1980/11/0480-1418
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 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
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE SUPT.: Albert L. Merriam
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gerry Schiller, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION ABATEMENT PERIOD - NICOLES DANCE STUDIO: Request
of Gregory L. Parkin, Attorney, on behalf 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 (continued
from the meeting of October 28, 1980--see minutes that date).
Mr. Gregory L. Parkin, Attorney, representing Nicoles Dance Studio, stated that
the studio was in existence prior to the adoption of the subject ordinance. Since
then, his clients had attempted to locate in other areas within the City in order
to comply with the ordinance. There did not appear to be virtually any place to
relocate within the City in the commercial zone, the zone required for his
clients' business, that would accommodate such a business. In effect, even
though his clients had tried to relocate their business in order not to have
to come before the Council with a stay, they had been unable to do so. He
emphasized it did not seem possible that any business falling within the
ordinance could relocate anywhere within the City. In a sense, the ordinance
zoned that type of business out of existence. His clients were seeking more
time to study the situation to determine if there was any other way they could
remain in business and continue to comply with the ordinances of the City.
They had a substantial investment in the business and spent a lot of money in
advertising. It represented an investment of all of their personal assets. His
clients had no problems with the City or with the Police Department in the past,
and there had been no arrests within the establishment. He had not seen the
Police report or recommendations or reasons for denial, but the Police Department
had not indicated to his clients or to his office prior to the date of the
hearing that there was any problem within the establishment. (The City Attorney
thereupon provided a copy of the Police report dated October 21, 1980 for Mr.
Parkin's information. Mr. Parkin read the report before continuing with his
presentation).
Mr. Parkin then stated that he had now read the report and wanted to address him-
self to the points contained therein. The report indicated that applicants who
were to work for the business were referred either to the City or 'to the Police
80-1419
City Hall, Ana.h.eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Department to be checked out pursuant to various other ordinances, and it was
determined by the Polic~ Department that those individuals had prostitution
arrests. Apparently their applications for a license to work in that estab-
lishment were not approved and consequently they were not hired by his client
and thus, that was not relevant in the present proceeding. It was his under-
standing the subject was a zoning ordinance and not one to control prostitution.
If it were, clearly the State had preempted that, and he was certain the City
Attorney would inform them, if the City were attempting to do so, it would be
unconstitutional.
Relative to the agreements for sex for money, he was told by his clients that
each and every session had been tape-recorded with the knowledge and consent
of all persons. They were not told when the alleged solicitations took place.
He would like to kmow that because he would like to have'a chance to review
the tape-recorded sessions to determine if it was a true statement.
If there were individuals and if they could indentify the individuals who were
pandering acts of prostitution in his clients' business or inducing people to
violate or breach the written contracts that his clients had with each and
every one of their employees, they would file a civil action against those
people for inducing a breach of contract and any other tortious course of
action they could arrive at.
Relative to complaints from the neighbors, his cleints had received none. Their
business fronted on a commercial street with a residential area behind it. How-
ever, it was not contiguous to it in that there was an asphalt parking area in
the back and an alley separating the commercial from the residential, and the
residential houses faced a different direction.
There were complaints that males had been observed masturbating in public view.
If that were the case, they should be arrested. The place of business was in
close proximity to the Anaheim Police Department and it was incredible to him
to think that a male would stand right out by the Police Department in public
view, he assumed in the daytime, and masturbate. His clients would discourage
such a thing.
The statement that females frequently left the studio only wearing a bathrobe
was as ambiguous as the complaints concerning masturbation. Who made the
complaint; when were they made; were the people identifiable; etc. Those were
all questions his client should have an answer to. He did not know if a woman
were observed wearing a bathrobe if it could be determined whether or not she
was wearing only a bathrobe.
His clients felt they had vested property right. He believed that the ordinance
was patterened after Young vs. the Mini Theatres in Detroit. The United States
Supreme Court, in affirming the Police action taken by Detroit, in effect, upholding
the ordinance, made two observations, one observation was that it did not apply
to businesses in existence prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The Supreme
Court noted this was important because the people who had an existing business
prior to the adoption of the ordinance did, in fact, have a vested property
right. The second observation was, since there was a multitude of locations
in the City of Detroit where new businesses, such as the Adult businesses they
80-1420
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
were attempting to restrict could locate, it did not have a chilling effect
on any First Amendment rights of any person who might want to come into the City
and open a photo studio, dance studio, model studio, etc. The two areas that
the Supreme Court felt very critical and crucial were not present in the City's
Adult Entertainment ordinance. It did apply retroactively to businesses already
in existence and there was nowhere that they could relocate their business and
comply with the ordinance.
His clients wanted only to continue their business. They did not want to dis-
turb anyone and would take any remedial measure necessary in order to rectify
any situation within the neighborhood or community that anyone thought was to
the disadvantage of the community. Since the studio tape-recorded every session,
it was an indication they were trying to do everything they could to make
certain that either illegal acts or something that was not suppose to be
happening was not going on in the establishment. He did not know how much more
they could do.
He asked that they consider allowing his client some time. He did not know if
it was possible for them to comply with the ordinance. They would like to
stay in Anaheim and had been in Anaheim for a number of years. The owners of
Nicoles were possibly the owners of Dance-of-Fun or at least had an ownership
in it and that business was in Anaheim for a number of years.
They had spent thousands of dollars in advertising, they were trying to cater
to local people and they were very hesitant to move to another City or into
the unincorporated area ~ecause they had established themselves in Anaheim.
They were asking for a little more time to study the problem to see if there
was some other way they could either stay where they were or relocate in Anaheim
or pursue some other remedy so that they would not be faced with the obvious
probability of losing their business and all of their personal assets they had
tied up in it, all of their advertising, and the other things that were involved.
The Mayor then asked if anyone else wished to speak to the matter.
Mr. Greg Kilmer, stated that he owned the commercial property next to Nicoles,
north up to the corner of Water and Harbor, 601, 607, 611 and 617. Therein
were housed a dentist, gift and antique shop, security guard service, attorney,
and a large insurance agency, all of whom had been situated there for many
years before Nicoles moved in. All those businesses were dependent on adequate
parking both for their employees and customers. Because of Nicoles, they were
being denied full use of their private parking areas. Frequently, Nicoles
customers who preferred to park somewhere else instead of in front of Nicoles,
would park their cars on his private parking area because they did not want to
be seen going into Nicoles. This was causing an unnecessary hardship on their
business customers, often perhaps causing them to lose potential business for
lack of available parking space. In rendering their decision, the Council
should consider both the economic problems caused to the businesses located
in the area and also, more importantly, the moral negative involving the resi-
dents living there as well.
Mr. George Harris, attorney in Anaheim since 1956, stated he was astounded
that nobody had mentioned what it was like to go into Nicoles. He had been
there with two other companions who were sitting in the Chamber audience.
80-1421
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr, Harris then described the atmosphere inside the establishment which he did
not consider to be wholesome one and certainly not one where they could take
their wives or children. They were catering to men willing to pay for the
treatment of their sexual needs. He further elaborated upon the conversation
he hzd with the receptionist at the studio who showed photos of the girls that
were available, 'as well Nicole herself, and all photos were in the nude in every
type of senuous pose imaginable. They could not say that was advertising a
legitimate business. After further elaboration as to what he found out about
the activities taking place in the studio as a result of his questions, Mr.
Harris surmised that the girls were actually selling their bodies for money
and the only thing offered at Nicoles were sex. He maintained that it was
a house of ill fame and prostitution. Of real importance was the fact that
there were children in the area, approximately 25 or 30 across the alley and
what they saw were bathrobed people walking their dogs and those dogs as well
were a nuisance to other people's yards. The alley was also a shorcut to the
Benjamin Franklin Elementary School and just a short distance in the other
direction was one of the larges churches in Anaheim.
Mr. Harris continued that he did not comprehend how anybody, the Council or
the Planning Commission, could permit a partial condemnation without practicing
eminent domain and giving people compensation for the loss of their lands. He
explained what they had done by permitting a "whore house" to continue another
minute, they had lowered values of everyone of those residential properties.
If the truth were told to perspective buyers relative to the money to be put
down and the price of the property, they would want to discount the sale to the
extent that there was such a business in the area, thus resulting in an unsaleable
commodity. His law practice, right next door, had suffered as well. He then
relayed an incident which took place where inadvertently a woman looking for
another business went into Nicoles and was frightened by what she discovered.
This women went to his business for assistance. He also had former clients
who refused to go to his office in the evening because of the situation.
In closing, Mr. Harris stated the business should not go any further and last
any longer than it had. It should be terminated forewith.
Dr. Howser, whose Dental Office was located at 601 South Harbor Boulevard, stated
that his acquaintance with the situation was that his staff objected to staying
in the evening occasionally when he needed them to do so unless he would accompany
them out to their car and stay with them until they left which was a considerable
inconvenience to him. Several of his patients had also made negative comments
including some that did not send their children to him any longer. It represented
a minor financial, emotional and social handicap. Businesses of the sort perhaps
had their place, but he did not believe that place was in a professional area
of a community.
Mr. Charles Patten, 614 South Pine Street, stated if they did check the Police
records, they would find that the Police had been there at night because he
had been awakened by them and the one gentleman was present today that they
took in. He (Patten) was born and raised in Anaheim and he did not think the
City needed that kind of business and they certainly did not need it in their
neighborhood. They had a good neighborhood and wanted to keep it that way.
80-1422
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The business was nothing but a eyesore to everybody and he emphasized they did
not need it.
Mr. Ray Murietta, 610 Pine (accompanied by his wife), stated it was obvious to
everybody what type of business was being carried on and indeed it was an eye-
sore and they resented it being there. They felt it was the Council's respon-
sibility as the leaders of the City to do something about it. It had become
a disturbance in their area. They were raising six daughter,s and their home
was located behind the business and felt now that it was totally unsafe. Late
at night they had heard screaming and cars streaking into the night. They had
seen the girls outside in their scimpy outfits as well as the literature, mag-
azines and advertisements that people threw out of their cars and into the
parking lot. His daughters had picked up the literature wherein the advertising
indicated there Was "discreet parking." They were really talking about his
backyard. He reiterated they resented the business being there and wanted the
Council to do something about it.
Mrs. Murietta stated she had actually seen children coming from school and walking
behind the house, curious as to what was going on inside. She contended they
knew what was going on because children were not ignorant. The whole area was
very concerned and upset, and she was very disturbed,
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked if Mr. Maffett,
the owner of Nicoles was present.
Councilman Overholt first had questions of Mr. Parkin. He explained that the
matter, set for a hearing last week, was continued because he (Parkin) was
deemed elsewhere. At the time, Mr. Maffett was ready ~ testify as to his
recollection of expenditures referred to in his (Parkin's) letter of September 23,
1980. Although Mr. Maffett stated he had personal knowledge of expenditures,
the records were in his lawyer's possession. He was also asked if he would
object to testifying under oath and said "no". Subsequently he was asked if
he would like to first check with his attorney and he said "yes". He now asked
Mr. Parkin if he had any objection to Mr. Maffett testifying under oath.
Mr. Parkin answered that he did not believe he did, but wanted Mr. Maffett to
again review his letter. He (Parkin) did not have personal knowledge of the
expenditures. Mr. Maffett then reviewed the letter and the figures appeared
to be correct as far as he was aware.
Councilman 0verholt asked Mr. Parkin if he was willing to have Mr. Maffett
testify to the details of the expenditures under oath; Mr. Parkin answered
certainly.
The City Clerk thereupon administered the oath that the testimony that Mr.
Maffett was about to give in the matter was true and correct to the best of
his knowledge and belief, and Mr. Maffett answered affirmatively.
In answer to Councilman Overholt, Mr. Maffett first stated that he had been in
business at the present location since January of 1979 and that he took out a
business license in December 1978.
80-1423
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt then stated that he had just read Mr. Parkin's September 23,
1980 letter stating that he (Maffett) was requesting relief for an extension of
the abatement by reason of undue hardship occasioned by the fact that he had
made expenditures for leasehold improvements in the sum of $5,500. He asked
Mr. Maffett what improvements he was referring to.
Mr. Maffett answered, refurbishing of the building. He did not have receipts
with him, but he could break those down; Mr. Parkin stated he did not have those
receipts either, but Mr. Maffett could explain what he did.
Councilman Overholt asked if he could give an approximate expenditure for the
item; Mr. Maffett answered, if item by item, he would not be able to.
Councilman Overholt noted that somehow the figure of $5,500 was developed. He
asked where that figure came from.
Mr. Maffett stated he was sure it was through receipts from the different improve-
ments made within the building December of 1978 and January of 1979.
Councilman Overholt also asked if it was correct that Mr. Maffett furnished Mr.
Parkin with the figures contained therein; Mr. Maffett answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt also noted in the letter, "my client states that substantial
sums of money have been expended for advertising ($30,543.78)..." he asked over
what period of time those figures had been expended and what type of advertising
they purchased.
Mr. Maffett answered that advertising was in various newpapers and magazines,
and it was an ongoing advertising program. Last month he spent in the vicinity
of $3,000 for advertising. He confirmed that he was spending $3,000 a month
for such advertising.
Councilman Overholt asked for confirmation that he had known since November of
1979 that the subject ordinance was to take effect on December 20, 1980; Mr.
Maffett answered that at sometime he became aware of a ordinance. He was not
sure he knew of it when they had hearings on the ordinance.
Councilman 9verholt asked how much of the advertising expenditure of $30,543.78
had ~he incurred since November of 1979.
Mr. Maffett answered, effectively all of it, and then he corrected that to
approximately one-half of it.
Councilman Overholt amked the nature of the leasehold improvements, other than
repairing and painting the outside structure, were there inside fixtures of
any sort.
Mr. Maffett answered, walls, carpeting and total revamping of the interior
occurred when he took possession of property.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if all the floors were carpeted; Mr. Maffett
answered, "yes" with the exception of the kitchen area.
80-1424
City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
She then asked if any of the neighbors had complained to him or spoken to him
about the activities taking place.
Mr. Maffett answered "no". When they first took possession of the building,
the insurance gentleman next door said something about their employees using
his parking lot and they stopped that.
Councilman Bay noted in the letter from Mr. Parkin it stated that he represented
Nicoles Dance Studio; Mr. Maffett confirmed that was correct.
Councilman Bay then reported that the current business license and the information
he had from staff was that the license was issued on December 27, 1978 for a
commercial photography studio and now he heard dance studio. He wanted to
know which was it, dance or photography.
Mr. Maffett stated that they were licensed for both and he believed he obtained
both licenses at the same time although they expired on different dates, one
on the fiscal year and one in December.
Councilman Bay then asked if his customers went into the kitchen; Mr. Maffett
answered "no".
Mayor Seymour recalled that when Councilman Overholt was questioning him (Maffett)
relative to the expenditure of advertising of $30,000 plus, he asked the period
of time in which those dollars were expended. He thought he heard Mr. Maffett
say that one-half of that sum, or roughly in excess of $15,000, was expended since
November of 1979. He wanted to know if that was a true statement.
Mr. Maffett stated he thought so. He had been opea for two years and that was
over a year ago. Thus, roughly one-half of that had been expended since then.
He spent in the vicinity of $3,000 last month. It was possible that the adver-
tising was a little heavier now than a year ago at this time.
Mayor Seymour felt that it was quite a bit heavier if in November of 1979 he
had only spent $]5,000 in that entire year, and in one month, he spent $3,000--
that was double.
Mr. Maffett he was not able to break it down now, but was just breaking it down
one-half the first year and one-half the second. However, he knew he was
spending more in the second year than in the first.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked what kind of dancing took place on carpeted
floors; Mr. Maffett answered they instructed ballroom dancing and not in the
nud~ a~ ~omaona had previously ~tatad. That wag illegal and they would have
been arrested.
Councilman Bay asked when his current lease expired; Mr. Maffett answered he
believed December of 1981.
Mr. Parkin, in his summation, commented on statements made those giving testimony.
Relative to the parking situation mentioned by Mr. Kilmer, it was unfortunate
that the matter was not brought to the attention of the operators of the business.
80-1425
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Maffett indicated that the insurance man had complained to him about the
parking problem and he resolved it at least with respect to that business. It
might be that even Mr. Kilmer was having problems with Nicoles customers park-
ing in the vicinity of his business. He knew that Nicoles had a paved parking
lot and perhaps an agreement could have been reached where Mr. Kilmer could
have had his employees park cars back in that lot, thus alleviating the park-
ing congestion around his place, freeing it up for more of his customers.
He then commented upon Mr. Harris' statements relative to the paintings he
found it the establishment. To his recollection when he had been there about
a month ago, there was only one painting in the lobby and although it was a
nude, it appeared to be quite a tasteful painting characterized as the type
a master would paint, as opposed to "Play Boy" type. Mr. Harris also indicated
he did not like the way the business was constructed in terms of the wood
panelling, the lighting, etc. He was certain the Council was aware that the
City had passed a number of ordinances regulating the way those businesses
must be constructed and he was sure that changes had been made to accommodate
the various ordinances as they had come along. With respect to the nude dance
instructors, they were aware of the existence of the figure model studio
ordinance in the City prohibiting any person from either exhibiting themselves
or dancing, or posing, etc. in the nude or even semi-nude. To say that those
people were dancing in the nude in flagrant violation of the ordinance was a
backhanded slap to the Police Department because, although they were busy with
other things, they had their eyes open on those businesses and if this was
occurring, arrests would have been made. The Police Department did not cite
any such arrests, and he assumed none had been made.
Relative to the advertising, which Mr. Harris indicated was not legitimate ad-
vertising, Mr. Maffett'had indicated that a large expenditure of his advertising
dollar was expended in the Santa Ana Register which was a fine newspaper and not
only a legitimate publication, but also one that many in the County could be proud
of. Relative to the walking of dogs, he was certain they all had that problem.
If a dog was defecating on someone else's property, it was inexcusable and should
be brought to the attention of the owner of the dog and the situation alleviated.
Dr. Howser indicated that his staff was reticent to walk around at night without
him accompanying them. He was not certain that was necessarily true because
it was near Nicoles Dance Studio or whether that was not true in many areas of
the City. He pointed out that apparently there had been no problem with out-
side individuals b~ing accosted in the area of Nicoles since it was right down
the street from the Police Department.
With respect to the neighbors, Messrs. Patten and Murietta, there were comments
regarding girls in scimpy outfits and he had discussed that already. There
was, in fact,.a paved parking lot available to Nicoles Studio, whether discreet
or not he did not know, but in any event, it was not in front of the business
and it would be an eyesore if it were.
The comments that the building was secured and persons could not see into it,
if there was something going on in the building, it would be pure conjecture.
Because of the tape-recordings, they had a good handle on what, if anything,
was going on in those rooms.
80-1426
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Parkin stated the matter reverted to the zoning aspect. It
was a zoning ordiaance enacted =o establish certain perimeters where certain
businesses could exist to conform with the City's General Plan. If there were
another location available in the City, particularly in the general area, he felt
certain that his clients would have already moved. The only reason for thm
delay was because there were no such areas. Un=il they could find such a
location or perhaps the zoning ordinance could be broadened to allow some
sort of zone that would accommodate those businesses, they were forced to
either try to stay where they were or close their business and lose their in-
vestment. They were not asking the Council to make any particular findings;
they were only asking that they consider that it was a matter involving a
zoning ordinance and that hJ.s client has attempted to comply, but by virtue of
the limited una¢cessible areas, there was no way, thus far they had been able
to do so. They were simply asking for more time which was not unreasonable to
try to remedy the situation.
Councilman Bay noted that Mr. Parkin had just now stated the only reason that
his client had not moved to another area was that there was not another place
available in the City of Anaheim; Mr. Parkin answered that was true.
Mr. Parkin then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that although he was guessing,
he believad that the parking lot to the rear of Nicoles would accommodate seven
or eight cars. The parking lot was adjacent to the business which was a converted
residence. It was not across the alley and adjacent to the homes. Across the
alley were the back fence or walls of the residents, then yards, and then the
houses facing a street to the west.
Mayor Seymour stated he could understand how they felt as businessmen and
particularly how the residents might feel, but on the other hand, what the
Council had to consider was whether or not there was an undue hardship. There-
by justifying an extension. He for one had not heard anything to lead him to
believe that undue hardship would exist and that an extension should be granted.
Relative to advertising expenditures, it was clear to him after hearing Mr.
Maffett, it was an ongoing expenditure and a cost of doing business, much the
same as one's rent or light bill. He did not know how one could possibly, and
he doubted if Mr. Maffett had, capitalize his advertising expenses into his
business. Rather, he probably wrote it off on a monthly basis as an ongoing
expense of doing business. Thus, he reiterated, he for one, had not heard any-
thing that would cause him to grant the extension because umdue hardship had
not been demonstrmted.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to deny the request for an extension
to the abatement period pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult
Entertainmemt in the case of Nicoles Dance Studio, since undue hardship had not
been demonstrated? Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated particularly when he just re-
questioned Mr. Parkin, he stated that the only reason his client had not
moved was because of a lack of finding another location in Anaheim. Therefore,
it only followed, the reason he was not moving had little or nothing to do
with the so called claim of $5,500 or $30,000 plus dollars investment. He
was not moving and, therefore, he did not see any basis for that loss.
80-~427
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that relative to the alleged leasehold improvements,
Mr. Maffett indicated those were improvements which were made at the time he
entered into occupancy of the premises either in December 1978 or Janaury 1979.
If the business justified a monthly advertising budget of $3,000, the $5,500
worth of leasehold improvements made in late 1978 or early 1979 paled into
insignificance. He agreed that undue hardship had not been established which
would otherwise form the basis for an extension.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the fact that the entire studio was carpeted and
then calling it a dance studio perhaps could be a matter of interpretation on
the permit and the business license.
A vote was then taken on the motion to deny. MOTION CARRIED.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Lungs for Life Week in Anaheim" - November 9 to 15, 1980
"Youth Appreciation Week in Anaheim" - November 9 to 15, 1980
Mr. Tim Geddes accepted the Lungs for Life proclamation and Mr. Dean Stock-well
and Mr. Estrada the Youth Appreciation Week proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to the National Association of Realtors on
the occasion of their Annual Convention to be held November 8 to 11, 1980, at
the Anaheim Convention Center.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unani-
mously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mrs. Mary Bonino Jones,
the Orange County Chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews
1980 Humanitarian Award Recipient, in sincere recognition for her many years of
outstanding contributions to the citizens of Anaheim and all of Orange County.
MINUTES: Councilman Roth moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held December 26, 1979 and August 5, 1980, subject to correction£ on August 5,
1980. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTON CARRIED.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the requests of the City Manager and the City
Attorney, Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Council-
man ~erholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:47 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:01 P.M.)
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay 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 Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1428
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS. AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $44,563,097.30, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
160: PURCHASE .ORDER FOR SEVEN USED 1979/80 VEHICLES: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue
a Purchase Order to National Car Sales in the amount of $40,666.90, for seven
used 1979/80 vehicles, as recommended in memorandum dated October 29, 1980 from
the Purchasing Agent Richard Jefferis. MO~ION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - METAL-CLAD.S~ITCHGEA.R EQUIPMENT FOR FAIRMONT SUB-
STATION - BID NO. 3695: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the low bid of Abbott Power Corporation was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $280,304.28, including tax as recommended by the Purchasing
Agent in his memorandum dated October 29, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE 3000 KVATHREE PHASE DISTRIBUTION CLASS TRANS-
FORMER - BID NO. 3707: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bsy,
the !ow bid of McGraw-Edison was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount
of $18,202.32, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated
October 29, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - DWYER STORM WATER PLOP STATION: Account No. 11-790-
6325-E0130. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-492 for adoption,
awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in h~s memorandum dated
October 29, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-492: A RESOLUTION OF THE CI~f COUNCIL OF T}~ 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 A~L UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: DWYER DRIVE STORM WATER PUMP STATION, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0130. (Alberta Pipeline Inc., $45,476)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL Mk~BERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-492 duly passed and adopted.
158/175: FAIRMONT SUBSTATION SITE DEVELOPMENT: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the request of Gloria Rowe, owner of
Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 79-284, was approved for surplus land from the
Fairmont Substation site in exchange for permission to City for construction of
a fill slope on said parcel; and directing the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary documents therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated October 27,
1980 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
123/173: AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF FULLERTON TO SHARE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
RAILROAD'GRADE CROSSING ON RAYMOND AVENUE (CROSSING NO. 2-166.69-C): On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, an agreement was autho-
rized with the City of Fullerton to share in the construction of a railroad
80-1429
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
grade crossing protection on Raymond Avenue at an estimated cost to the City
of $2,165.81, as recommended in memorandum dated October 23, 1980 from the
City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
158: PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT - CITY-OWNED SHORB WELL PROPERTY: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-493 for adoption, granting a public utility
easement to the Southern California Edison Company along a portion of City-owned
Shorb Well property located on the south side of Esperanza Road, 2.5 miles east
of Imperial Highway, subject to Payment of $100 processing fee, and authorizing
execution of an easement deed therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated
October 17, 1980 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-493: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A GRANT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY ON CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
ESPERANZA ROAD AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN EASEMENT
DEED THEREOF.
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-493 duly passed and adopted.
158: DEDICATION OF ROADWAY - SCOUT TRAIL FOR PUBLIC USE THROUGH A PORTION OF
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-494 for adoption,
dedicating a roadway to be known as Scout Trail for street and public utility
purposes on City-owned property located on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road,
east of Imperial Highway, as recommended in memorandum dated October 28, 1980
from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-494: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR
STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaym~ood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-494 duly passed and adopted.
153: DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION FOR JOSEPH L. TAMMARO: City Manager
William Talley briefed the Council on report dated October 22, 1980 from the
Safety Employees Disability Retirement Committee recommending that the
Council grant an industrial disability retirement to the applicant, Joseph L.
Tammaro, to be effective November 5, 1980. In accordance with Council policy,
he had reviewed all documentation and did endorse the recommendation of the
, Committee.
80-1430
City Hall, Anaheim, C.alifornia - COUN. CIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-495 for adoption, granting the subject
disability retirement application. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-495: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT JOSEPH L. TAMMARO IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE
POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER, MASTER ADVANCED.
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-495 duly passed and adopted.
153: EFFECTIVE DATE OF RESOLUTION COVERING WAGES~ HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS:
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-496 for adoption, expressing intent
that resolutions covering employee wages, hours and conditions of employment
adopted prior to December 4, 1980 shall be effective October 10, 1980, as
recommended in memorandum dated October 29, 1980 from the Human Resources
Director, Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-496: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
PERTAINING TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
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-496 duly passed and adopted.
153: COMPENSATORY TIME, POLICE OFFICERS AND SERGEANTS - RATES OF COMPENSATION
FOR JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION AND ESTABLISHING
TWO NEW CLASSIFICATIONS: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-497 and
80R-498 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-497: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMEDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-801, PERSONNEL RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY, TO PROVIDE FOR
ACCUMULATION OF UP TO EIGHTY HOURS OF COMPENSATORY TIME BY POLICE OFFICERS AND
SERGEANTS.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-498: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM
POLICE ASSOCIATION, ESTABLISHING TWO NEW CLASSIFICATIONS, AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-798, 77R,799, and 77R-840.
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 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-497 and 80R-498 duly passed and adopted.
107: STATUS REPORT ON LINCOLN/BEACH MOBILE MANOR: Determining if there is a need
for relocation of the Lincoln Beach Mobile Manor Mobilehome Park; considering
alternative sites available for potential mobilehome park relocation; and
directing staff to pursue the most appropriate course of action.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, briefed the Council on his three-page
report dated October 28, 1980 relative to the subject (on file in the City
Clerk's office). He stated the bottom line, without some type of redevelop-
ment project, a federal grant, or rent subsidy, would be very difficult
to pencil out a contemporary mobile home park development on any of the other
alternate sites based on their market value. What they received from Congressman
Patterson's office with respect to utilizing HUD funding was not promising; how-
ever, they were working with the owner of the park to find out the more specific
demographics with respect to income of the people residing in the park, etc., and
anticipated receiving that information shortly, perhaps within a week. The
owner was in the audience today, along with a representative from the Gfeller
Development Company who had the park in escrow. The owner was willing to work
with the City toward a solution to the environmental problems associated with
the park.
Councilman Bay asked if Trident Junior High School was now closed; Mr. Thompson
stated he did not know if it was in use currently, but he had not been able to
verify that although he knew after having met with a committee of the School
District that it was going to be declared surplus property. He also confirmed
for Councilwoman Kaywood that the size of the park was approximately 14 acres
and contained 125 mobile homes.
Mayor Seymour stated he would like to hear from the developer and the park owner.
Mrs. Roselle Sommer, one of the general partners of the Lincoln/Beach Mobile home
Manor, stated she was present to answer any questions. Also, if there was any
doubt, they were rapidly approaching the point where they could no longer main-
tain the park and something would have to be done. Thus far, they had done
everything they could to maintain the park, but there was a point beyond which
they had no control. They needed the Council's help to find another site to
make it available for those tenants who wished to be relocated.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Council may be willing to help, but he was
interested in knowing what help she was willing to offer, what help the
developer was willing to offer, and what economic assistance was she willing
to render to her tenants.
Mrs. Sommer stated that she had spoken to some construction people and engineers
who were familiar with mobilehome parks. They told them it would be possible
if the property under consideration could be called a redevelopment area and
in that way, there would be government funds. They were prepared to use all
80-14 $2
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
the funds at their disposal; however, to have to pay $200,000 an acre which
would accommodate approximately 10 mobile home sites, the land value before
they touched it represented $20,000 a coach. They were willing to use all
the money that they received from the sale of the park and were willing to
add other funds, but there was a point where they did not want to be in a
negative cash flow position, and they were not looking to make any money out
of it more than a normal return.
Mayor Seymour stated he appreciated her attitude, it was a positive one and the
Council was willing to help, but somewhere along the line soon, they were going
to have to tell the Council just what they were willing to do. They needed to
be more specific.
Mrs. Sommers added they would be glad to work with Planning and come back to
the Council when they had an idea of what site was available and what the costs
would be, and they would then spend more time and money than they had. They
did not want to go on until they knew what would be available, what could
be done with government funds and how much they would then need of their own
funds. At the present time, without any help from the government, just to
construct a normal building, it would cost them between the cost of putting
the pads in and the cost of the land, approximately $30,000 a space. With the
money market at the present time, considering a loan at 15 or 16%, they would
have to get between $250 and $275 a space just to amortize the loan and pay
taxes and insurance.
Mayor Seymour then asked in the event that they chose not to, or were not required
to or did not care to be part of the development of a new park, and assuming their
plan would be to conclude the escrow with Gfeller Development Company and the
developers plan was to build condominiums, what would they be willing to do
financially relative to relocation of the Parks' tenants.
Mrs. Sommers stated she did not understand the question. She asked where would
she help relocate the tenants if they did not have another park to take them
tO.
The Mayor stated the Council was going to be faced with a decision soon to
approve the creation of a condominium project on the present mobile home site,
the question she was going to be asked in those hearings--what economic assis-
tance were they willing to offer to relocate their tenants. He, for one, would
not approve a condominium project or any other development on that land unless
he felt the tenants were getting a fair shake.
Mrs. Sommers again reiterated, without having another site to take them to,
she did not know what other assistance she could give them.
The Mayor emphasized that some way or another they had a responsibility in this
case. If proper and appropriate, they would seek government assistance, but the
fact that they would do so would not relieve the owners of their responsibilities.
He was interested in knowing what they were going to be.
Mrs. Sommers stated she would try if she had another site to move the tenants
to, to work in the funding so that they could move the coaches for those tenants.
Barring that, she did not know what else she could say.
80-1433
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked for clarification if she was saying, at a minimum, if they
had some other place to go, she would pay to relocate them.
Mrs. Sommers answered if they could work it in the funding, yes. They would
have to be able to work it out with the government. They would also have all
they could do to raise the money to accomplish the development.
Mayor Seymour then stated what she was saying was "no"--she was not interested
in paying to relocate the tenants unless the government was willing to come up
with the money..
Mrs. Sommers stated she did not think she said that. Considering what the park
cost them, they would try to cover that. If they were not involved in another
development, she did not know what else they could do.
Mayor Seymour asked if they were not involved in another development, would
they be willing to pay to relocate the tenants to another site.
Mrs. Sommers answered, not unless she had the funds to do so. She believed it
would cost as much to move them as it would cost to develop a new park. They
were willing to expend a lot of their own funds also, but there was a point at
which they could not do it. She questioned the fact that they could go bank-
rupt trying to bring it into effect.
Mayor Seymour suggested that they wrestle with those questions because prior
to any new zoning, he wanted to have the answers.
Mr. Bob Reese, Vice-President of Gfeller Development, stated he felt it was
Gafeller's involvement and responsibility in the project to move the current
residents as part of their development plan which they would ultimately bring
to the City. If they could solve some of the infrastructure problems they
were working on presently in that development scheme, they would be the
ones providing for the moving of the tenants. They had from the beginning
felt that aspect fell into their category. Whether they could work with Mrs.
Sommers and her group in getting some help, that was a problem for them to
work out and not a problem for the City Council. They were the developer that
was trying to bring the project to the City, and it was their problem. It was
up to them to carry the ball for the most part. They were definitely in need
of the City's help in possibly securing some government funding if that was how
it would end up. There were things they could come to the City with later that
would be more specific. First, there were technical problems they would like
to be able to handle before walking into the Planning Department to say what
they were going to do.
First and foremost was the issue broached by Mr. Thompson--alternative sites.
Apparently a number of sites had been identified, and they had to meet with
Mrs. Sommers because she had shown an interest. As the Mayor indicated, there
were possibly other mobile home managers who might want to get into the picture
as well, and Mrs. Sommers' group might not be firm. Gfeller was not interested
in running a park, but they would do everything possible to get the tenants to
a new site and they appreciated the City's speedy help in locating some sites.
He felt that was where the Council's biggest strength was going to ride--helping
them to secure a site such as one of the abandoned school sites. They were
80-14:54
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
looking for that kind of support and also relative to ordinances, they were
going to be stretching some things. The trash removal figures which they
recently received were nothing short of staggering which led them to some
very significant densities and what had led them to the problems they were
having at present, those being sewer, water, circulation, traffic, fire, etc.--
all the normal things that seemed to accompany higher densities.
Councilman Roth interjected and s=ated as Mr. Reese was perhaps aware, in recent
months, problems of excavating existing dump sites and transferring the material
to another site had become very serious. The government had become involved
and he had no doubt that issue was going to be one of the more serious problems
to be faced. He further doubted whether Gafeller was going to be able to excavate
and transfer even with the support of the Council. He liked Mr. Reese's discussion
about assisting people in relocating. He felt, however, that they had to talk
about a new park because there was no such thing in the area as relocating mobile
homes. The last point was relative to Federal funds. He wanted to know where
they were going to get such funds.
Mr. Reese answered that the situation had not progressed to that point as yet
because so many facts were missing. Relative to the trash, fortunately the
site was a trash dump and he would guess that they probably would not run into
too many difficulties. At least it was not a former chemical dump site. They
were also doing further exploration on the spillover problem next door.
The Mayor stated that Mr. Reese indicated to him at the meeting at the mobile
home park and also to the tenants that they were in the process of trying to
identify sites themselves. He asked if he had any report of progress on that.
Mr. Reese answered the only ones they had come up with, and were presently starting
to talk to, were landowners on the border of Anaheim. They were actually in
Placentia. They had identified a large enough site that could handle the park,
costing in the area of approximately $190,000 an acre. The price of the land
did not scare him a great deal until he would have an opportunity to see all
the numbers. Once he did, he could try to figure out a program and he could
then go to some government agency for help. They would either say yes or no,
and subsequentl.y they could proceed from there.
Councilman Bay stated he understood that escrow opened in April. He wanted to
know when it closed.
Mr. Reese answered in March of 1981, but the way it had to be looked at was
through an extension that would have to be worked out with Mrs. Sommers' group.
They would stick with it until they could see a way to solve the problems.
Gfeller was known for tough projects.
Councilman Bay encouraged him to go right on working at it because he did not
know how the problem could be solved without the private sector being wholly
involved in it.
Further discussion then followed between Mr. Reese, Councilman Roth and Council-
woman Kaywood revolving around the problem of excavation of dump sites and the
procedures that had to be followed etc. At the conclusion of which, the Mayor
stated they should direct staff to continue to evaluate which of the alternate
sites might be the most appropriate. In addition, they should identify property
80-14.~5
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
owners within the City limits who may own a piece of property that might fall
in the industrial, commercial or residential category already committed for
development. They could then offer those property owners who might own a piece
of property suitable for mobile home parks an exchange of their property for
one of the school sites which staff seemed to be saying was more amenable to
traditional single-family attached or condominium developments. Those property
owners might prefer to exchange their property for the ability to develop res-
idential other than mobile homes on a school site. That might provide another
alternative. He also encouraged Mr. Priest's department to. take a look at
Section 8 to see what they could block out and hold available for those tenants.
Mr. Thompson indicated the demographics were being developed and he should have
them within a week as to incomes of the Park's tenants. Therefore, they would
be able to find out quickly how many people residing in the park would be
eligible under Section 8. One thing was clear to him, to the tenants, Mrs.
Sommer and Mr.. Reese, wherever a new-park was developed, the rants were going
to be higher than what they were in the current park. They were going to have
to find some program to mitigate or surpress those rent increases. He offered
those two concepts in addition to what staff had already considered.
Mr. Thompson stated they were primarily interested in bringing the Council up
to date on the situation. The school site seemed to offer the most opportunity
of all of the vacant sites they investigated although they presented some for-
midable challenges. He felt the Council should be aware that the opportunities
were somewhat limited in Anaheim and also to bring them up to date as to what
was available based on the Ultrasystems year old report of land use surveys and
scouring not only the City limits, but also the City's sphere of influence.
The Mayor asked if the parameters included the elimination of industrial and
commercial sites.
Mr. Thompson answered "yes". Generally the sites they investigated in the
industrial areas were probably every bit as expensive as the school sites.
They also did not provide the type of living or amenities that most people
developing a contemporary mobile home park would require.
Mayor Seymour asked if there was anthing agains~ the law if they were to
exchange the right to develop a school site into housing--single-family de-
tached on condominiums, for a piece of property outside Anaheim.
Mr. Thompson answered he did not believe it would be against the law, but it
would be a very complex agreement to put together.
The Mayor stated that although he appreciated what staff had done, they had not
broached the imaginative or creative things that must be done in order to
answer the problem. He was suggesting that they throw away the parameters and
go at it and then see what they could do to put it all together. He, for one,
for example, could support a mobile home park adjacent to the one at Cerritos
and Sunkist. The Chamber was going to be in opposing it, but he felt this was
such an important priority and such a social responsibility, it was going to
take something creative, dramatic and imaginative in order to pull it together.
He did not think just looking at the City's current inventory was going to be
enough.
80-1436
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Thompson stated they did look at that site because it was on the fringes.
He was his opinion in checking with Coldwell-Banker that the property was not
available.
The Mayor reiterated he was merely saying there was a lot more that could be
done even if they had to send out a mailing to every property owner ~n the City
with property in excess of 10 acres or more. He asked about the property at
the east end of the Canyon that was somewhat hilly--the Shorb-Wells property.
Mr. Thompson stated that was investigated. Much of the property was in the
flat plane and much of it had considerable access problems because of the
topography. From a monetary standpoint, it presented about the same challenges
as excavating and redoing the dump and further, a park would be fragmented.
Mayor Seymour then asked if it made sense to take the Shorb-Wells property and
send out a mailer to all known mobile home park developers asking them what they
could or would do with the property financially if it were made available for
a mobile home park.
Mr. Thompson stated they would be happy to do that. Subsequently, in answer to
the Mayor's question if he (Thompson) felt it would be a waste of time and
energy, he stated he felt personally that it would be. It was much like the
Trident Junior High School site. He anticipated on that 24-acre site that about
10 acres of housing could be developed with a 14-acre mobile home park, and it
could be done in such a manner so as to blend very well into the community with
a density that would not add additional impact and traffic on that neighborhood.
Politically and realistically, however, he was not so sure that anyone could
convince the people living in that particular area that that would be viable.
They had tried to do that with every parcel larger than six acres in Anaheim
and in the City's sphere of influence. It did not mean that they had not
missed something, and he would be happy to go back over it.
The Mayor reiterated, he would suggest a process of trying to identify who those
property owners were that might have a site suitable for mobile home development,
not only inside the City, but also in surrounding areas in close proximity, asking
them if they might have an interest in an exchange for some development rights
on a piece of property much closer to downtown.
The Mayor asked if a motion was necessary.
City Manager Talley stated they wanted to bring the Council up to date and staff
had now received more instruction. The Mayor was saying that they should exercise
the maximum creativity, flexibility and imagination possible and to continue to
work on the problem, recognizing that it had to be resolved primarily by the
property owner with the assistance of the local government in so far as possible
and appropriate.
Councilwoman Kaywood. asked, whether a matter of exchanging or chosing a site,
there would be no change in the zoning-without having a public hearing; the
Mayor answered absolutely. She continued that she had received some frantic
calls already and wanted to be sure that was known on the record.
80-1437
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, the Mayor asked how they were going to communicate to the park
tenants what they had accomplished thus far. Could they send a letter to let
them know what transpired today.
Mr. Thompson stated they already knew they were moving along because they had
been working with Mrs. Sommer and her manager to get the demographic information.
They were well aware that the City was very sympathetic, concerned an attempting
to do something.
173: AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL DUAL FUEL SYSTEMS ON 100 CITY VEHICLES: City
Manager Talley briefed the Council on report dated October 27, 1980 from Deputy
City Manager James Ruth, Chairman of the Fuel and Energy Conservation Committee,
recommending the installation of dual fuel systems for 100 City vehicles at a
cost of $194,437.69, in accordance with the proposal submitted by Dual Fuel
Systems, Inc. He then clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay on the
matter.
Councilman Bay then stated when they decided to go to Santa Clara to buy some
equipment, he believed they had a plan where they were going to have an agree-
ment with Yellow Cab Company to use their fill stations.
Mr. Talley explained if they could not get the compressors, they were going to
work on that.
Councilman Bay then asked how long a time the automobiles were usable where the
systems were going to be installed; Mr. Talley stated somewhere between seven
and ten years would be a maximum although Mr. Merriam was in the audience and
could speak to that. However, the tanks were good for 30 years according to
Dual Fuel, and they could then refurbish the conversion kit and put them on the
next unit.
Councilman Bay stated what he was trying to get to if they established a program
and 100 of the City's newest automobiles, what the estimated time would be before
they had to pay again 'for the labor which was a considerable part of the 194,000
plus dollars.
Mr. A1 Merriam, Mechancial Maintenance Superintendent,.stated they were talking
about seven years on automobiles and on pick-up trucks and street sweepers,
about ten years. In the future, they would probably change the units themselves,
but they could not handle 100 units at the moment. In order to pick up the
cost savings immediately, they should have a contract with Dual Fuel.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
the installation of Dual Fuel Systems for 100 City vehicles was authorized at
a cost of $194,437.69, as submitted by Dual Fuel Systems, Inc., and authorizing
the Finance Director to solicit financing proposals for same, as recommended in
the subject report. MOTION CARRIED.
129/106: AWARD OF CONTRACT - FIRE STATION NO. 8: Account Nos. 24-914-7107 and
47-914-7107. Councilman Overholt moved to transfer $240,008 from the Sewer
Fund to Fund 24 (General Revenue Sharing) for Fire Station No. 8, as discussed
and recommended in report dated November 4, 1980 from the City Engineer. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1438
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-499 for adoption, awarding a contract
as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-499: 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 ANDTRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: FIRE STATION NO. 8, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
24-914-7107 & 47-914-7107. (Magnus Company, $473,820.00)
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-499 duly passed and adopted.
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. LUCILLE S. DALGLEISH: On motion by Councilman Overholt,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney was granted the authority
to settle the City's claim, City of Anaheim vs. Lucille L. Dalgleish, Case No.
32-54-01, in an amount not less than $4,000, plus a credit against any sums
received by Wevrick in the personal injury action. MOTION CARRIED.
103: PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY: Discussion relating
to a property tax exchange agreement with County for property annexed to City
between January 2, 1978 and July 24, 1979 (continued from meetings of April 8
and 29, May 27, July 8, August 12, September 16 and October 24, 1980).
City Manager Talley stated he was advised by staff that last week the Orange
County Board of Supervisors approved the agreement. It now must be approved
by the City Council, but staff was just.in the process of analyzing it and in
approximately four weeks, they could provide a full report. Basically, the
agreement between the City Negotiating Committee and the County had been
agreed to and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. What they discussed over
a year ago in general substance actually came to fruition, and they did not
believe there was any significant cost to the City as a result. The matter
was no longer pending.
The Council concurred that they could wait for the report in four weeks.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - VILLAGE BATH AND LEISURE SPA:
Request by Michael Kirschbaum, Attorney, on behalf of Village Bath and Leisure
Spa, 1829 West Katella Avenue, for an extension of the abatement period pursuant
to Code Section 18.89~040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted.
Mr. Michael Kirschbaum, Attorney, 611 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana,
stated that he had read the staff report and had no disagreement with it.
He referred to his letter dated September 24, 1980 to the Council and rather
than reiterate all the facts contained therein, he merely wanted to emphasize
that his clients purchased the business five months prior to the passage of
Ordinance No. 4079. Had they known, they would not have invested in the
business. They borrowed a great deal of money to purchase the business and
then proceeded to improve it. Contrary to some of the other establishments,
80-1439
Citx Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
his clients ran a legitimate place of business and attempted to add things to
it to be attractive to members of all sectors of the public. They had gym
equipment and a jacuzzi. They offered massages, but it was a health spa and not
a massage parlor and they objected to that term. He was not going to argue the
law because that had been done between him, the City Attorney and Deputy City
Attorney Jack White. He would be happy to answer any questions.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Kirschbaum if he had personal knowledge of the
expenditures; Mr. Kirschbaum answered not personal, but the figures were pre-
sented to him by his clients.
Councilman Overholt also asked if his cleint was present and willing to testify
under oath as to the expenses; Mr. Kirschbaum stated that Miss Hanson was present
and to the best of her knowledge she would be willing to testify under oath.
Councilman Overholt then asked when the existing lease expired.
Mr. Kirschbaum answered that there were about two years left to run on the lease,
the exact date being December 20, 1982 or thereabouts.
Miss Margaret Hanson, stated that their option would be up in two years as of
October 1982 although she did not know the exact date.
Councilman Overholt stated her attorney indicated that she would have no object-
tion to testifying under oath as to the expenses. He wanted to know if that was
correct; Miss Hanson answered that was correct. She also confirmed that she
lived at 12232 Covette, Garden Grove.
The City Clerk thereupon administered the oath that the testimony Miss Hanson
was about to give in the matter was true to the best of her knowledge and
belief; Miss Hanson answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Kirschbaum in his letter stated that the
purchase price of the business was $87,200 and that a loan was taken out to
put a down payment on it of $60,000. He asked Miss Hanson if that was true
and correct and also that there was currently a balance due of $28,028.49 paid
to the previous owners in monthly installments of $1,200, including interest,
and a monthly payment on the loan for the down payment of $308.
Miss Hanson first answered "yes" and then explained that the $308 was for the
payment of the loan and the $1,200 went to the previous owners; Councilman
Overholt stated that was his interpretation of Mr. Kirschbaum's letter.
Councilman Overholt also noted that the letter stated that she paid monthly
rent of $609 on the lease she referred to, expiring in October of 1982, and that
a jacuzzi was purchased for the business with a balance of $1,028.96 still
owed, on which they were paying $164 per month and that several thousand
dollars had been spent on gym and exercise equipment and other miscellaneous
items, repairs and improvements. He asked if all of that was true and correct.
Miss Hanson answered "yes"
80-1440
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Kirschbaum asked to correct one statement. At the time he wrote the letter,
he was informed that the rent was, in fact, the amount he had indicated, but he
was further informed that as of October, they had received an increase as they
exercised thair option to renew.
Miss Hanson confirmed that they did exercise their option to renew their lease
for another two years at a higher rate involving some adjustment for the consumer
plice index.
Councilman Roth asked the hours of operation.
Miss Hanson stated, 9:30 a.m. to 12 midnight. They would be open later if they
could, but they had to close at midnight, and that was seven days a week.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if their clientele included women as well as men; Miss
Hanson stated not at this time because they did not have separate facilities and
were not allowed to take women with the men.
Councilman Overholt asked if the lease had a further option for extension; Miss
Hanson answered "yes". She could not remember if they had another two years,
plus five, but she definitely knew they had another five-year option after the
two-year option and possibly another two before the five.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to approve the request submitted
on behalf of Village Bath and Leisure Spa, 1829 West Katella Avenue, for an
extension of the abatement period, pursuant t~ Code Section 18.89.040 relating
to Adult Entertainment, for a period of two years, from December 20, 1980 to
December 30, 1982 to prevent undue hardship. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated this was a case in which
it was shown graphically if they were to deny the request, the owners would
literally lose thousands of dollars in the purchase price of the business.
It was obvious they had a lease which would give them the legal right by way
of option to extend through the entire two-year period. At first he was
thinking of moving to October of 1982, but since they had the legal right to
extend their lease for the balance of that period to December 20, 1982, he was
inclined to go for that two-year period. They had shown a substantial invest-
'ment and shown that they would incur a substantial loss if the business were
to be closed at that location on December 20, 1980. He felt this was the kind
of undue hardship that the ordinance spoke to, petitioning for relief from the
Council.
Councilman Bay noted when they considered the Anaheim Health Spa, they added
a clause to the motion which he quoted. "Moreover should the Anaheim Health
Spa violate any ordinance and/or law, the extension of abatement granted the
Spa will terminate upon notice and hearing." He asked Councilman Overholt if
it was also his intent to add that to the present motion.
Councilman Overholt stated his recollection was that the Anaheim Health Spa
stipulated to that additional condition and he would ask Mr. Kirschbaum if
he understood that condition and, if so, would he stipulate that he had no
objection to the inclusion of such a restriction.
80-1441
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30- tM.
Mr. Kirschbaum stated he would stipulate to that within reason. He was familiar
with Ordinance 4079 of the AMC which was quite extensive in its regulation. He
would advise his clients to stipulate along with that, the statement as long as
any violation did not violate the intent of the ordinance such as the morality
aspect of it. They had no problem with that because it was a lcgitimate es-
tablishment, but he would ho~e that the City Council would not take advantage
of some minor techpicaiity which could at sometime remove the abatement.
Councilman Overholt stated h~s recollection was that, in essence, that was the
spirit in which the condition' was added to the previous motion on the Anaheim
Hemlth Spa and that was Councilm~n Bay's intent; Councilman Bay stated that was
his intent.
Councilman Overholt thereupon included the additional stipulation in the motion;
Councilman Roth was agreeable in his second.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended. Councilman Bay voted
"no". MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABAT~4ENT PERIOD - ROMAN SPA: Request by Roger
Diamond, Attorney, on behalf of the Roman Spa, 130 North Brookhurst Avenue, for
an extension of the abatement period pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating
te Adult Entertainment, was submitted.
Mr. Roger Diamond, Attorney, 15415 Sunset Boulmvard, Pacific Palisades, stated
his client, Mrs. Marie Cooper, was seeking an extension of the abatement period
of two years under the provision of the AMC. He did submit a letter on October 10,
1980, and Mrs. Cooper was present to be sworn. Although he did not wish to repeat
the statements in h~s letter, he wanted to add that he had reviewed the records
of the Planning Commission and City Building Department regarding the subject
piece of property. His investigation indicated that in 1974, Anaheim wanted
additional land from the property owner which at that time was owned by Mr. and
Mrs. Cooper. They had since then divorced. Brookhurst Avenue was to be widened
and about the same time, the Cooper's wanted to install tremendous improvements
to the property, such as a ~jacuzzi, showers, all kinds of facilities to greatly
improve business. The City required as a condition of approving the various
building permits for the substantial improvements, 60 feet of property from
the Coopers which they did dedicate for the process of widening Brookhurst.
It seemed to him, in addition to the other arguments made in his letter, that
the City would have a moral commitment now to permit Mrs. Cooper to extend the
present use of the property for another two years, until December 1982. If the
City had not extracted the concession from the Cooper's, they would have had to
pay them just compensation for the taking of their property. The Building
Division had a number of building permits to confirm his representation to
the Council. He noted that the Chief of Police had also recommended that the
two-year extension be granted. Mr. Diamond then expanded upon the amenities
of the business. Mrs. Cooper needed the business as a source of income and
since she owned the building, there was no lease involved. Mrs. Cooper was
present to answer any questions.
The C~ty Clerk thereupon administered the oath to Mrs. Cooper that the testimony
she was about to give in the matter was true to the best of her knowledge and
belief; Mrs. Cooper answered affirmatively.
80-1442
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mrs. Cooper her hours of operation.
Mrs. Cooper answered daily from 9:30 a.m. to 12 midnight and on Sundays from
2:00 p.m. to 12 midnight. Their customers were both men and women. They had
a separate facility and had a sliding door that was closed for privacy.
Councilman Roth noted that in staff report dated October 30, 1980 from the
Assistant Director for Zoning, that a number of building permits were issued
to the business in 1974., totalling $171 in pe.rmit fees, with a total valuation
of $12,550 which must have represented a substantial 'refurbishing.
Mrs. Cooper answered that the building was almost gutted inside and then redone,
as well as the installation of central air conditioning.
Councilman Roth asked, in addition to the $12,550, could she elaborate on an
additional value added to the business since 1974.
Mrs. Cooper stated that since that time she had added a lot of improvements.
Mr. Diamond interjected and stated that Mrs. Cooper was at a slight disadvantage
because her husband was involved in the management of the business and they
were divorced in 1978. Thus, a lot of the business decisions were made by him.
A lot of the investments were also made by her husband in the earlier stages.
Councilman Roth stated it was imperative that they breakdown the total amount
of improvements that had been made so that they could arrive at a dollar amount.
He reiterated it was necessary to know the additional dollar value expended on
improvements to the business since 1974.
Mrs. Cooper stated that at present she had to pay a $17,250 commitment to her
ex-husband for the building at $450 a month~
After a further explanatizn by Mr. Diamond regarding the background of the business,
Councilman Roth emphasized that it was necessary that they know the dollar amount
expended for improvements.
Mayor Seymour asked if they would like another week in order to develop the
necessary information; Mr. Diamond stated it was a hardship for them to come
to another meeting.
The Mayor emphasized that this was no light matter. The ordinance clearly stated
that they needed evidence of undue hardship. If they could not take the time to
look into their books and income tax returns to develop a specific list of improve-
ments, he did not know how they could come to the Council with a case of undue
hardship. They needed more hard evidence than developed. He again asked if
Mr. Diamond wanted a week to get that evidence or not. He asked why he could
not furnish bills and tax returns.
Mrs. Cooper asked if she could have her bookkeeper set something up; Mayor
Seymour stated that would be acceptable and that was all they wanted.
Mrs. Cooper stated she would ask her bookkeeper to do so.
80-144S
City .Hall, Aqa. he'.zm,' California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Diamond then proceeded to attempt to review the Council's prior actions
with respect to other such businesses whereupon Councilman Overholt interrupted
and pointed out that they were present at all those hearings. The Council had
a procedure that was being followed in these particular cases and they were
asking his client to do the same. They needed specifics and he had failed to
provide specifics. They were asking that he consider a one-week continuance
so that he could provide those specifics.
Further discussion followed wherein Mr. Diamond asked again for clarification
relative to the specifics they were looking for. He then stated it was a
tremendous burden for them to attend the meeting and they had to wait a con-
siderable period of time today. He suggested that they submit a sworn affi-
davit with the records attached thereto. The Council could then examine that
documentation and if they had additional questions, they could request that
they come back. He wanted to know if that was fair.
Councilman Overholt stated it was fair, but suggested to Mr. Diamond that he
take the time to appear personally.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that they hear the matter promptly at 1:30 p.m.
at the next meeting.
Additional discussion followed between Mr. Diamond and Mrs. Cooper, since there
was some confusion as to whether or not they had the figures being requested.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved thg. t they trail the matter to give Mr. Diamond
and his client an opportunity to discuss the situation to determine if they
could provide the specifics today; otherwise, there would be no alternative
but to continue the matter until they could provide that information. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Diamond requested that the matter be continued for
two weeks.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the extension of
the abatement period to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment
for the Roman Spa until November 18, 1980, at 1:30 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt further suggested it might be
well to include amongst the other information needed so_m. ething about the
impact of the dissolution of the marriage, Mrs. Cooper's responsibility and
why she needed to continue to pay off those responsibilities~ If he (Diamond)
could write the letter, she could say that was true and correct.
'A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Bay, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted
by Edison High School te discharge fireworks on November 7, 1980, at 8:30 p.m.,
at Anaheim Stadium, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1444
Citz Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
142/179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - ADDING NEW SECTION 18.86.050 - CONDITIONAL
USE AND STRUCTURES IN THE PUBLIC RECREATION ZONE - ORDINANCE NO. 4187: Miss
Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, briefed the Council on staff report
to the Planning Commission dated November 3, 1980, recommending that the Plan-
ning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the subject proposed
ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4187 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4187: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 18.86.050
TO CHAPTER 18.86, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
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 z The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator or claim allowed:
a. Claim submitted by Donald Craig Wiginton for personal injury and vehicular
damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving a train at the
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks on Loara Street north of Lincoln Avenue caused
by improper designatioa, lighting and markings of the crossing, on or about
August 17, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Rhonda Annette Harper for personal injury damages sustained
purportedly as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, field level
concourse, on or about September 11, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Suzanne Johnston for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of problem caused by water standing for a long period ,
necessitating cleaning of carpet, on or about October 10, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Margaret R. Morrone for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of fall in Anaheim Stadium parking lot caused by hole in
asphalt, on or about August 3, 1980.
e. Claim submitted by John A. Machernis, Jr., for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of Anaheim Police towing away claimant's motorcycle, on or about
October 19, 1980.
The following claims were allowed:
f. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance Company (Paul Marquez, insured)
for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving
a City Emergency Vehicle, Unit No. 2-26838, on or about July 15, 1980.
g. Claim submitted by William J. Handley for damages to vehicle paint purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of transformer maintenance activities at Euclid
and Westmont, on or about September 22, 1980.
80-1445
Cit~ Hall~ Anahe'.ua, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
h. Claim submitted by Susan Hamilton for damages to vehicle purportedly sus-
tained as a result of liquid from utility facilities spilling on claimant's
vehicle in the vicinity of the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Westmont
Avenue, on or about September 22, 1980.
i. Claim submitted by Phillip White for damages to vehicle purportedly sustained
as a result of liquid coolant from a damaged city transformer sprayed all over
automobile on or about September 22, 1980.
j. Claim submitted by Robin Freeman for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of City vehicle backing into claimant's vehicle in the United States
Bank parking lot, 423 West Broadway, Anaheim, on or about June 13, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of October 21, 1980.
b. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of September 11, 1980.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of October 2 and 16 (unapproved), 1980.
d. 105: Senior Citizen Commission--Minutes of September 8, 1980.
e. 173: Orange Coast Sightseeing Company--Notice of Application for Fare
Adjustment.
f. 173: Airport Service, Incorporated--Notice of Application for Fare
Adjustment.
3. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommen-
dation of the Chief of Police, an Amusement Devices Permit Application was approved
for Angelo'S Hamburgers, 511 South State College Boulevard, for one electronic
amusement device machine. (Gabriel Glazer, applicant)
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the agenda item referred to Angelo's Hamburgers
but that name did not appear on their application at all.
City Clerk Roberts stated they were contacted because the name was missing on
the permit itself, and the applicant advised the name of the business.
Councilwoman K~ywood wanted to be certain that the name would be added to the
application; the City Clerk stated she would clarify the matter.
4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11256: Application submitted by Edward A. and
Cheryl L. Padilla, to construct a l-lot, 22-unit affordable condominium sub-
division on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at 115-129 West South Street.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11256, and approved
a negative declaration status.
MOTION CARRIED.
80-1446
City H.a.l!,' .An. aheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
169; BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 4 - STREET IMPROVEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 80R-500 for adoption, as recommended by the Executive
Director of Public Works. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-500: 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' PUB'LIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 4
STREET IMPROVEMF. NT - AREA BOUNDED BY BROADWAY, BALL ROAD, MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND
BEACH BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-3310. (Nobest
Incorporated)
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-500 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCES AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE AMC: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance
Nos. 4176, 4177, 4178, 4182 and 4183 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. ~176: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51, 73-74-22 and 74-75-14,
RS-HS-22,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 4177: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(1), CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 4178: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(2), CG)
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
TME ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-19, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4176, 4177, 4178, 4182 and 4183 duly passed
and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4179, 4180, 4181, 4185 AND 4186: Councilman Bay offered the sub-
ject ordinances for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
80-1447
City Hall, Anahe.im, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
142/102: 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 18.42.050
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 Conditional Use Permit)
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 IN-
VESTIGATIVE SERVICES. (relating to special investigative services for the
City's claims program)
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4185: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING
SECTION 14.32.260 OF TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32 AND AMENDING SUBSECTION .590 OF
TITEL 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)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ME~4BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4179, 4180, 4181, 4185 and 4186 duly passed
and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4184: Councilman Roth offered Ordiannce No. 4184 for adoption.
Refer to Ordiance Book.
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)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4184 duly passed and adopted.
80-1448
City .~a~l, Anah~'.~n, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4188 THROUGH 41.90: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No.
4188 through 4190, both inclusive, for first reading.
142/101: ORDINANCE NO. 4188: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING A
NEW CHAPTER 8.22 TO TITLE 8 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ANIMALS.
(relating to slaughtering and butchering of animals for food)
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4189: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING
SECTION 3.04.220 AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 3.04.220 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD
PERTAINING TO ENFORC~ENT PROVISIONS ON LICENSE COLLECTION.
ORDINANCE NO. 4190: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-41, RM-1200)
114: 1980 HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL AND PARADE: Councilman Overholt commented that
the subject Festival and Parade was of a quality far exceeding anything in the
past. It was outstanding and a tribute to all persons involved in keeping that
activity alive. Councilwoman Kaywood, too, felt that it was the greatest ever,
coupled with fantastic weather. Councilman Roth complimented the Overholt's on
helping to stage a great Halloween Ball. Councilman Bay complimented all the
people, the entire Halloween Festival Committee, particularly Bill Taormina for
the job he did in keeping the parade moving. It was one of the best he had seen,
and all the people who worked on it did a super job.
Mayor Seymour also added his accolades. It was the best yet and it was his
understanding that the next step was to form a non-profit corporation similar
to the Pasadens Tournament of Roses operation which would put the "icing on
the cake" to insure outstanding festivals were continued in perpetuity. He
expressed the opinion they ought to recognize personally Mr. Herb Leo, the
quiet man behind the scenes who was a totally committed individual to his
community.
11~: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION FOR THE ANAHEIM HILLS LIONESS CLUB: Councilman
Roth stated he felt they should commend the Anaheim Hills Lioness Club who was
working with the Senior Citizens Commission and groupm and Parks and Recreation
tO provide free of charge smoke detector alarms for low income seniors, 60
years of age and over. Not only were the alarms free of charge for those
who could not afford them, but also a group of men from the Lions Club were
going to install them at no charge, tt was a very commendable project and
somehow the Council should acknowledge such generosity perhaps in a letter.
The Mayor suggested that a special resolution of commendation be prepared for
-presentation to the Lioness Club.
105: APPOINTMENT TO RELOCATION APPEALS BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
appoint Mr. Ian Skidmore, Member of the Community Redevelopment Commission, to
the Relocation Appeals Board, due to the resignation of Rudy Valenzula, as
recommended by the Mayor. Councilman Overhott seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
159: TREE TRIMMING COMPLAINT: Mayor Seymour referred to a hotline complaint
received from Mr. Larry Preece, 730 West Lamark, involving tree trimming and
lunch breaks. He had spoken with Mr. Preece yesterday where he received the
information that he conveyed to the City Ma,ager. He asked that the City
Manager investigate the situation.
80-1449
City HalI, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
114: ALLEE FILM PREMIERE: The Mayor reported that Councilman Overholt received
a communicatiom from Elizabeth Schultz of the Library Board relative to the
Allee Film Premiere reception that was soon going to be held and the question
was whether or not refreshments should be soft drinks or champagne, or punch
rather than champagne. He felt unless they were creating some great precedent,
champagne at a Friday night reception would be very nice. However, there had
been some concern expressed that perhaps it should just be punch. The people
organizing the reception needed direction.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested punch since she believed there was a law that
no alcholic beverages could be served in a public building.
City Attorney Hopkins stated it was not prohibited if the Council should so
au thor ize it.
Further Council discussion followed as to whether or not champagne should be
served wherein the consensus of the majority of the Council preferred that
champagne be served as well as punch. Both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman
Bay preferred that punch only be served.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:00 P.M.
~BERTS,