He felt there was no opportunity for anyone
in Anaheim Hills to do a similar thing other than developers themselves.
Anaheim Hill~ had stated the property was designated for Open Space. It was
never so designated as indicated in the Planning Commission minutes of May 5,
1980. They also stated it'would cause overcrowding, but he (Baker) believed
it was clear that it would not do so. Further, they stated that the Home-
owners Association in the area counted on the fact that there would be a set
number of homes in the particular tract. With that in mind and also pursuant
to a discussion with a friend of his who suggested that he go out and talk to
the homeowners in the area, his wife did so and spent about six hours in the
neighborhoods of Woodcrest and Broadmoor and also the tract just above them.
She obtained approximately 54 signatures from various homeowners who stated
that they had no objection ~o their proposed plan. Many people were in support,
and he asked that his wife share with the Council the reaction of some of the
people in the area. In concluding, he reiterated that their proposal would
not set a precedent because of the very unique situation involved. He there-
upon submitted the aforementioned petition to the Council (made a part of the
record).
Mrs. Jon Marie Baker stated that she spoke with over 50 residents in their
i~ediate area and many of them felt their proposal would be a definite improve-
ment. The house they planned was a custom home and would blend in with the
community although different from the other tract homes. One of the complaints
she heard was that there were a lot of tract homes and the residents would like
to see some variety. She thereupon relayed some of the reactions she received
in passing the petition. In concluding, she stated that a single-family
dwelling would not be overcrowding the area and the feeling from the homeowners
was that it would be a definite improvement.
In response to questions posed by the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Baker
revealed the following: There were approximately 3,500 square feet in the
proposed home; a specific floor plan was available and made a part of the
record; the size of their present home including the garage was approximately
3000 square feet; and they planned to live in the new home.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition,
the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth stated all through the Planning Commission meetings, it appeared
they indicated the proposal would set a precedent. He asked Miss Santalahti
to respond to that.
80-1386
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti stated that what the Planning Commission was concerned about
was, in a number of hillside tracts individual lots did, in fact, exceed the
minimum Code standards. Their concern was that theoretically anybody who had
an equivalent of two lots could come in and request a subdivision of that prop-
erty under a parcel map, which would not require a public hearing. If the
Planning Commission or City Council had originally approved the project on the
overall density, all of a sudden they would be getting a different project than
the one they originally anticipated.
Councilman Roth stated that led to his second question--when the original tract
map was approved, it had an "X" amount of houses and now they were modifying
that map if the subject request were approved; Miss Santalahti stated that was
correct.
Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. Baker if his request were approved, would he agree
to having his lot included in the Master Homeowners Association and also that
the proposed plans as submitted and rendered would, in fact, be the home they
would build on the property.
Mr. Baker stated they would be willing to so stipulate to those two conditions
and also they would be wi%ling to submit to a design review by City staff.
The Mayor then stated, he had read the concerns expressed by Anaheim Hills
representing the only opposition and as he did so, he would have to say in
all honesty, he had seen proposals from Anaheim Hills using the same argu-
ments in reverse. He for one could not find that the particular lot involved,
if the request were approved, was going to be detrimental to the area and
obviously the residents did not think so as well. He also did not think it
would set a precedent. There was not another lot like it in the general
vicinity, and it would not impact anybody. As long as the quality and size of
the home was going to be as represented, he could only see it as an asset to
the area. For those reasons, he was going to offer a resolution to reverse
the findings of the Planning Commission for the reasons stated and grant the
Variance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-479 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3144, reversing the findings of the Planning Commission, subject to the
following Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, and the additional stip-
ulations that the lot is to be included in the Master Homeowners Association;
and the home is to be built as submitted in the proposed plans and renderings,
with design review and approval to be made by City staff.
1. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
80-1387
CitM ~1.1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
2. That all property located within the Southern California Edison Easement
and including the 15-foot wide setback adjacent to Canyon Rim Road shall be
placed in the Master Homeonwer's Association to guarantee slope maintenance.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 3 (Revision No. 1).
4. That Condition Nos. 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-479: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3144.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if, under'a'Planned Community,
by adding one home would that affect the overall density.
Miss Santalahti answered "no" and that it did not have an impact because they
were building under the approved Planned Community zoning.
Councilman Bay noted that she had stated if the Planning Commission approved
the application, then there might be a lot of future lot splits from their
point of view that would not necessarily go to a public hearing.
Miss Santalahti stated what she meant was that they would not go to a public
hearing before the Planning Commission or City Council, but they would go to
public hearing before the City Engineer. However, the advertisement in that
case was simply a legal advertisement in the newspaper, and they would not be
notifying property owners within 300 feet when there were no variances, etc.
Councilman Bay then asked if there were examples shown during the Planning
Commission hearing of a number of other lots in Anaheim Hills that could possibly
be split without any variances; Miss Santalahti answered "no" there were not.
She would be more inclined to think that there were probably a fair number
that could be split, but she suspected that most of them, as long as they were
not one-half acre or bigger, would require a public hearing for a private ease-
ment to gain access or something of that sort.
Councilman Bay stated he was not concerned about the particular development,
but the effect of it on future attempts to split. He wanted to be sure that
a very high percentage of those would come through the Planning Commission and
the Council for a public hearing. At the same time, he agreed with the Mayor
on the resolution that the design and use of the property was in order. He
was concerned, just as the Planning Commission, that they not start a large
scale lot splitting in the Anaheim Hills area without coming through the
proper sources, and he wanted to be certain that they were aware of the
situation in each individual case.
Councilman Roth then asked Mrs. Baker how many people refused to sign her petition
and were opposed to the request; Mrs. Baker answered that there were three or
four. They were actually not opposed; the ones who did not sign wanted more
information. They wanted to see the detail and the floor plan which she did
not have with her. She invited them to her home so that they could obtain that
information.
80-1388
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Dan Salceda of Anaheim Hills, Inc., was in
the Council Chamber. He referred to a letter dated August 7, 1980 attached to
letter dated October 20, 1980 from Anaheim Hills, concurring with the Planning
Commission's denial, specifically the following which he read. "Of greatest
importance to us is the desire for us to best determine the number of units
within a tract"... "To allow one homeowner to independently request a lot
split could have detrimental consequences, considering the cumulative impact
of such a variance approval." ..."There are many homeowners who have large
parcels of land, heretofore deemed "open space" area. Now these homeowners
can request a similar lot split because Anaheim Hills traditionally built less
than the maximum allowable density per the General Plan or zoning ordinances.
Such applications would substantially change the character of the tract as ori-
ginally contemplated."... He thereupon asked Mr. Salceda to expand upon that.
Mr. Dan Salceda, Vice President, Public Affairs, Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated
that he did not bring his tract registry with him but that was the case. They
had to build at or lower than the General Plan. Except for Tract No. 10874
where they built right at density, every tract they had built in Anaheim Hills,
except for Area No. 19, had been built at lower density than the zoning allowed
which suggested that there could be lot splits. He named the Broadmoor tract
right below Feather Hill and right above where there was availability of land
and large open space areas, as well as Tract 7587, the estate lots. He believed
he said there were literally hundreds, but perhaps that was an overkill. The
General Plan for Anaheim Hills allowed for something in excess of 10,000 units
and to date, they had built approximately 4,000 units. He was not suggesting
that 6,000 people could go in, but there was a lot of latitude between what
the General Plan and zoning called for and that which they had developed.
Councilman Overholt asked, when he talked about the estate size lots, were
those lots presently improved or were those vacant lots; Mr. Salceda answered,
presently improved.
Councilman Overholt then stated he was suggesting, therefore, they might have
similar situations such as in the present case where somebody with an improved
estate size lot might chose to come in for a lot split and put another struc-
ture on their property; Mr. Salceda answered that was correct.
Councilman Overholt then asked relative to the immediate area, were there other
examples of single-family lots with large slope areas that could be developed
with plans such as those proposed.
Mr. Salceda answered "yes." He could think of a couple of lots in Feather Hill,
but Miss Santalahti was correct, they would require an easement making them flag
lots.
Councilman Overholt stated he shared Mr. Salceda's concern where they had a
Planned Community, and he felt this was not the last lot split which would be
brought before the Planning Commission and the Council. He felt they were
establishing a precedent and he was going to vote against the resolution.
Additional questions were then posed to Mr. Salceda by Councilman Bay and
Councilwoman Kaywood for purposes of clarification at the conclusion of which,
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had been concerned where Anaheim Hills
was responsible for the whole area that they would have control over it, but
80- ! 389
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
she also had difficulty in this particular case seeing where one unit was going
to make a difference. She could not see Anaheim Hills losing that control with
one additonal unit and she did not believe it would be setting a precedent. Any-
thing else submitted would have to looked at individually. In looking at the
particular parcel map, she did not see anything else that would be similar.
Councilman Roth stated, realizing that Mrs. Baker made an effort to obtain
signatures of her neighbors, that everybody within 300 feet was notified, that
the Council was very sensitive to any disturbance of the plans they approved
and to the expectations of residents moving to Anaheim Hills, that considering
nobody protested during the Planning Commission hearing and no one was present
today, and that everybody had an opportunity to speak or write letters in
opposition, he was going to support the Mayor's resolution.
Councilman Overholt stated he wanted to comment on the academic discussion they
had about the word precedent. Some members of the Council might feel that the
way the vote was going would not establish a precedent. He felt that it would.
When the next applicant came in and wanted to split a lot, this would serve as
a precedent. They either had a Planned Community or they would not have a
Planned Community. Thus, he was going to vote against the resolution.
Mayor Seymour stated although he understood what Councilman Overholt was saying,
he felt it dichotomus that their action would be precedent-setting, while at the
same time receiving a request from Anaheim Hills next week, for example, as
in many weeks past, suggesting that the market had moved to one degree or
another and, therefore, on a particular parcel, it could no longer be "X" but
it had to "X plus '1 or Y". That action, approving such a request was equally
precedent setting. In his opinion, neither was precedent-setting because
each particular application had to stand on its own merits. The subject pro-
perty was extremely unique and he did not know of any parcel like it or that
had access to an existing street.
Councilwoman Kaywood acknowledged a woman from the audience who had previously
indicated she wished to speak but it was after the public hearing closed. She
asked now to hear her concerns.
Mrs. Ann Bien, 6673 Paseo Del Norte, stated that she did not come to protest
but only to compliment. Hers was the tract across the street, Broadmoor, and
the proposed structure would be in her line of sight from the front of her
house. She had looked at the hillside since they moved in five years ago and
it had not been landscaped. Her only comment and concern was that the property
be sightly versus what they had at present and that was an eyesore. She saw
the "lovely" rendering and if that was what she was going to see from her house,
she had no argument. She wanted a pledge that it would be sightly.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted there was a stipulation made by the applicant that
the plans submitted were the plans to be used for the structure and that the
lot would be part of the Master Homeowners' Association so that it would be
landscaped.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
80-1390
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Overholt
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-479 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2110; Application by M. Conway
Morris, to permit a convenience market with gasoline facilities on RM-1200
zoned property located at 1200 West Cerritos Avenue, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-155, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an envi-
ronmental impact report pursuant to the provisons of the California Env%ron-
mental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2110 subject to the following conditions:
i. That the owner(s) of subject property shall conditionally dedicate to the
City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of the
street along Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street for street widening purposes,
conditioned upon demand by the City Engineer.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
3. That the existing driveway on Walnut Street shall be closed and curbs,
sidewalks and gutters shall be reconstructed as required by the City Engineer
and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office
of the City Engineer.
4. That an attendant in a booth shall be specifically responsible for dispen-
sing gasoline as required by the Fire Marshal.
5. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the
termination of Variance Nos. 491 and 1968 to the Planning Department.
6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
and 2.
7. That Condition Nos. 1 and 5, abovementioned, shall be complied with prior
to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior
to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year
from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
8. That Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
9. That the daily hours of operation shall be between 6:00 o'clock a.m. and
11:00 o'clock p.m.
A review of the Planning Commision's decision was request by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of September 30, 1980, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
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.
80-1391
City Hall, Aqah~im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked when the change in hours took place from the 8:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m., as originally indicated; Miss Santalahti answered that took place
in the Planning Commission public hearing and the applicant could comment on
that.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Herb Christensen stated he was the agent for Conway Morris, owner of the
property, but that was merely a legal technicality. Mr. Morris was acting as
a straw man in an exchange and, therefore, that would be his (Christensen's)
property. He explained that the subject corner property was opened in 1971
by Texaco as a gas station. From the first year of operation until it was
closed in 1975, it was rapidly downhill for the business, resulting in its
closing. The lot had thus remained empty for five years. A number of studies
had been done to make the corner a positive one, but none of the considerations
would pay for itself. He felt the combination of a convenience market with
gasoline sales would make the property economical enough to put the necessary
money into it to convert it. Otherwise, it would probably sit for a longer
period of time. He realized it would be the first time such a concept was
approved in Anaheim.
The corner was quite unique in that there were no other services for gasoline
or convenience within a one-half mile radius in any direction. He had spoken
informally to a couple of the neighbors but did not attempt to make a survey
of the neighborhood. He approached one lady who lived right next to the prop-
erty and she was pleased that something was going to be done with it, especially
the fact that it was going to be a convenience market. No opposition was
expressed at the Planning Commission meeting, but someone was present, another
neighbor, who spoke for the project, completely unsolicited, because he wanted
to see the corner cleaned up. Having been vacant for five years, it was turning
into an eyesore.
Councilman Roth then relayed his experience in dealing with an Arco establish-
ment in Yorba Linda that was a combination convenience market and service
station. The operation did not cause traffic jams and was a convenience to
the customer. It seemed to'him that what they were seeing today was a new
style of marketing in the gasoline business, a clean operation with appro-
priate landscaping, which was a departure from gas stations with tires stacked
up, damaged cars, etc. He conceded that the subject corner property was an
eyesore.
Mr. Christensen stated that the changing times was another aspect to consider
because with the new concept, it was possible to combine a trip to the market
with the purchase of gasoline which lent itself to some energy economies.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if consideration was ever given to going back to
the original zoning and making the property multiple density; Mr. Christensen
answered not to his knowledge, but that the cost of the land would make it
prohibitive.
Mr. Christensen felt that the concept was an "idea whose time had come", and
he was not certain it would be that much of a problem if a precedent was set.
He felt that there were a lot of situations in Anaheim that could better serve
the public if they used the same concept and they would also look a lot better.
80-1392
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he had considered just a shopping market; Mr.
Christensen answered "yes", but economically it would be a marginal operation.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Esther Thomas, 1361 West Cerritos (Pepperwood Condominiums), asked what
protection they would have from noise. Presently they had noise from the
renters on the south side of Cerritos and the proposed project would create
additional noise. 'The corner was a dangerous one and it had a number of acci-
dents, approximately two a week. With people pulling in and out of the corner,
more accidents would be experienced than at present with no development. She
also felt they should have some protection regarding hours of operation and some
stipulation.that would restrict the selling of pornographic magazines or things
that would attract undesirables from going to the location and loitering there.
She wanted sales limited to food items only.
Before concluding, Mrs. Thomas stated, relative to the Pepperwood Condominiums,
they wanted a wall around them since the structures had been completed and
turned over to their Association in June of this year. Upon contacting the
Building Division, they were told they would have to have a 20-foot setback
from the sidewalk but that was not feasible. They wanted a wall that would
protect them from any cars'that might jump the sidewalk as had occurred recently
off Walnut Street where a car landed in the strawberry field. Also, the wall
would be a protection against noise. She asked if there was any way they could
be assured a permit in order to have the wall built. The homeowners were going
to pay for that wall.
Mayor Seymour stated that nobody could promise anything about a public hearing
because they would need a variance for a setback. He encouraged them to come
forward and process a variance through the City.
Mrs. Thomas reiterated that relative to the subject project, their main concern
was that there be no magazines and a restriction of hours such as 7:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m., as that would provide some protection for sleeping.
The Mayor noted that there had already been a stipulation that hours would be
from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Mrs. Thomas stated that 6:00 a.m. was early. She also wanted to clarify tht
there was a gasoline station just to the north at Ball Road and Walnut Street
not more than one-half mile away. That was the reason people in their complex
felt there was no need for a gasoline station on the subject corner. Many of
the residents were not able to be present at the hearing today. Councilman
Roth asked if she wanted the lot left vacant; Mrs. Thomas answered "no", but would
prefer a restriction to no magazines.
Councilman Roth stated he would ask the City Attorney to speak to the magazine
aspect, but he felt that relative to the concept proposed, it would bring about
a convenience market which had merit as well as being able to buy gasoline at
the same time. The proposal offered an opportunity to clean up that corner.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that relative to restricting sales of
magazines, unless there was something obviously obscene, they could not control
any kind of publication or sale of ordinary magazines or newspapers. They had
80-1393
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
numerous court cases and the courts were reluctant to find that those things
were obscene. With publications such as Playboy and Playgirl, they had attempted
to require stores to cover certain portion of the magazines, but that was about
as far as they could go.
Mrs. Ann Bien, 6673 Paseo Del Norte, first stated that she was not present to
speak on this particular matter, but in relation to it, she was present at an
Orange hearing that involved a convenience market, and they did make a point
in that City of prohibiting sales of alcoholic beverages in markets which
were also combination gas stations. She supported that notion. She felt
linking the sale of gas with the sale of alcoholic beverages was a dangerous
concept.
Mayor Seymour first stated that he would agree that alcohol and gasoline did
not mix, but from a practical standpoint if he wanted to pick up a six pack of
beer or some wine, he questioned what would stop him or anybody else from
getting his gas tank filled at one place and stopping at a local liquor store
a few blocks away to purchase liquor.
Mrs. Bien conceded there was nothing that could stop him from so doing, but
reiterated it was just the notion that there was a sanction implied. She
appreciated the fact that Anaheim had said previously that convenience-type
markets could not sell alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Alcinda Moreno stated he lived in the condominiums across the street from
the subject corner and he had the same objections as those previously given.
If they were going to sell gasoline and have a market, they were going to have
people who liked to drink, and it would cause a lot of trouble for their
neighborhood and that corner. They did not want it. There were also many
children living in the area and they did not want that for their children.
They objected to the Council giving permission for the project. They did not
mind a market, but not a liquor store or anthing like that. There were enough
around--one was at Katella and Walnut and another at Euclid and Cerritos.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
In rebuttal, Mr. Christensen first stated that it was a mile between Euclid
and Katella, and, therefore, it was one-half mile in either direction for any
service. The 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. operating hours did not present any
problem to them, and he felt the Planning Commission's reasoning for that
stipulation was that they did not want an all-night operation. It was not
their intent to have such an operation.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and asked if the 7:00 a.m. opening time would be
restricting them too much; Mr. Christensen answered that it would a little
because they wanted to be able to serve the early risers who wanted to puchase
gasoline before going to work. The bulk of gasoline traffic would be in the
morning and evening, going to and from work.
Mayor Seymour asked how he would feel about eliminating any beer, wine and
liquor; Mr. Christensen deferred to a Mr. Melodia to speak to that issue.
80-1394
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Ross Melodia, 9582 Dewey Drive, Garden Grove, stated that he already had
two existing convenience markets in Anaheim in operation for a number of years,
one at Euclid and La Palma, Melodias Liquor, and another at Katella and Harbor.
He did not carry any pornographic material in his stores and had never been
cited. He started business at age 22 and he was now 38 and owned a total of
five stores.
Councilman Bay asked if he planned to sell liquor at the proposed location;
Mr. Melodia stated that they would need to sell liquor.
Mayor SeymOur stated that Mr. Melodia heard him say to Mrs. Bien that he did
not see a conflict in selling gasoline and selling liquor in the market, but
he did see a potential conflict on the subject site. If.they were to furnish
him with information relative to calls for police support in the neighborhood
immediately to the south of the subject location in the multiple residential
neighborhood, he could then understand his (Seymour's) concern over the sale
of alcohol on that corner. He could see very clearly the possibility of
selling a six-pack of beer across the counter, not to minors but adults, and
having them take that beer, walking down the street and drinking it there.
This was a different situation from his other two locations in the City and
the example cited by Councilman Roth at Imperial and La Palma. He was not
opposed to the concept, but as it pertained to liquor at the proposed location,
he had serious reservations.
Councilman Overholt asked if he was going to sell hard liquor at that location;
Mr. Melodia answered that he would hope to, but they would be starting off with
beer and wine. He also confirmed for Councilman Overholt that he did not have
gas services at any other location he operated.
Councilman Roth asked if it would be acceptable if he received permission to
sell beer and wine, but restrict it to one year only for evaluation. He also
asked Mr. Melodia to elaborate on the concerns expressed relative to children
using the location for a hangout and loitering.
Mr. Melodia answered that he would rather not be restricted relative to his
sale of beer and wine due to the lease agreements. Also, regarding the latter
concern, they used security services and they did not have such problems at
any of their other locations. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that
his brother would be managing that particular location, as his was a family-run
operation. They would employ different clerks, however, because they personally
could not be on the premises at all times. He also explained that with regard
to people littering, their lots were swept twice a day minimum by a clerk in
the morning and stock boys at night. They kept a nice clean store. Further,
if only a market itself were proposed for that location, relative to its poten-
tial success, he felt it would be borderline for that lot.
Mr. Melodia then explained for Councilman Overholt that the dispensing of gasoline
would be a separate operation and would not be involved in the market operation
as a result of an agreement between himself and Mr. Christensen.
Mayor Seymour then surmised that there were two deals involved, one for a lease
agreement for Mr. Melodia to run the market and an agreement with someone else to
run the gas; Mr. Christensen stated at this point in time that was correct.
80-1395
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated in the operations he had seen, the same employee ran both.
Mr. Christensen explained that the Fire Department had made restrictions that
they do have a separate gasoline booth manned at all times, but he did not
know why.
Miss Santalahti stated that situation was of great concern to the Fire Marshal
who felt that if they did not have a person watching the gasoline pumps at all
times and the people self-serving their cars, if anything went wrong and the
employee turned his back on what was happening at the pumps, something could
happen over which he would have no control. Their alternative to an attendent
solely for the gasoline was that there be some kind of panel on the floor where,
as long as the attendant was standing at the gas register to monitor what was
happening, gasoline could be dispensed. If he was not standing on the panel,
then a person could not dispense gasoline. That was a solution to the concern
of the Fire Department.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Christensen what was wrong with that alternative; Mr.
Christiansen answered that it was never presented to him as a proposal but
something that came up in another application. That would be easy to do and
could easily be made fail-safe so that the clerk had to be present. They were
planning to install a totally computerized unit so that no one could pump any
gas unless someone pushed a button.
Mayor Seymour asked if he would prefer to utilize the method of dispensing gas
as described, as opposed to what he was proposing; Mr. Christensen answered
"yes".
The Mayor presumed then that there would be one operator; Miss Santalahti stated
it could conceivably be one person who would have full control over the dispensing
of gasoline and it could only be dispensed while the attendant could see what
was happening. If the Council was looking favorably at the proposal, there was
a condition that could be amended--that the method of dispensing gasoline be
specifically approved by the Fire M~rshal.
Mayor Seymour asked if the information they had just developed changed his request
for application; Mr. Christensen stated only that they would amend the require-
ment of the Fire Marshal to have a separate booth. It would work better to
put the gasoline dispensing unit in the market.
Mayor Seymour then stated he sensed that the Council was going to approve the
request, but not with liquor. The Mayor asked how he would feel about running
the market without liquor.
Mr. Christensen answered that he was not going to run the market but if he
were, he would not sell liquor. He had to leave that up to Mr. Melodia.
The Mayor first clarified that he meant beer and wine as well as hard liquor.
Mr. Melodia stated he felt very definitely if that were the case, they would
not succeed at that location.
The Mayor surmised then that he would rather be denied than be given an approval
without beer and wine; Mr. Melodia answered that he did not see how he could
do it otherwise. He also confirmed again that he was not planning to sell hard
liquor at this time, but would hope to do so in the future.
80-1396
City ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the crux of the whole situation, as stated, was ~the
fact that there were problems with people hanging around that location now and
just by having a market, they were going to have an additional hangout. She
felt they were asking for troule.
Mr. Christensen felt that the existence of something on that corner was going
to keep it cleaned up.
Mayor Seymour felt that he (Christensen) had a good idea and he concurred with
what Councilman Roth had said regarding the new merchandising concept; however,
it did not apply to the subject neighborhood. He felt that the liquor would be
drunk in the back alley and it was not the same type of operation as Council-
man Roth described because of the neighborhood. They were asking for "back
alley" action. There was already a loitering condition and to fan it with
alcohol, they were asking for trouble.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a very real concern with the dual use in
the first place. The area was an ideal place to walk for groceries. If some-
one was going to purchase gas, they would not be walking. They would be
combining the pedestrian with the driver and little children would be going to
that store. If a car came by for gas, they would not always look down low
enough to see the children. She was very much concerned that would be a safety
hazard.
Mayor Seymour stated the only problem he saw with the particular location was
the sale of liquor. Otherwise, he was totally favorable of what the applicant
wanted to do.
Councilwoman Kaywood also felt that because it was an isolated decision, it was
a precedent-setting decision; the Mayor did not feel it was precedent-setting.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how he was going to tell the 7-11 markets they could
not have a gas pump; the Mayor answered that he would have to look at each
individual case.
Councilman Overholt stated that the issue was liquor in that location and if
they were unwilling to approve of it, it might kill the double use proposal.
Councilman Overholt asked if the condition of not selling beer and wine was
unacceptable; the Mayor asked Mr. Christensen if he would like to find another
tenant who might look to do that without beer and wine. He also asked if it
would be helpful to approve the CUP without beer and wine.
Mr. Christensen stated he did not know how critical that was and thus could
not address himself to whether a market would die without it or not.
Mayor Seymour explained if denial took place because of beer and wine and then
he found someone who was willing to operate without it, he would have to come
through the hearing process again. If they were to grant the use with beer
and wine, he would not have to do that.
Mr. Christensen stated he would prefer approval with restriction.
80-1397
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked if he could agree to a condition that alcoholic beverages
would not be sold on the premises.
Mr. Christensen answered that he would have to if that was the stipulation
imposed by the Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of the negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject property for medium density land uses commensurate with
the proposal; that no sensitve environmental impacts area involved in the pro-
posal, and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
signigicant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-480 for adoption, granting Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2110, subject the Planning Commission conditions and
stipulations made by the applicant; additionally, that there be no sale of
liquor including beer and wine, with the condition relative to the method of
dispensing gasoline, as described above, be subject to Fire Department approval.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-480: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2110.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-480 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE NOS. 4068 AND 4069
AND RESOLUTION NO. 79R-607 RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-64(1) & (2):
Request by Kaufman & Broad, to consider Negative Declaration requested by ap-
plicant and amendments to conditions in Ordinance Nos. 4068 and 4069 and
Resolution No. 79R-607 relating to the Bauer Ranch Planned Community located
south of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and Weir Canyon Road
(Reclassification Nos. 77-78-64(1) and (2), was submitted.
Miss Santalahti referred to their recommendations as outlined in report dated
October 24, 1980 which specifically amended several of the conditions, except
that which pertained to drainage. The only area in which she differed with
Kaufman & Broad's request was that she felt when the grading plan was submitted
to the Engineering Department, they should specifically identify tentatively
at that point the access points to the arterial highways, as well as the
equestrian trails easements. In that way, further downstream, no one would
forget about the equestrian trails or perform some kind of grading which would
adversely affect, one or the other of the two items. They could change that
plan later on, and they would not be held to the present one necessarily.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the matter.
80-1398
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Tom Winfield, representing Kaufman & Broad, 615 South Flower Street, Los
Angeles, stated the purpose for the request in modification of conditions was
to allow Kaufman & Broad to undertake certain grading activities at a point in
time earlier than would be possible under the existing conditions of approval
for the Bauer Ranch. It would specifically allow them to do some interim
grading and to begin at a much earlier point in time the improvement of Santa
Ana Canyon Road. Both of the matters were central to the construction of the
regional shopping center and by expediting them, they felt they would substan-
tially expedite the time frame for development of that center. They read the
staff report and had worked with staff in developing the conditions and con-
curred in them, including the additional stipulations. They requested approval
of the action as recommended by staff.
The Mayor asked if he had any problem with the stipulations that Miss Santalahti
just added relative to the tentative tract map approval.
Mr. Winfield answered "no". They understood staff's concern and concurred. The
only question they had was to make certain they were not fixing the specific
locations at a premature time and the way the language was drafted, they could
live with those.
Mayor Seymour also stated that from the outset, the City had said, they wanted
that regional shopping center to go in prior to the housing projects. He asked
if his request today would in any way, shape or form change that agreement.
Mr. Winfield answered what they would like, and what the shopping center developer
would also like, was to have the entire project go forward as quickly as possible
on all accounts. The developer wanted to be in there, but he wanted to know
and see that here was going to be a community around him, certainly not suf-
ficient to support the center, but to show his tenants or co-owners that there
was, in fact, a viable community immediately around him.
Mayor Seymour added that at the time the tentative tract maps would come up,
he was going to be looking for specific, contractual assurances that was going
to occur, i.e., that the regional shopping center would go in at the same time
the housing development took place. At this point his concern would be that
they would be issuing finalized building permits and moving people in with
a shopping center not yet under construction. He did not want to see that
happen.
Mr. Winfield stated they did not want to see that happen either. The improve-
ment they were talking about today would be at a tremendous expense to his
client, and the sole and single purpose was to accommodate the regional shopping
center.
Councilman Bay asked for confirmation that on the amendments relative to the
riding and hiking trails where, in effect, they were saying that they were going
ahead with the grading prior to the normal flow, was he agreeable to that
amendment.
Mr. Winfield answered "yes". They understood staff's position and they could
live with it.
80-1399
City Ha.ll,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1.980, 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds tha~ this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
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 is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-481 for adoption, subject to
staff recommendations and stipulations made by Kaufman & Broad and tentative
tract map approval. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-481: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE CONDITONS OF APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 79R-607 (AMEND-
ING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-50) RELATING TO ZONING RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO.
77-78-64.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-481 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4177 AND 4178: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4177
and 4178 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4177: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE NO. 4068 RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(1),PC)
ORDINANCE NO. 4t78: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE NO. 4069 RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(2),PC)
123: USE AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR FREMONT JUNIOR
HIGH SCHOOL: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
an agreement was authorized with the Anaheim Union High School District for use
of facilities at the Fremont Junior High School to accommodate CETA Services
Youth Program staff, the Anaheim Economic Opportunity Center and the Housing
Repair Program on a month-to-month, rent-free basis, as recommended in memo-
randum dated October 21, 1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae,
MOTION CARRIED.
123: CONTRACTS WITH BUENA PARK LIBRARY DISTRICT AND PLACENTIA LIBRARY DISTRICT
TO PROVIDE COM CATALOG SERVICES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
by Councilman Roth, agreements were authorized with the Placentia and Buena
Park Library Districts to provide Computer-Output-Microform Catalog Services
to these Libraries on a yearly basis, subject to renegotiation of charge rates,
as recommended in memorandum dated October 14, 1980 from City Librarian William
Griffith. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1400
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
129: LEASE-PURCHASE FOR FOUR 1,500 GALLON-A-MINUTES FIRE APPARATUS: On motion
by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, staff was authorized to
solicit bids for four 1,500 gallon-a-minute fire apparatus, and request proposals
from financial institutions to finance the lease-purchase of these pieces of
equipment, as recommended in memorandum dated October 18, 1980 from James
Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
174: FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING PROJECTS: Councilman Bay moved to delay
the further distribution of Federal General Revenue Sharing monies for capital
projects until such time as Federal action on providing said funds is taken,
as recommended in memorandum dated October 10, 1980 from Assistant City Manager
William T. Hopkins. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/174: ACCEPTANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY REVENUE SHARING GRANT TO EXPAND SENIOR
CITIZEN DAY CARE CENTER SERVICES: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
80R-482 for adoption, accepting Orange County Revenue Sharing funds in the
amount of $13,613 to expand Senior Citizen Day Care Center services, as
recommended in memorandum dated October 13, 1980 from Deputy City Manager James
Ruth. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-482: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RELATING TO REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR EXPANSION OF THE
SENIOR CITIZEN DAY CARE CENTER, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-482 duly passed and adopted.
106/150: Councilman Roth moved to appropriate said funds to Program No. 01-344,
Community Services, and further, appropriating $6,806 from the City Council
Contingency fund to be used as a cash match under the provisions of said agree-
ment. MOTION CARRIED.
123/150/174: TERMINATION OF AN AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF BURRIS
PIT AND FIVE COVES AREA STUDY: Councilman Roth moved to authorize an agreement
with the Orange County Water District, the Orange County Flood Control District,
the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District and the County to terminate
the October 21, 1977 Burris Pit/Five Coves Study agreement; the City is to
receive a refund of $3,731.67, being the unused portion of their $t0,000 con-
tribution made for preparation of the General Development Plan pursuant to
provisions in the agreement, as recommended in memorandum dated October 14,
1980 from the Deputy City Manager. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
106/150: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, said
refund was appropriated to the Parks Division, Account No. 01-281-6340. MOTION
CARRIED.
80-1401
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
135: PROPOSAL FOR LEASE OF CITY OF ANAHEIM PUBLIC GOLF COURSES: City Manager
Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated October 7, 1980 from the Stadium,
Convention Center, Golf General Manager, Tom Liegler, recommending approval of
the Proposals for Lease of the H. G. "Dad" Miller Municipal Golf Course, the
Driving Range and/or Anaheim Hills Public Golf Course in accordance with a
program approved by the Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission so that pro-
posals received can be evaluated and later recommendations made by staff for
approval by the Golf Course Advisory Commission and the City Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the proposal documents for lease of
H. G. "Dad" Miller Municipal Golf Course, Driving Range. and/or Anaheim Hills
Public Golf Course, to be used in accordance with the lease program approved
by the Golf Course Advisory Commission, with the right to reject any or all
proposals. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour noted that Tom Liegler and Neal Beeson
were present. He asked if staff and the Golf Course Commission were moving
ahead with their future projections as to what the Golf Course might be doing
without management proposals.
Mr. Liegler reported that staff had presented to the Commission a five-year
outlook financially. The Commission had that under advisement and were reviewing
it by Committee.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
180: RENEWAL OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE: Councilman
Roth moved to accept .the offer of renewal of Workers' Compensation Excess Liability
Insurance submitted by Employers Reinsurance Corporation through the City's
broker, Marsh & McLennan, for $2,000,000 coverage excess of $500,000 SIR, as
recommended in memorandum dated October 22, 1980 from the Risk Manager Jack
Love. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/129: CONTINUANCE OF AWARD OF CONTRACT - ANAHEIM FIRE STATION NO. 8: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the award of contract
on Anaheim Fire Station No. 8, Account Nos. 24-914-7107 and 47-914-7107 was
continued to December 2, 1980, as recommended in memornadum dated October 22,
1980 from City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED.
169: RESURFACING OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE - COOPERATIVE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF
GARDEN GROVE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth,
the Street Maintenance Division was authorized to enter into a cooperative
project with the City of Garden Grove at an estimated cost of $8,500 for the
resurfacing of Orangewood Avenue, from 145 feet east of Janette Lane to Ninth
Street, as recommended in memorandum dated October 10, 1980 from the City
Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
109/167: STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) MINORITY
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) PROGRAM AND CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA FEDERAL AID URBAN
PROJECT - M-3041(74): Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-483 for
adoption, adopting the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Minority
Business Program, as recommended in memorandum dated October 23, 1980 from the
City Attorney's office. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-1402
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-483: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADOPTING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MINORITY BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES PROGRAM.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the program would slow
down the bidding on everything.
City Manager Talley, in order to illustrate a particular instance, thereupon
presented a resolution amending Resolution No. 80R-464 to extend the bid date
for Traffic Signals and Interconnect - Canyon Industrial Area, Federal Aid Urban
Project M-3041(74). Because of the MBE program, they were changing the bid date
to December 4, 1980, 2:00 P.M. However, the award date would remain on December 30,
1980, thus reflecting only a minor influence on the award date itself.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 80R-484 for adoption,
amending Resolution No. 80R-464, to extend the bid date for Traffic Signals and
Interconnect - Canyon Industrial Area Federal Aid Urban Project M-3041(74).
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-484: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-464 TO EXTEND THE BID DATE FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND
INTERCONNECT - CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA FEDERAL AID URBAN PROJECT M-3041(74).
Before action was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was concerned with adopting
the Caltrans MBE program on the basis that the City Attorney stated that there
would be some conflict in City Charter Section 1211. He asked if that was only
effective on the Federal Governement funds that came down the line for Caltrans
or were they talking about a binding policy from now on. If so, then he questioned
whether there was an indirect problem with regard to Section 1211 of the Charter.
Mr. William Devitt, City Engineer, explained it would only affect Federally
funded projects--FAU projects and grant projects, but not those which were
funded with Gas Tax monies or other monies.
City Attorney Hopkins explained on the particular type contract under consideration,
Charter Section 1211 provided that contracts shall be let to the lowest and best
responsible bidder. Under those circumstances in this type of funding, the best
responsible bidder would have to be someone who would qualify under the MBE
program. Thus in that context, there would be no conflict. It would be sub-
ject to analysis and review by the engineers and the State. It would be the
best responsible bidder under the program.
Councilman Bay presumed that any bids involved in the MBE program would be so
noted and they could then act accordingly.
Mr. Devitt stated that those regulations would be included only in specifications
that were Federally funded.
A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 80R-483 and 80R-484.
80-1402
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-483 and 80R-484 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT WITH KAUFMAN & BROAD - ADVANCE FUNDS FOR DESIGN AND INSPECTION
OF A 30-INCH WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN TO SERVE THE BAUER RANCH: On motion by
Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an agreement was authorized
with Kaufman & Broad, Incorporated, for the design and inspection of a 30-inch
water transmission main in Santa Ana Canyon Road between Mohler Drive and Weir
Canyon Road (Bauer Ranch), at an estimated cost to developer of $70,000 as
recommended in memorandum dated October 17, 1980 from the Public Utilities
Board. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT WITH ALDERMAN~ SWIFT AND LEWIS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING
TO A 36-INCH AND 30-INCH TRANSMISSION MAIN IN SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement with Alderman, Swift and Lewis in an
amount not to exceed $99,100 for design and construction engineering services
for a 36-inch transmission main in Santa Ana Canyon Road between Via Cortez
and approximately Anaheim Hills Road, and a 30-inch transmission main in Santa
Ana Canyon Road between Mohler Drive and Weir Canyon Road, as recommended in
memorandum dated October 17, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay noted the subject was not the low bid
and the explanation and rationalization within the subject memorandum implied
to him that the Request for Proposal (RFP) must not have been specific enough
to get those kinds of differences. There was a delta of $15,000 on the bid.
Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, explained that the proposals were
reviewed by two members of the Public Utilities Department, himself and their
engineer in charge of Design and Capital Projects. The review was done based
upon the Council Policy No. 401 regarding hiring professional consultants and
when the fee and the other items that were either contained in the proposal o~
otherwise evaluated by the committee were considered, the selection was a firm
which did not submit the low bid. They felt the RFP was adequate and in talking
to all the engineers who submitted proposals, they also felt it was adequate.
After considering all the items in the Council Policy, it was their determin-
ation that the firm of Alderman, Swift and Lewis was the best firm to handle
the job.
Mayor Seymour recalled that the last time they went through such a RFP process,
he was concerned because the selection of a design engineer on a reservoir site,
who was the higher bid, was just the tip of the iceberg, followed with the
rationalization onto subsequent occasions that they started the process off with
that firm. What they ended up doing was not taking the low bid and on top of
that, one decision led to the other two, ending ultimately in an expensive
award without consideration for the bid. He wanted to know if that was going
to happen here.
80-140:5
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Auerbach answered "no". The proposal covered the preliminary design engineering
and also the inspection costs associated with both projects. The project about
which the Mayor was speaking was the Lenain Reservoir which project was begun
prior to the adoption of the present Council Policy. He felt Policy No. 401
gave them a very sound criteria for evaluating proposals.
Councilman Roth then questioned Mr. Auerbach as to how long they were going to
have the roads torn up with the project and reiterated his concern, as he had
done on previous occasions, relative to the consternation of both merchants
and residents in the area of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via Cortez due to the
various projects in that area which had taken such a long time to complete,
especially the Diemer Intertie.
Mr. Auerbach felt that the construction of the subject project would progress
very rapidly so as not to cause undue inconvenience.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
123: SAVE HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR GRADING AND DRAINAGE - SUNKIST AVENUE AND
EAST WINSTON ROAD: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the first amendment
to Save Harmless Agreements entered into with Winston Associates on October 18
and November 1, 1979, and transferring interests and obligations in these Agree-
ments, with respect to Parcel 1 to State Wide Sales Co., Inc., in connection
with the grading and drainage of property located on Sunkist Avenue and East
Winston Road, as recommended in memorandum dated October 13, 1980 from the
City Attorney's office. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
124: COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY SERIES D REVENUE BONDS: Councilman Seymour
offered Resolution No. 80R-485 for adoption, authorizing the City Attorney and
Finance Director to execute and deliver certain documents and instruments and
take certain action in connection with the issuance and sale of Revenue Bonds,
Series D, of the Community Center Authority, as recommended in memorandum
dated October 22, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-485: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS AND TAKE CERTAIN ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF REVENUE BONDS, SERIES D, OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-485 duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Consideration of the
appointment of a member to the Golf Course Advisory Commission, to fill the
vacancy left by Marty Herling (continued from the meeting of September 30,
1980). was submitted.
80-1404
City .H~ll, Aqaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28.,. 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a Mr. Dan Wise wished to speak.
Mr. Dan Wise, 1631 West Pampas Lane, stated he had addressed the Council at
the meeting of August 19, 1980 (see minutes that date) when the discussion
took place relative to Golf Course operations. When he found out that there
was a vacancy on the Commission, he decided it would be one way he could have
continuing input relative to the City's two golf courses. He would make him-
self available to see that the City received the best possible return for its
tax dollars whether with a private contractor or if the management remained
with the City. He did not feel he had a right to object and complain unless
he went further~and offered his time and services.
The Mayor asked if him business or occupation would allow him to devote the
time necessary to such an appointment.
Mr. Wise answered, definitely. He was an engineer and had his own private con-
sulting business and also worked as fleet manager for a fire protection agency.
There would be no conflict, and his employer encouraged civic involvement.
Councilman Roth noted that Mr. Wise had the fortitude to sit and wait in the
Council Chamber all afternoon to present himself. That was a plus for him
even though he did not agree with all of the statements Mr. Wise made at the
public meeting on August 19, 1980.
Councilman Roth thereupon nominated Mr. Dan Wise to the Golf Course Advisory
Commission.
The Mayor asked if there were any other nominations.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Bill Swisher had again applied for consider-
ation as appointee to the Commission. She thereupon nominated Mr. Bill Swisher.
Councilman Bay moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor then asked for a roll call vote on the two nominees in the order that
they occurred, the first being Mr. Dan Wise.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated since she nominated Bill
Swisher, she was going to abstain.
The following vote was then taken on the nomination of Dan Wise to be the
appointee to the Golf Course Advisory Commission.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to make the appointment of Dan Wise unanimous.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1405
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
108: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PENALTY ASSESSMENT - WANDERLUST MOTEL: Request by
Anita Bige, Manager, for a waiver of the penalty assessment for late payment
of the August 1980 Transient Occupancy Tax, which was continued from the meeting
of October 14, 1980 (see minutes that date) so that the owner could be contacted
to ascertain if proof could be provided to substantiate the circumstances causing
late payment, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone was present representing the Wanderlust Motel.
Mrs. Anita Bige, representing Mr. Chao, owner of the Wanderlust Motel, stated
that they received a letter from the City asking for an affidavit from the
mailman stating that he had lost or dropped their tax payment, but the postman
would not commit himself to that. They were only assuming that he did so and
it could have been a customer that had taken the payment from the mail rack. Thus,
such documentation would be impossible to obtain in that respect as well.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved, based upon the further showing in the written
documentation and letter received October 27, 1980 from Mr. Chao and the state-
ment of Mrs. Bige, that the Transient Occupancy Tax payment for August 1980 be
deemed to have been paid on time. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he had checked with the City
Accounting Department and found that Wanderlust Motel had a long record of
making payments exactly on time, and this was the first problem that had ever
occurred.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they could legally take such action based upon
the City Attorney's reservations.
City Attorney Hopkins stated there was no provision for waiving the penalty. In
the past, they had only recognized the actual deposit in the mail box and deemed
it to have been paid on time where the Post Office recognized there was an error
or delay on their part. However, considering the way the motion was proposed by
Councilman Overholt, that it be deemed to have been paid on time, was acceptable.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - NICOLES DANCE STUDIO: Request
by Gregory L. Parkin, Attorney, on hehalf of Nicoles Dance Studio, 621 South
Harbor Boulevard, for an extension to the abatement period pursuant to Code
Section 18,89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Parkin or anybody from Nicoles Dance Studio was
present. They were looking for a showing that undue hardship was being created
and, therefore, that the request for a two-year extension should be granted.
Mr. Victor Maffet, owner of Nicoles Dance Studio, residence address, 190 City
Boulevard West, Orange, stated that Mr. Parkin was detained in court today and
was not able to be present. He had the figures and the case in his possession.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he owned another studio or if he had owned another
studio; Mr. Maffett answered "no".
80-1406
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Maffett if he had personal knowledge of the
expenditures to which Mr. Parkin referred to in the letter dated September 23,
1980.
Mr. Maffet answered "yes", but he did not have the figures and Mr. Parkin had
everything in his possession.
Councilman Overholt asked if he could testify to those figures from his recol-
lection.
Mr. Maffet answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt asked if he would be willing to testify under oath; Mr.
Maffet answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt also asked if he wanted to check with Mr. Parkin to see
whether he would permit him (Maffet) to testify under oath; Mr. Maffet answered
"yes".
Councilman Overholt stated, in that case, they could not go forward today.
MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon moved to continue consideration of the sub-
ject matter for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor recognized a gentlemen in the audience who
he presumed wished to speak to he continuance.
Mr. Greg Kilmer stated this was the first time he had been aware of the situation
even being brought to the attention of the City. He wanted to oppose the contin-
uance on the basis that he felt the business should not be located at its present
site for the following reasons.
Councilman Overholt interjected and confirmed that the motion was to continue
and if he had an objection to the continuance, that he inform them of that objec-
tion.
Mr. Kilmer again stated that he did not think the business should be at its
present location on the basis of some criteria that he wished to present at
this time.
Councilman Overholt explained that the motion to continue meant that they would
consider the matter next week. He imagined what Mr. Kilmer was about to state
would pertain to what they were going to consider at that time.
Mr. Kilmer then stated that would be acceptable.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he just did not want to wait for another five hours
again as he had to this week.
Mr. Kilmer stated that was part of his concern and he asked if the matter could
be considered on a preferred agenda.
Mayor Seymour first asked how many people were present on the matter; six people
were present. The Mayor thereupon recommended that the matter be scheduled
80-1407
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
promptly at 1:30 p.m. on next Tuesday. He asked their indulgence in that con-
tinuance since there were legalities involved. He felt that the reasons
Councilman Overholt spoke to the continuance pertained to the fact that the
applicant did have a right to be represented by legal counsel, and they appre-
ciated their understanding.
Mr. Charles Patten, 641 South Pine Street, stated that his time was as important
as the principals involved and the matter was continued from weeks prior and
it was now being continued again. The attorney could keep putting it off as
long as he wanted to.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not think the Council would accept that as a
pattern of conduct, and this was the first time this request was before the
City Council.
Mr. Patten also indicated that the business did not belong at the present location.
Mayor Seymour stated that they were trying to insure that a proper process took
place. If citizens like himself requested a continuance, they would honor that
request. Therefore, they must treat the other side equally. If the Council
were to render a decision one way or the other without giving proper consi-
deration, they may be endangering their legal position and end up in court with
a judge saying they did not handle the matter correctly and sending the case
back to do it all over again. Rather than having that occur, the Council was
trying to insure a proper process.
Mr. Patten stated that he was certain they knew what kind of business was involved
and if they kept continuing it, the residents were the ones that had to live with
it.
Mayor Seymour stated that nobody understood that better than the Council, and
they were trying to insure a fair process.
The Mayor asked Mr. Maffet if he could assure the Council that his attorney
and he would be present next week; Mr. Maffet answered "no", but he could for
himself.
The Mayor asked what about his attorney if he were not present next week, what
were they to do and would he want them to proceed without him.
Mr. Maffet first answered relative to the first question, he did not know the
process and secondly he would prefer to have Mr. Parkin present.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Parkin was not present next week, would he (Maffett)
be willing to proceed if his attorney did not show up.
Mr. Maffet answered "yes" that he would be willing to proceed.
Councilman Overholt suggested if Mr. Parkin was not available to represent him
next week, that he get another attorney.
80-1408
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the motion for continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconed
by Councilman Bay, application for Public Fireworks Display Permit, submitted
by Los Alamitos High School to discharge fireworks on November 1, 1980, at
8:00 p.m., at Handel Stadium located on Western High School property, 501 South
Western Avenue, was approved, as recommended by the Fire Marhsal. MOTION CARRIED.
169: REQUEST TO CLOSE WILKEN WAY AT HASTER STREET WITH A MODIFIED CUL-DE-SAC:
Request by Salley Haymers and Charlene Lockhart, was submitted.
Councilman Roth moved to reaffirm the Council decision of December 26, 1979 that
Wilken Way be closed with cul-de-sac of standard radius curb as recommended in
memorandum dated October 20, 1980 from the City Engineer. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked if any member of the public was present
to speak on the matter; no one was present.
The Mayor stated that he was supportive of the motion, but on the other hand, it
was his understanding that staff was undertaking a study to create a 38-foot
cul-de-sac on the westerly side of Wilken Way rather than at the intersection
of Wilken Way and Haster Street. He asked if they had given up on that.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that he had not given up on that and that
was the basis of the recommendation, that they reaffirm the decision made in
December of 1979.
The Mayor stated he understood, but it was also his understanding that traffic
was studying a potential installation of a cul-de-sac only on the west side
rather than the east.
Mr. Devitt explained there was a recent request as a result of a hotline complaint
that they make that study, and they would do so in approximately 3 weeks.
After a brief discussion with Mr. Devitt, the Mayor stated that he felt they
should be more responsive to the neighborhood.
Mr. Devitt explained that they had aggressively tried to deal with the property
owner on the southwest corner ahd as the Mayor was aware from a previous Council
meeting, he was adamant that he was not going to give the necessary right of way.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
165: REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK - NORTH SIDE OF LA PALMA, EAST OF
EAST STREET: The City Clerk referred to a report from the City Engineer dated
October 22, 1980 recommending that the subject request be heard at an evening
public hearing.
Councilman Overholt moved to consider the request of the area residents for
the construction of sidewalks on the north side of La Palma Avenue, east of
East Steer at an evening public hearing. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
80-1409
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth questioned what an evening meeting
would accomplish. They had received a petition containing approximately 85
signatures of people requesting that sidewalks be installed. Although he
would be present, he wanted to know what they would do at that meeting if
they told 85 people to show up.
City Engineer Devitt confirmed that 85 people signed the petition and there
were four property owners on the westerly edge at East Street who were opposed.
The property owner at the corner of East Street and La Palma was adamant he
was not going to dedicate and it appeared, if it was the desire of the Council
to proceed with that project, It would ultimately require an eminent domain
decision.
'Councilman Bay stated his concern was the fact that there were 10 parcels involved
where the sidewalk was recommended and four of those property owners approved and
wanted the sidewalk, four disapproved and did not want it, and two did not give
an answer one way or the other. However, with the petition signed by 85 people
living in that area and whose children had to use those sidewalks, he could not
see any need for an evening meeting. He did not see what more could be gained
by having those 85 people present at a public hearing and why they could not
settle the matter at a regular day hearing.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would support the evening meeting. He believed
the Council had always, when requested on a neighborhood matter, honored such
a request.
Councilwoman Kaywood also questioned an evening meeting since there was an
overwhelming majority who wanted the sidewalks and only four were determined
not to give permission.
Mayor Seymour stated if the Council should deny the request for sidewalks, then
one or more of those 85 people would say that they did not have a chance to
speak because the Council refused them the opportunity of an evening meeting.
A vote was then taken on the 'foregoing motion for an evening meeting at 7:00
p.m., date to be determined. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting, it was suggested that the public hearing would be held
on Tuesday, November 25, 1980 at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator or allowed:
a. Claim submitted by Anaheim Chamber of Commerce for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of reduced voltage power supply to facilities at 130
South Lemon Street, on or about June 7, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by David F. Girard for personal injury and property damages
purportedly sustained as a result of accident at the intersection of Red Gum and
Mira Loma Streets, on or about August 26, 1980.
80-1410
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by R. James Menichetti for personal injury damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of a fall at Anaheim Stadium, Club Level, Section
134, Row "L", on or about August 16, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Colleen La Bonte for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of hole in Anaheim Hills Road, southbound, between Nohl Ranch Road
and Santa Ana Canyon Road, on or about September 4, 1980.
e. Claim submitted by Josephine Rizzo for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of incident at Anaheim Stadium near Aisle 48, Section D,
on or about August 16, 1980.
f. Claim submitted by Robert Rizzo for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of an incident at Anaheim Stadium near Aisle 48, Section D, on or
about August 16, 1980.
g. Claim submitted by James W. Helm for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of construction operations on Harbor Boulevard, 1/10 mile north of
Lincoln Avenue, on or about October 2, 1980.
The following claim was allowed:
h. Claim submitted by Marjorie Burman for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of utility line and condensor maintenance operations at the southeast
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street, on or about July 7, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 177: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of August 6 and September 3, 1980.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of September 24 and October
1, 1980.
c. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of September 17, 1980.
d. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for September 1980.
e. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for September 1980.
f. 105: Public Utilties Board--Minutes of October 2, 1980 (unapproved).
g. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly
Report for September 1980.
h. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of October 16, 1980.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Police, "a" was denied, and "b", "c" and "d" were approved.
a. Amusement Devices Permit Application: Ungambling Casino, 3456 Orangethorpe
Avenue, for one video game. (James C. Meader, applicant)
80-1411
City, Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated on the subject application for the Ungambling Casino for
one video game with a recommendation to deny, he wanted the City Attorney to
know that that game was already in place and in operation since October 23,
1980.
City Attorney Hopkins stated it was in violation and they would check into
the matter.
b. Public Dance Permit: Empresa Firas, for a dance to be held November 1, 1980,
6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Cruz Munoz Frias,
applicant)
c. Public Dance Permit: Jose A. Palacio Jr. and Ruben Alvarez for a dance to
be held October 31, 1980, 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 A.m., at the Sons of Italy Hall,
408 North Anaheim Boulevard.
d. Private Patrol Permit: Tri County Patrol Inc., 6333 Manchester Boulevard,
to supply security patrol. (Ben Ostrovsky, applicant)
4. 164: LOARA STREET STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: In accor-
dance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, Change Order No. 1 in an
amount not to exceed $19,800 and 10 additional working days were approved,
thereby changing the original contract price to $224,506.80 and increasing the
length of the contract to 70 working days for completion; Contractor, Mark
Dakovich, Inc.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-486
through 80R-491, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-486: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Kenneth G.
Robinson; Lincoln Property, Anaheim; Kilroy Industries, et al.; Texaco Anaheim
Hills, Inc.; Broadview Holdings, Inc; H.B. Corporation)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-487: A RESOLUTION OF T~E 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: REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT
STREET LIGHTS WITH HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LUMINAIRES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 01-677-6328-11090-37300. (L. G. Ogg, Inc.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-488: 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: ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SEWER IM-
PROVEMENT, MOUNTAIN VEIW AVENUE TO CLEMENTINE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0210. (J. Jesus Preciado Construction Co.)
80-1412
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-489: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET(S)
OR ALLEY(S) AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (79-6A, November 18, 1980,
3:00 p.m.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-490: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT. (79-22A, November 18, 1980, 3:00 p.m.)
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-491: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 108 AND DECLinING
RESOLUTION NO. 1705 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-486 through 80R-491, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The fo%lowing actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held October 6, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-9 AND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES
(TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10996, 10997 AND 10998): Submitted by Texaco-Anaheim
Hills, Inc., for a change in zone (Portion A) from RS-A-43,000 to RS-HS-22,000
and (Portion B) RS-A-43,000 to RS-HS-43,000, to establish three tracts consisting
of 22 RS-HS-22,000 lots and 14 RS-HS-43,000 lots and the removal of six specimen
trees on property located at the southwest corner of Avenida de Santiago and
Hidden Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-169, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-9, approved the request for Removal of Specimen Trees,
and certified Environmental Impact Report No. 236.
City Clerk Roberts announced as the Council was aware, a letter dated October 20,
1980 had been received, submitted by R. A. Bender, Attorney for Sea & Sage
Audobon Society, requesting a public hearing on the matter, however declining
to submit the r~quest appeal fee. They had been advised that the fee should
accompany the letter.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2114: Submitted by Phillip J. and Esther E.
Schumaker, to retain an automotive body shop on CG zoned property located at
916 North Anaheim Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-171, granted
Conditional Use. Permit No. 2114, and granted a negative declaration status.
80-1413
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, .1:30 P.M.
3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2116: Submitted by Winston Industrial Properties,
to permit a church on ML zoned property located at 2201 East Winston Road, with
a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-172, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2116, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2118: Submitted by Bernard Nagby, to retain a
radiator repair shop on CL zoned property located at 1020 East Lincoln Avenue,
with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-173, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2118, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1979 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
Richard L. Pierce, requesting to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 1979,
to permit a racquetball facility on CL zoned property located on the south
side of La Palma Avenue, 365 feet west of Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-176, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1979.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1907 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
R. A. Dukelow, requesting to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 1907, to
permit a drive-thru restaurant on CG zoned property located at 1025 West
Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-177, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1907.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
VARIANCE NO. 3170: Submitted by Clifford O. and Doris Jean Beckler, to construct
a 48-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1242 and 1254
East La Palma Avenue, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-170, granted in
part, Variance No. 3170, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's action
and after a brief Council discussion, the date and time for the public hearing
was tentatively set for Tuesday, November 25, 1980, at 7:00 p.m., at which time
the Council would also consider the request for sidewalk 'installation in the
~ame general area (~ee pr~viou~ item).
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4179 - RELATING TO VETERINARY HOSPITALS IN THE CO AND
CL-HS ZONES: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4179 for first reading,
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
ORDINANCE NO. 4179: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION
.015 TO SECTION 18.41.050 AND AMENDING SUBSECTION .100 OF SECTION 18.41.050 OF
CHAPTER 18.41, AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTION .015 TO SECTION 18.43.050 AND AMENDING
SUBSECTION .070 OF SECTION 18.42.050 OF CHAPTER 18.42, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (permitting veterinary hospitals in the CO
and CL-HS zones with approval of a CUP)
80-1414
City,. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 160 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider
alternate proposals of ultimate land uses (single-family and multiple-family
residential and commercial, office) and combinations of these for an area of
approvimately 7.6 acres located north of Center Street extending on both sides
of Coffman and Cypress Streets.
Councilman Roth moved to set November 12, 1980 at 3:00 p.m. as date and time
for a public hearing on the subject General Plan Amendment. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 161 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider
alternate proposal of ultimate land use of general commercial for approximately
5.0 acres of land located on the west side of Rio Vista Street approximately
270 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
Councilman Overholt moved to set November 12, 1980 at 3:00 p.m., as date and
time for a public hearing on the subject General Plan Amendment. Councilman
Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 8117: Developer, Canyon Terrace, Ltd., tract located
at the southwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Meats Avenue and containing a
107-1ot, 99-unit condominium RM-3000(SC) subdivision.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No.
8117, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated October 21,
1980. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10437: Developer, La Solana Corporation, tract
located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, approximately 325 feet north of
Lincoln Avenue, containing a 3-lot, 132-unit condominium complex on RM-3000
zoned property.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No.
10437, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated October 21,
1980. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10877: Developer, Walter La Force; tract is located
on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, west of Western Avenue, containing a 15-lot
14-unit RM-3000 zoned subdivision.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consis-
tent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract
No. 10877, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated Octtober 22,
1980. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4175: Councilman Roth offered Ordiance No. 4175 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
80-1415
CitT' Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4175: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-10, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4175 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4180 THROUGH 4186: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos.
4180 through 4186 for first reading.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4180: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE
3, CHAPTER 3.24, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AMUSEMENT DEVICES
BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 3.24.100 AND SUBSECTION .110 TO SECTION 3.24.030.
(relating to age requirements and information concerning corporate officers,
stockholders and partners for Amusement Devices Permit Applications)
142/118: ORDINANCE NO. 4181: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING
SECTION 1.04.310, CHAPTER 1.04, OF TITLE I OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING A NEW SECTION 1.04..310 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO SPECIAL
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES. (Claims Program)
ORDINANCE NO. 4182: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(97), CR)
ORDINANCE NO. 4183: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-19, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 4184: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-38, RM-1200)
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4185: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING
SECTION 14.72.260 OF TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32 AND AMENDING SUBSECTION .590 OF
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PARKING. (_relating to No Parking Any Time, Harbor Boulevard on
the e/s from Chestnut Street to Broadway; w/s from 250 feet n/o Lincoln
Avenue to Broadway)
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4186: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING THERETO SUBSECTION .2020 RELATING TO PARKING. (relating to No Parking
Any Time, Anaheim Boulevard on the e/s from 200 feet n/o Cypress Street to
Elm Street; on the w/s from Cypress Street to Elm Street and from Cerritos
Avenue to the South City Limits)
169: RUMPLE STRIP PAVEMENT MARKERS ON SYCAMORE STREET: Councilman Overholt
asked City Engineer William Devitt if he was aware that a car had jumped the
rumble strip pavement markers on Sycamore Street (at West Street), jumped the
curb and went into somebody's front room. He contended that it was an indi-
cation that the markers did not work. He asked the schedule on the installation
of the warning lights as discussed at the meeting of July 24, 1980 (see minutes
that date) and the removal of the markers.
80-1416
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 28, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated the removal of the rumble strip markers was also a concern
of his and he, too, wanted to know the status of that removal.
City Engineer Devitt stated that he had been trying to push the initiation and
completion of that project as aggressively as possible. However, they had a
heavy workload, but he assured the Council that he would continue to pursue
the matter the mext morning. He cautioned as he had previously that the
warning lights would not necessarily stop such accidents from occurring.
114/142: POLITICAL SIGN ORDINANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood requestad that they
either enforce the subject sign ordinance or that it be repealed. She would
like to have City crews remove the political signs from utility poles and bill
the proper organiza=ions accordingly. She repeated, if they were not going to
enforce the ordinance, then they should not have it.
164: STATUS OF REMOVAL OF WELL - SUNKIST AND LA PALMA: Councilman Bay noted
that some six or eight months ago, they talked about a building and a well out
on Sunkist Street, near La Palma Avenue. The building was supposed to be
removed and the City was going to do it. He did not think it had been done and
he wanted to know when that was going to be done.
City Engineer Devitt stated that plans had been prepared for that removal and
a work order was being put out for the removal of the well.
Councilman Bay stated he would like to know the schedule on the removal of the
well.
119: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS CONVENTION: Mayor Seymour announced
that next week the National Association of Realtors was holding their conven-
tion in Anaheim with over 10,000 attendees expected. He asked the Council's
support in having a Resolution of Welcome prepared and the Council concurred.
169: CHUCKHOLES ON COUNTRY HILL ROAD: Mayor Seymour stated that he had a report
indicating that Country Hill Road was severely impacted with chuckholes. He
had received a number of calls and consequently he asked the the Public Works
Department to investigate and correct the situation.
170: TREE REMOVAL - 3259 WEST RAVENSWOOD DRIVE: Mayor Seymour reported that
a Mr. Isaacs, a 77-year old man residing at the subject address, whose wife
had just been through open heart surgery, was desirous of having a tree cut
down due to the fact that it shed a great number of leaves. He asked that
staff investigate the situation and handle the request.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Wednesday, October 29,
1980 at 11:00 a.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:15 P.M.