1980/12/1680-~5@5
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16~ 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
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Shirley Meredith
CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE: Bob Jones
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Tom Favreau, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation including a prayer for Barry Kaywood's tragic accidental death Sunday~
December 14, 1980.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
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 9~dinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,430,659.25, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized as
recommended:
a. 160: Bid No. 3709: 50,000 feet of 15KV, URD, Primary Wire. Award to
General Electric Supply, $32,889.15.
b. 160: Bid No. 3715: Three-Phase Padmount Transformers. Award to Westinghouse
Electric Corp., $11,469.20 for two 300 KVA, 12000-208/120 volt fused transformers,
Item No. 1; award to McGraw Edison, $15,322.30 for 2 500KVA, 12000-208/120 volt
and 1 300KVA, 12000-480/277 volt fused transformers, Item Nos. 2 and 4; and
award to General Electric Co., $22,423.24, for 2 750KVA 12000-208/120 volt fused
transformers, Item No. 3.
c. 160: Bid No. 3716: 15,000 feet of No. 4/0 Quadraplex Service Wire. Award
to Qualified Electric, $18,819.24.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
d. 123: Authorizing a five-year agreement with American Legion Post No. 72
for the postings of American flags on Lincoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard at
the rate of $2.00 per flag per year, for certain designated holidays.
e. 123: Approving renewal agreements, with premium and benefit modifications,
for employee group prepaid health plans for 1981 with the following, and author-
izing the Human Resources Director to execute same:
1. Supplemental Dental Plans Inc.
2. Dental Health Services
3. California Medical Group Health Plan, Inc., dba INA Healthplan of California
(Group Prepaid Dental Care)
4. California Dental Service
5. Family Health Program
6. California Medical Group Health Plan, Inc., dba INA Healthplan of California
(Group Prepaid Health Care)
7. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
8. General Medical Centers Health Plan
9. California Vision Service Plan
i0. California Psychological Health Plan
MOTION CARRIED.
153: PERSONNEL ACTIONS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-555
through 80R-558, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-555: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADOPTING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE
ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-556: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
PERTAINING TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF WAGES OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF
ANA}IEIM. (~to be effective October 10, 1980)
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-557: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-801, PERSONNEL RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY, TO PROVIDE FOR
THE PAYMENT OF TWO TIMES THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY FOR EACH OVERTIME HOUR WORKED
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 12:00 MIDNIGHT AND 8:00 A.M. FOR THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF
MOTOR SWEEPER OPERATOR, PARKWAY MAINTENANCE WORKERS I AND II, AND STREET PAINTER.
RESOLUITION NO. 80R-558: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-688 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL UNION NO. 47, AND CREATING NEW CLASSIFICATION. (Senior Service Center
Assistant)
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-555 through 80R-558, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
City H~I~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
116/174: PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT - INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT: On
motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Manager
was authorized to submit a grant application for development of a productivity
improvement program under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, as recommended
in memorandum dated December 10, 1980 from Program, Development and Audit
Manager Ron Rothschild. MOTION CARRIED.
123/167: TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGN WORK FOR THE STADIUM AREA SIGNAL OPERATING PRO-
JECT: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, an
agreement was authorized with Berry-man & Stephenson, Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $18,510, for the preparation of traffic signal plans at four designated
locations in the vicinity of Anaheim Stadium, as recommended in memorandum
received December tl, 1980 from City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED.
103: PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION FOR REORGANIZATION NO. 47 - DETACHMENT TO THE
CITY OF ORANGE: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-559 for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum received December 10, 1980 from Robert Kelly,
Associates Planner, agreeing to an exchange of property tax revenues pursuant
to Section 99(>) of the State Revenue and Taxation Code relating to the
detachment of certain uninhabited territory to the City of Orange, designated
as Reorganization No. 47. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-559: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AGREEING TO AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES PURSUANT TO SECTION 99(b) OF
THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE DETACH-
MENT OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A~D THE ANNEXA-
TION OF SAID TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ORANGE, DESIGNATED AS REORGANIZATION NO.
47. (30.745 acres located southwesterly from Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road)
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-559 duly passed and adopted.
153: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR POSITION: On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the continuance of a Public Works
Inspector position was authorized beyond December 31, 1980, ~o provide in-
spection for the District 17 Storm Drain and other Redevelopment Agency construc-
tion projects, as recommended in memorandum dated December i1, 1980 from the City
Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
164: SLOPE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR - NO BIDS RECEIVED: Tustin Avenue, Fairmont
Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road--Account No. 01-792-6325-E2650.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-560 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated December 15, 1980 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
City Hall~ Anah.e~m,.' California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-560: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THERE WERE NO BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE SLOPE STORM
DAMAGE REPAIR, ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325-E2650, THAT SAID JOB NOT BE READVERTISED
AND THAT SAID IMPROVEMENTS BE AWARDED BY INFORMAL CONTRACT.
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-560 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the Public Works Executive Director
to secure informal bids on the subject project. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CONVERSEz. W~RD, DAVIS & DIXON~ CONSULTATION SERVICES AND REPORT FOR SOIL
TEST BORINGS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATIONS: On motion by Councilman Bay, sec-
onded by Councilman Roth, the Electrical Engineering Manager was authorized to
approve a purchase requisition in the amount of $1,400 with a Letter Agreement
to Converse, Ward, Davis and Dixon, geotechnical consultants, for soil test
borings for foundation design for three 60 kV steel poles required for the
construction of the Lewis Yorba No. 2 69 kV Line, in accordance with Council
Policy No. 401, Section C, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board.
MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - EXECUTIVE SAUNA AND MASSAGE:
Request by Gregory L. Parkin, Attorney, on behalf of the Executive Sauna and
Massage, 651 South Manchester Avenue, for an extension of time to the period
of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment.
(Continued from the meeting of December 9, 1980--see minutes that date), was
submitted, together with reports by the City Attorney, Police Department and
Zoning Division. ~_
Mr. Gregory Parkin, 695 Towne Center Drive, Costa Mesa, stated at the last
meeting, Councilman Overholt suggested that it would be helpful if the
applicant brought forward some of the underlying documents to substantiate the
irreparable harm he asserted in his letter. Three items were requested: (1)
verification that they purchased the business when they did and in the amount
indicated, $25,000. He had a copy of Grover Escrow Corporation escrow instruc-
tions dated January 16, 1979 showing a total consideration of $25,332.50. Also
attached were a combination of cancelled checks and receipts from the Escrow
Company totalling the amount of the purchase price. He submitted those to the
Council for their perusal.
Another item was the underlying documentation relative to the amount of repairs
the applicant expended on the property since the time of acquisition. He indi-
cated he spent approximately $4,000 in repairs. He also had a group of can-
celled checks totalling $4,508.67 which he submitted to the Council.
80- t,979
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that on the checks, he could not tell if some were for
capital investment or ongoing operating expenses.
Mr. Parkin stated that he did not know either, but he was willing to have his
client testify under oath. However, he wanted the information available to
the Council before he did so. He continued that, although he did not know
if the Council had asked for such information, he had verification available
relative to advertising and he had with him a group of cancelled checks in the
amount of $5,321.58 for such advertising. His client had indicated in the
letter that he had spent $6,000 for advertising and he felt that was still the
correct figure, but was unable to locate approximately $608 worth of checks. He
submitted those to the Council for their information.
The final item was the lease covering the premises. His client indicated an
exposure in the event that he would have to breach his lease of approximately
$5,250. His (Parkin's) rough calculations showed that to be more in the order
of $8,000. He submitted the documentation to the Council. He then confirmed
for Councilman Overholt that he would have no objection to having his client
testify under oath.
City Clerk Linde Roberts thereupon administered the oath to the petitioner that
the testimony he was about to give was true and correct to the best of his
belief and knowledge; Mr. James Su Junn answered affirmatively.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Jun if he was the sole owner of Executive Sauna
and Massage.
Mr. Jun answered that the legal owner of the business was his wife. His name
was not on the permit.
Councilman Overholt suggested that Mrs. Jun should be the person to testify.
The City Clerk thereupon administered the oath to Mrs. Kyong Jun.
Mr. Parkin stated that it may be Mr. Jun might have more personal knowledge
on some of the repairs that had taken place, since he was more in charge of
the mechanics of the operation.
Councilman Overholt stated that either could testify. He stated that Mr. Parkin
had presented a number of checks purportedly used in the purchase of the business
which closed escrow on January 16, 1979. He asked if those were their checks
and if they acquired title to the property on January 16, 1979.
Mr. Jun answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt noted on the escrow statement there was reference to a
trust deed of $5,000. He asked what that referred to.
Mr. Junn answered that at She time he had only $20,000 which he paid and $5,000
was for 90 days personal credit.
Mr. Parkin explained that apparently he did not have $25,000 to give the escrow
company on the closing and thus the seller carried back a note personally to him
for $5,000 which he paid within 90 days. One of the checks submitted represented
evidence as payment of that note.
80-2~J0
Ci.tz Hall~ Ana. heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Jun confirmed that was a note to Mr. Cooper, the seller, and he had paid
the note in full.
Councilman Overholt noted there were a number of checks submitted as evidence
of repairs totalling $4,865. He asked Mr. Jun what repairs had been made.
Mr. Jun answered for carpets, walls and painting inside; Mrs. Jun added that
they had made repairs inside and outside, painting, wall paper, carpeting. The
building was ten years old and they had to fix it all over. Both Mr. and Mrs.
Jun explained that the ceiling was leaking and they had to install a new
ceiling.
Councilman Overholt then asked if the landlord shared in the cost of the
ceiling; Mr. Jun answered that the landlord paid for it. (He also gave a fur-
ther explanation trying to clarify for Councilman Overholt who was responsible
for the ceiling repair/replacement which was not intelligible due to difficulty
with the English language). He also clarified that he did not receive insurance
proceeds for his expense because he had no insurance.
Councilman Overholt then asked when Mr. Jun first learned of the Adult Enter-
tainment Ordinance; Mr. Jun answered January of 1980.
Councilman Overholt wanted To know why he waited until last week to come before
the Council for relief from the ordinance with the understanding if the Council
did not grant an extension as of December 20, 1980, they could no longer be in
business at the present location.
Mr. Jun answered that he wanted the extension (the remainder of his explanation
was not intelligible).
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Parkin in his estimate of the exposure on the
lease, was he including the options in the lease.
Mr. Parkin answered "no". It appeared that there were about~24 months involved
as opposed to the first figure which was approximately 14 months. There were
a few more months involved than he thought when he wrote the letter. He con-
ceded it might have been his fault also because there was somewhat a communi-
cation problem and perhaps Mr. Jun said 24, and he took it as 14. The exposure
in the lease was $5,200 and by multiplying the lease payments out, it was more
like $8,000 to carry the lease To its present expiration point. He did not
know if there were any option involved.
Mayor Seymour noted when the business was purchased, Mr. Jun gave $20,000 in
cash and then a trust deed for $5,000. He assumed that the trust deed was
recorded against some property. He wanted to know what property was used as
security for that trust deed--was it his home; Mr. Jun answered "yes".
The Mayor then questioned a bill included in the documentation submitted to
a Miss Joclyn for advertising. He wantmd to know who that was.
Mr. Jun answered that she was the advertising manager of The Register newspaper,
and he made the check out in her name because that was how he thought the check
was to be made out in reading th~ bill he received. He then confirmmd for the
Mayor that the checks made payable to Britway Supply were for cleaning materials
and also a towel case.
City Hall,,.. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Jun their hours of operation; Mr. Jun answered,
10:00 a.m. to Midnight or 11:30 p.m. Monday through Friday; Saturdays they
were open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and Sundays they were closed.
Mayor Seymour noted in the repair checks two were made out to Joatkin Enter-
prises, the landlord, indicating proration of expenses. He asked if those
two checks were for repairs or rent.
Mr. Jun explained that they were not for rent, but for remodeling the outside
of their building, changing the window and window glass, etc. He confirmed
that the property owner made the improvements and sent them a bill.
Councilman Overholt asked if he had made any effort to find other locations for
his business; Mr. Jun answered "no".
Councilman Overholt asked, if they were to grant the extension for some period
of time, what would be his plan at the end of the extension period.
Mr. Jun stated they would be out of business. After Mr. Parkin explained to
him what Councilman Overholt asked, he (Jun) confirmed that at the end of the
period of extension, they would go out of business.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Jun when he paid $25,000 for the business, what
exactly did he buy. Mr. Jun confirmed that someone else was running the
business when he bought it at the same location. Equipment and fixtures
were included but they were too old and that was why he had to put a lot of
money into the business for things such as a washer, dryer, etc.
Mayor Seymour asked if the extention were approved for two years, would he
agree if along with that approval to stipulate that the extension would be
cancelled immediately in the event there was a conviction for prostitution
activity at that business.
Mr. Parkin subsequently explained to Mr. and Mrs. Jun what the Mayor had asked;
both agreed.
Councilman Overholt asked if they had any ads of their business with them; Mr.
Jun answered "no". Their ad consisted of listing their name, that they offered
massage, their address, a phone number, and hours of operation.
Councilman 0verholt asked Mr. Jun if he would be willing to agrae to limit his
hours of operation consistent with his business hours, i.e., that their hours
would be no more than 10:00 a.m. to 12 Midnight, Monday through Friday; 10:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday; and closed Sundays.
Mr. Jun was agreeable with the limitation, as well as Mr. Parkin.
Mayor Seymour stated he understood that Mr. Jun and his wife did agree in the
event the extension should be granted, at ~he end of the two-year period their
business would comply with Code. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Jun answered "yes".
80-~2
Ci.~y Mal~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, !980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour then stated that Mr. Jun, in his opinion, had presented adequate
justification for an extension of two years. He also believed that the stipu-
lations the Jun's made, such as to the hours of operation, the agreement that
their business would comply at the end of the two-year period, and agreeing to
the cancellation of the extension immediately upon conviction of any prostitu-
tion related activity on the premises, they should consider the fact that
based upon the information they received, an undue hardship existed in chis
particular case.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Parkin if he would stipulate that the three
matters agreed to, the hours, having the business comply in two years, and that
an extension would be cancelled upon a prostitution related conviction were
freely and willingly given by his clients.
Mr. Parkin answered "yes" and from what he knew of his clients' operation, they
were reasonable, and he would join in their stipulation.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved, given those conditions and stipulations as
well as the evidence presented to the Council, to approve the request submitted
on behalf of the Executive Sauna and Massage for an extension of time to the
period of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating co Adult ~o
Entertainment to December 20, 1982, subject to conditons stipulated to by the
petitioner: (1) that hours of operation will be 10:00 a.m. to 12 Midnight on
weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays, closed Sundays, (2) that there will
be compliance with Section 18.89.040 in two years, and (3) if during the two-year
period there is a conviction of a prostitution related offense at the business,
the extension will terminate. Councilman Overhol~ seconded the motion. Council-
man Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - SHIATA ANMA: Request submitted
by Ralph Agnello, Attorney, on behalf of Shiata Anma, 327 South Magnolia Street,
for an extension of the abatement period pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040
relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted, together with reports by the City
Attorney, Police Department and Zoning Division. .-
Mr. Ralph Agnella, Attorney, 11901 Gilbert Street, Garden Grove, referred to
his letter dated November 26, 1980 requesting that his client, Mrs. Osaka
Oshita, be granted an extension of compliance to the conditional use permit
under the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. He further requested, if the Council
would be of a mind, to consider an exemption from the ordinance due to the
nature of Mrs. Oshita's business which was not Adult Entertainment. She
practiced a form of non-medical therapy, manipulative massage therapy designed
to be applicable to both men and women. The business was not open to the
public and was totally by reservation and appointment. He had with him a
series of photographs to acquaint the Council with the location and the nature
of the business which were in slide form. With the application, he also provided
a copy of Mrs. Oshita's license and an exhibit showing the cost of repairs to
the facility and a copy of the lease. He again provided another copy of the
license, the lease, and Exhibit "C"--che expense related to the leasehold
facility. He explained that Mrs. Oshita was present with him at this time, as
well as a Mr. Moraki Hitata, a certified court translator. Although Mrs. Oshita
was knowledgeable of English, she was more communicative in Japanese.
80-
Qity H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Agnello if he would have any objection to Mrs.
Oshita's being sworn; Mr. Agnello answered "no".
City Clerk Linda Roberts thereupon administered the oath to the petitioner that
the testimony she was about to give was true and correct to the best of her
belief and knowledge; Mrs. Oshita answered affirmatively.
Councilman Overhoit also requested that the translator explain the import of
the meaning of giving testimony under oath; Mrs. Oshita acknowledged that she
understood.
Councilman Overholt asked Mrs. Oshita (through the translator) if she had
personally paid the expenditures listed in Exhibit "C" which included 15 items
and their costs; Mrs. Oshita answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt noted that the last item on the list, cost of lease, was
$9,900. He asked if that was the rent for which she would be obligated if
the business were to close on December 20, 1980.
Mr, Agnello answered that he believed that amount represented payments made on
the leasehold to date. Further, the lease ran to 1983 and payments on the
lease were approximately $1,500 per year. The outstanding difference, if the
business were to close in December of 1980, would be approximately $3,600 and
that amount was a potential liability under the lease.
Councilman Overholt asked the hours of operation; Mrs. Oshita answered, 10:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. by appointment only. She normally closed at 7:00 p.m. but
at times closed at 5:00 p.m. because she operated by appointments. Later in
the meeting, she confirmed for the Mayor :hat she worked on the average of
five days a week, but sometimes also on Saturdays, and was closed on Sundays.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mrs. Oshita was the only employee of the business, if
it provided the sole source of her income, and if she had family or relatives
to support. ~
Mrs. Oshita answered that she was :he only employee, it was her sole source of
income, and that formerly she did have people to support, but the children were
grown and now she was supporting herself.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Mrs. Oshita's patients were referred by doctors,
if they were both men and women, and did they disrobe or wear clothing during
treatment.
Mrs. Oshita answered "yes" to the first two questions and relative to the
last explained that patients disrobed only from the waist up.
Councilman Overholt asked when she first learned of the Adult Entertainment
Ordinance; Mrs. Oshita answered approximately April from a doctor, but she did
not know the contents of the Ordinance. She was waiting to receive some kind
of notice from the City.
Councilman Overholt asked if she learned of the Ordinance in April, why she
waited until one week before the effective date of the Ordinance, since if she
were not granted an extension, her business would be closed.
80-1604
Ci.ty Ha!l, Anahei~.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Oshita answered that she did not believe that the business she operated was
considered an Adult Entertainment business. The manager of the building she
rented indicated to her that there was no need to worry about it. Also, if
there was a violation or a doubt relative to a viola=ion of the City Ordinance,
she felt she would probably hear something from the City. At the end of November,
her friend told her that she heard something about the effective date of the
Ordinance and at that time, she became upset.
Mr. Agnello explained that Mrs. Oshita contacted his office approximately the
middle of November at which time he prepared the documentation to be presented
to the City for the extension. He did not believe that Mrs. Oshita's facility
fit within the parameters of the Ordinance until he received a copy of the
Ordinance himself. He still did not believe it, but the broad-based defini-
tion of massage, as defined in the Ordinance, did place it in there.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mrs. Oshita would be willing to have a condition placed
upon an extension that would cause her extension to be cancelled immediately
upon any conviction of any prostitution activity.
Mrs. Oshita stated she did not think it would happen, and she would accept that
as a condition. ~-
The Mayor then asked if she would be willing to accept another condition limiting
her hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and
be closed on Sundays.
Mrs. Oshita answered that she was satisfied. She also wished to add, that if
she had to have her business resort to prostitution, she would close.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the request for an extension
of time to the period of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating
to Adult Entertainment on behalf of Shiata Anma for a period of two years to
December 20, 1982, subject to conditions as stipulated to by the petitioner:
that hours of operation will be 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday
closed Sundays and (2) that if during the two-year period there is a conviction
of a prostitution ~elated offense at the business, the extension will terminate.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Agnello if he would
stipulate that the conditions relative to the hours and conviction for pros-
titution were freely given by his client and that he (Agnello) would join in
those stipulations.
Mr. Agnello so stipulated.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into
Executive Session. (2:45 P.M.)
80-1~%
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:22 P.M.)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 80-2A: In accordance with application
filed by the Van Doren Rubber Company, Inc., public hearing was held on pro-
posed abandonment of an existing 20-foot public alley, beginning at the east
line of Atchison Street, 60 feet wide, and extending east approximately 128.5
feet to the west line of The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, south of the
centerline of Broadway, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-523 duly published in
the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated November 12, 1980 and a recommendation by
the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said abandon-
ment subject to the following reservations:
1. That a public utility easement for existing overhead electrical lines be
reserved unto the City of Anaheim.
2. That an easement for sanitary sewer purposes be reserved unto the City of
Anaheim together with all reasonable rights of ingress and egress.
3. That a public utility easement be reserved unto the Pacific Telephone &
Telegraph Company to accommodate existing facilities, together with all rea-
sonable rights of ingress and egress. Said reservation to said Telephone &
Telegraph Co. to be subject to prior rights of the City of Anaheim reservation
as stated above.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. ,-
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-561 for adoption, approving Abandon-
ment No. 80-2A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-561: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABA/qDONMENT OF THAT PUBLIC ALLEY SOUTH OF BROADWAY
EXTENDING EASTERLY FROM ATCHISON STREET.
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-561 duly passed and adopted.
169: MINERVA AVENUE STREET CLOSURE: To consider a road closure of Minerva
Avenue at its connection with the first alley (Coventry Drive), west of Valley
Street (see minutes November 18, 1980 where testimony was given as evidence to
support the setting of a public hearing to consider the closure). Submitted was
~.ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
a report dated December 5, 1980 from the City Engineer recommending that if the
City Council determines that Minerva Avenue should be closed, it is recommended
that the closure be by a double facing metal beam guard rail and $3,000 be
appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those in favor of
the requested closure.
Mr. William Kamusme, 923 West Chateau, read a letter which first described the
hazards and some incidents which occured in the subject alleyway and, in
finality, supporting and urging the closure of Minerva Avenue at the alley
(Coventry Drive), west of Valley Street. The letter was from his wife who could
not be present at the meeting.
Mr. James J. Fitzpatrick, 4 Peak Avenue, Sandwich, Massachusetts, explained
that his father lived in the building abutting Minerva. For the last two years,
he was not able to plant his garden because he was fearful of his life in so
doing, since the fence abutting the alley had been broken through twice by
automobiles. He then described an incident that had occurred that morning in-
volving a vehicle speeding through that alley.
Mr. Andy Detweiler, 2146 West Manbury Circle, stated he was a member of the
Board of Directors of the Brookmore Arms Townhomes. He also relayed similar
hazardous incidents which caused damage on their private property. In the
last five years, two garages were practically demolished.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the street
closure who could offer something new and different. He understood that the
citizens were generally concerned with safety relative to speed further com-
plicated by water in the street, causing them to want the street closed.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to the requested closure.
Mr. Charles O'Neil, 2107 West Beacon Avenue, asked for a vie~oint from the
City's Traffic Department relative to the proposed closure.
Mayor Seymour referred to report dated December 5, 1980 from the City Engineer
which discussed the requested closure from which he read the first paragraph,
"The petition for closing Minerva Avenue has been reviewed by the Police, Fire
and Utilities Departments and the Planning, Engineering and Street Maintenance
Divisions. The Fire, Planning and Utilities Offices have no objection to the
closure. The Police Department recommends that the road not be closed so that
maximum access to the high density development west of Minerva Avenue can be
maintained."
Mr. O'Neil continued that he had lived in the area for 15 years and used the
alley on the average of two times a week. He felt the proposal was a rather
harsh way of solving a traffic problem. He suggested that they perhaps make
a closure down at Ball Road. There were a large number of other options that
would be just as painful to other residents. He was not in support of the
youngsters who were spinning their wheels around in that alley, nor did he want
to see it continue, but he did not think the proposal was the right way to
solve the problem, and he was opposed to the closure.
Ci~M Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Seymour stated this would seem to be a question of causing some inconven-
ience for Mr. O'Neil and possibly others who lived in the vicinity causing them
to travel a block or so out of their way. On the other hand, it was a matter
of either providing almost 24-hour police service on Coventry to eliminate the
speeding and reckless driving problem that was taking place, or creating some
type of blockage at Minerva. From what he had seen and heard in the testimony
offered, he would opt for safety of the neighborhood and he felt they would be
serving the most in approving such a closure. Relative to the financing in-
volved, he preferred the metal beam guard rail at an expenditure of $3,000 as
indicated in the staff report.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the closure of Minerva Avenue
at the alley (Coventry Drive), west of Valley Street, with a metal beam guard
rail at a cost not to exceed $3,000 from the Council Contingency Fund. Council-
man Roth seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Bay discussed with the City Engineer the
possibilities that by closing the street as suggested, the problem might only
be moved to the south at Juno; Mr. Devitt agreed.
Councilman Bay explained that he did not mean to imply he was going to vote
against the motion because he agreed with the closure; however, it might not
be the end of the problem.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it appeared that on Juno, the "hotrodders" would
not be getting the same "charge" as on Minerva. She also noted that by putting
in a guard rail, it would require handcleaning on each side of the rail on at
least a weekly basis.
The Mayor asked to hear from the representative of the townhome homeowners associ-
ation as to why they could not provide that clean-up. ~-
Mr. Detweiler stated he did not believe there was any reason why they could not
do that.
C0unciiwoman Kaywood asked if he would stipulate that on a weekly basis, clean-up
of trash would be performed on both sides of the guard rail and that trash would
be put out with the regular :rash on a weekly basis; Mr. Detweiler answered
"yes".
The Mayor then included that stipulation in his motion; Councilman Roth agreed
in his second.
Before closing, Mrs. Dorey Olivera, 213 West Minerva, asked what could be done
about the water. On her corner, they had water 352 days of the year.
City Engineer Devitt explained that the water was a real problem in that area
and there were substantial amounts of water flowing down Coventry coming out
of a large area to the east and north, ail draining into that alley. There
was a proposed 48-inch drain in the alley, but the outfall line had not been
built and the estimated cost of the line was $1 million.
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then explained as Mrs. Olivera was probably aware, the
citizens did pass a $10 million storm drain bond in the last election but had
been prohibited from proceeding with it. She hoped however that they would
still continue to try to find a way and if successful that would probably be
one of the areas benefited by it.
Mr. Devitt confirmed that that particular storm drain was number 28 on the
priority list of the $10 million bond issue.
Mayor Seymour then explained for those who might not understand why the vote
of the people, although positive in approving the bond issue,, could not be
implemented and the money spent accordingly.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion with the added stipulation.
MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - ECSTACY #1: Request by
William N. Walker, Attorney, on behalf of Ecstacy #1, 419 South Brookhurst
Street, for an extension of time of the abatement period pursuant to Code
Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted, together
with reports by the City Attorney, Police Department and Zoning Division.
Mr. William N. Walker, Attorney appearing on behalf of Ecstacy #1, stated that
the information and materials submitted contained essentially all the information
with which he was acquainted. The owner-manager-operator of the establishment was
present to answer any questions relative to the financial circumstances of the
business. The business was purchased several years ago for $35,000 and improve-
ments were made over a period of time in the building for its general operation
and use, and the figures amounted to $7,000 or $8,000. The business had con-
tinued to function to date without particular difficulty with the law or the
Ordinances as they had existed. The Ordinances as amended and now in force were
somewhat of a surprise to the owner of the Ecstacy, but the owner had made a
personal attempt to try to bring the business into conformance with the pro-
visions of the Ordinance and also attempted to locate anoth~ facility from
which to operate, but thus far had been unsuccessful.
Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Walker had any objection to his client being
sworn; Mr. Walker answered "no".
The City Clerk thereupon administered the oath to the petitioner that the
testimony she was about to give was true and correct to the best of her belief
and knowledge; Ms. Melvina Trenholm answered affirmatively.
Councilman Overholt then asked Ms. Trenholm if she was familiar with the letter
from her attorney dated December 2, 1980 addressed to the Council setting forth
certain expenditures that she had made for her business; Ms. Trenholm answered
"yes".
Councilman Overholt reported that the letter stated she had expended approxi-
mately $8,000 by way of improvements in the six years of her operation. He
asked that she tell the Council what those improvements and costs were.
80-
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Trenholm answered, yearly painting, showers and whirlpool were redone, re-
carpeting and redraping. It took quite a bit to maintain her parlor because
it was equipped for men and women.
Councilman Overholt stated that according to the letter, the original purchase
price was $35,000. He asked if that were correct; Ms. Trenholm answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt then asked if the whirlpool was on the premises when she
purchased the business and if the $35,000 included the cost of the fixtures
and equipment.
Ms. Trenholm answered "no" to the first question and added that when she built
her parlor, she did it from scratch. The $35,000 included the cost of everything.
She confirmed that the $8,000 represented the expenditure for drapes, carpets,
maintenance, etc.
Councilman Overholt asked her hours of operation; Ms. Trenholm answered, 10:00
a.m. to Midnight seven days a week.
Councilman Overholt noted there were copies of bills and receipts attached to
Mr. Walker's letter. He asked what those purported to show.
Ms. Trenholm answered, to show what she spent monthly to maintain her parlor.
Councilman Overholt stated he presumed those were to be applied against the
gross income indicated in the letter of about $5,000 a month; Ms. Trenholm
answered that was true.
Councilman Overholt noted that a copy of the lease was provided with the docu-
mentation and apparently Ms. Trenholm exercised an option to extend the lease
in November of 1980 for one more year.
Ms. Trenholm stated that she had an additional three years on her lease.
Councilman Overhoit stated, according to her lease she had four consecutive
one-year options and she exercised the first two, the second on November 16,
1980 for one year; Ms. TrenhoLm stated that was correct.
Councilman Overholt asked in the exercise of that option, did she have any
arrangement with her landlord as to what might happen if she were not granted
an extension today; Ms. Trenholm stated, that she was to go on paying for the
lease.
Councilman Overholt pointed out, however, that she had the option to extend
the lease or not to do so.
Ms. Trenholm conceded that was true, but she did not feel that she should be
part of an Adult Entertainment Ordinance and she needed to exercise her rights.
Councilman Overholt emphasized that she did exercise her option on November 16,
1980 knowing that if the Council did not grant an extension for all or part of
another two years, she might have incurred additional expense.
8O- ~[~0
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16., 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Trenholm stated that was correct, but she also had three children to support
and that too was an expense.
Councilman Overholt asked if she had any understanding with her landlord as to
what was going to happen with regard to her lease if an extension was not granted.
Ms. Trenholm answered "no" and as far as she understood, she was leasing the
building for three years.
Councilman Overholt felt that Mr. Walker was aware of the facts he (Overholt)
wanted to make clear. Ms. Trenholm had consecutive options on her lease and
she undertook to exercise one of those options in November 1980 knowing that
she might not be able to continue her business after December 20, 1980 with
one more option available after that. As far as he was concerned, she
exercised an option knowing that her business might be shut down.
Ms. Trenholm stated if she was denied the time she needed, she would not exer-
cise the right to renew her lease.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Walker if that was with regard to the November
1980 option as well.
Mr. Walker stated he believed what Councilman Overholt was trying to convey
was that if and when the time terminated, now or later, she would terminate
her business forthwith. If an option became a factor so that she would have
a year or so to exercise it, he would attempt to renegotia~e with the land-
lord to cover only such limited time as she would continue to function.
Councilman Overholt surmised then that the lease was not really a problem
as far as the Council was concerned; Mr. Walker answered that was correct.
Councilman Overholt then asked Ms. Trenholm when she first became aware of
the Adult Entertainment Ordinance, if it was at the time they had hearings
on the matter and if so, why she waited until four days befa=e the Ordinance
was to become effective to come forth.
Ms. Trenholm stated that she first heard of the Ordinance last year and it
was at the time of the hearings. It was not true that she had waited until
now to do something. She had exercised all her rights because she was not a
part of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance field. Her business was strictly
for therapeutic reasons. She had been before the Planning Commission trying
to relocate. She tried to exercise her rights which she had to do before she
could appear relative to her claim of hardship.
Councilman 0verholt noted then that she was exercising other remedies available
to her. He asked the last time she had appeared before the Planning Commission;
Ms. Trenholm answered November 17, 1980.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were separate compartments or different
days for men and women at her business.
80-1~ !
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Trenholm explained that when she first opened Ecstacy, it was felt that both
men and women could be on the premises the same as with health spas. Subse-
quently, the City adopted a new law stating that a woman could not get a
massage on the premises at the same time as a man. It was therefore obvious
that she could not have women in her establishment for that reason alone. She
did not have both men and women due to the new Ordinance; however, she had
facilities for both--showers for women and showers for men, a facial room for
women and separate bathrooms. Due to the Ordinance, she only had men. She
also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that there was no other Esctacy in
operation.
Mayor Seymour asked when she first purchased Ecstacy #1 and the purchase price;
Ms. Trenholm answered, 1974 at $35,000.
Mayor Seymour then referred to one of the documents submitted, letter dated
August 26, 1980 on the letterhead of Larry Rothman, Attorney at Law, addressed
to Marvin D. Thomas, Attorney, relative to corporate tax returns. The letter
indicated that over a two-year period of operation of Ecstacy, Inc., there
was a total of $8,688 in taxes. In trying to determine whether or not the
original investment made in 1974 of $35,000, i.e., whether an undue hardship
would be created as a result of an investment made six years ago, what type
of income had been realized over that time. A statement was made in the docu-
ments indicating a gross of approximately $5,000 a month and expenses of
operation at $4,441 a month, which meant there was less than $1,000 a month
profit. The tax returns, however, indicate there must be a much larger profit
than that. He asked Ms. Trenholm if her profit as stated was less than $600
a month or not.
Ms. Trenholm first answered "no" and then explained that she took what her
girls made a month and her share of the money a month. She. did not indicate
what her own salary was because she also worked which was approximately $750
to $800 a week.
Mayor Seymour stated if that were so and her gross income wa~ only $5,000, from
a corporate standpoint, she was losing money every month.
Ms. Trenholm stated right now she was losing money.
Councilman Seymour questioned why she would then be paying the Federal government
$8,600 to $8,700 over a two-year period.
Ms. Trenholm stated that two years ago she made more money than now, due to the
fact that the City had not taken away her hours yet.
Mayor Seymour asked in trying to determine if she had been able to recoup her
investment was she at liberty or willing to share what her profits had been
since 1974. The Council was concerned over whether an undue hardship would
be created as a result of having invested $43,000 over a period of six years
and not being provided an opportunity to regain that and, therefore, giving
another two years in order to try to do so.
Mr. Walker stated the figures before the Council were put together and pre-
dicated primarily on his understanding of Ms. Trenholm's financial picture.
The net profit indicated was predicated on nonearning by her over and above
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
what she received as an employee as well as the people working for her, so she
had a monthly income over and above the $1,500, that being derived from her
personal services. The bookkeeper who carried the tax load for the year she
had operated could make the return showing her net profit and taxable income
over that period of time available to the Council. The records were not avail-
able today. He explained further that the employees were treated as independent
contractors and thus their income was excluded from the gross income. He did
not know that they were treating individual employees as contractors and not
including them.
Mayor Seymour stated without information to the contrary over a period since
1974, it appeared to him that the investment had been recouped and, if so,
from that standpoint, there was no undue hardship being created. He felt that
could be clarified if they had information as to the profit picture.
Mr. Walker stated that since 1974, she had been earning money. By the same
token, she had employees, workers, other expenditures, etc., each and every
month and year which resulted in an outlay of money. The merchandise, material
and equipment still present at the parlor had a value which would represent a
loss if the business would close down. Anything on the premises, most of the
fixtures, by law were tied to the building. If she attempted to relocate, all
those working for her would no longer be employeed. As well, she, especially,
working and earning a living to support her family, would lose her investment
in that way. The Mayor was saying, because she had the business for a length
of time, she had gained everything back that she put into it and would have no
loss if she closed. He maintained that was not so and gave an example relating
to the purchase of stocks or bonds to illustrate his point.
The Mayor asked if they granted the extension for another two years, how their
position was going to change.
Mr. Walker answered, by allowing preparation to close. With two years, she
could try and recoup by way of moving the present business and customers
either away from Anaheim if she could not comply or to bring_her business
within the provisions of the law which would allow her to continue.
Mayor Seymour stated the Ordinance was a valid one in the way it was drawn
and passed in 1979 and asking for the expiration a year later. He main-
tained if their argument was valid now, it would also be valid in two years.
Mr. Walker answered, other than Ms. Trenholm would have had time to prepare
herself for the loss. Her problem had been in an effort to comply in the
past year which she had not been able to do. She had filed the necessary
documents with the City in trying to comply. In any event, the two years
would not necessarily result in her getting everything back. The business had
operated in the City without incident relative to prostitution and law enforce-
ment was concerned and she was trying to keep the establishment as clean as
she could for the length of time in operation. She had operated a number of
years and made a profit on her initial investment which still existed and still
had its value which would be taken away if she was forced to close.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked what effort had been expended to relocate.
Ms. Trenholm answered that she had been looking into areas in Anaheim, Newport
Beach and Huntington Beach. It was difficult to get into Huntington Beach at
present and the building owners were asking for a large amount of money just
to be able to locate in their buildings.
Councilman Overholt then asked for clarification if the $1,000 a month expense
for a manager was part of Ms. Trenholm's salary.
Mr. Walker explained it was for a night operator and he was paid as an employee.
Ms. Trenholm also clarified for Councilman Overholt that what she made person-
ally was commission on the girl's earnings and that did not pass through the
corporation.
Councilman Overholt stated he shared the Mayor's concern over the fact that
they were dealing with a business six years old. Taking that original invest-
ment and amortizing it over a period of six years, particularly showing what
really was being taken out of the business today, it seemed to him that the
original investment had been earned back many times. He believed that the
language of the Ordinance was undue hardship--not hardship, but undue hardship.
Mr. Walker had sat through some of the prior hearings today and he (Overholt)
was convinced that there was undue hardship in those cases. As the Mayor in-
dicated, those people came in unknowingly and paid large consideration for a
business and then found out nine months or a year later that the business had
a short life in Anaheim because of action of the City Council. That was not
true of Ms. Trenholm. She had been in business since 1974 and participated in
the hearings in 1979. It seemed Co him that rather than knowing that the time
was coming and lending her efforts to try to relocate, she had used the year
to try to somehow duck the impact of the Ordinance. He did not think that it
meant she had been subjected to undue hardship. Obviously, she did not have
any lease problems because it was indicated that could be worked out. He,
therefore, had great difficulty finding undue hardship as fa= as her business
was concerned.
Mr. Walker, as a part of his closing statement, submitted that in all fairness
to Ms. Trenholm and others who may have invested in a business, it was a
question of what her investment was worth at present because that was what was
going to be taken away from her, not a question of what ~he put into it or
may have made in the past seven years. She had an investment of employees and
people who would be put out of work instantly on December 20, 1980 if she was
denied an extension of time to operate her business. The definition of undue
hardship was not very clear in the Ordinance or otherwise. He assumed it meant
unfair hardship imposed on an individual. She had shown that she had a worthy
investment that she would lose as a by-product of the Ordinance through no
fault of her own. She was an innocent bystander to the cause of the Ordinance.
Mayor Seymour concluded that, in his opinoin, in reviewing each of the requests,
a great deal of consideration was based on whether or not an individual had
made an investment and a very short time later finding, as a result of an action
taken by the City Council, the investment was lost as articulated by Councilman
Overholt. He felt that the arguments by Mr. Walker and his client would be
valid arguments from their standpoint ~wo, five or ten years from now. If it
8O-le1~
qity Hall~ Anaheim,.' California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16,..1980,. 1:30. P.M.
was the intent of the Council, as it was when the Ordinance was adopted, to set
certain parameters and standards of where zoning action would be appropriate
for the type of business involved and also to phase out those businesses where
now located, then by denying the present request for an extension, they were
taking action which they intended from the outset. The fact that the business
had been in operation since 1974, the information provided and the testimony
offered today, it was a very profitable business. He had little doubt that
the initial investment, including any improvements, had shown a very good
return on the original investment and, therefore, a continuation of the busi-
ness under the present request would only postpone the day in which they would
then debate the merits of Mr. Walker's argument. He did not see a basis for
undue hardship.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to deny the request for an extension of the
abatement period on behalf of Ecstacy #1, 419 South Brookhurst Street, pursuant
to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD -~MAISON DE MASSAGE: Request
by William N. Walker, Attorney, on behalf of Gwen Ard, Maison de Massage, 1730
South Euclid Street, for an extension of the abatement period pursuant to Code
Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted, together with
reports by the City Attorney, Police Department and Zoning Division.
Mr. William Walker, Attorney, stated that the investment figures and those
that represented the operation had previously been submitted, the date and
opening of the business was approximately seven years ago. With the infor-
mation already submitted, he would prefer to have his client sworn to provide
any further information.
The City Clerk thereupon administered the oath to the petitioner that the
testimony she was about to give was true and correct to the best of his belief
and knowledge; Ms. Gwen Ard answered affirmatively.
Councilman Overholt asked Ms. Ard if she was familiar with letter submitted
in her behalf from Mr. Walker which indicated that her business was established
five years ago.
Ms. Ard answered "yes" but that her business was established 8½ years ago
approximately June of 1972.
Councilman Overholt then asked Mr. Walker in looking at the lease, what his
understanding was relative to the terms of that lease.
Ms. Ard answered that she still had one and one-half years to go on that lease
and a five-year option following that. She had an option on the first lease
which she exercised and now she had an option on her next lease. The copy of
the lease submitted was that in existence at the present time.
Councilman Overholt noted, in reading the lease, it appeared it was dated July,
1978 and it was a four-year lease expiring on June 30, 1982. He asked if that
was her understanding of the terms of the lease; Ms. Ard answered "yes"
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Ard then clarified for Councilman Overholt that she was acquainted with the
itemization of expenses and that the real estate expenses she listed were to
pay for real estate school which she started in December. She had just received
another bill today for $125 for board dues. Those expenses were not investments
in the massage business. She thought they might think she was making a lot of
money in real estate, but she was not.
Councilman Overholt asked if she would be able to tell the cost of the business;
Ms. Ard answered that she could not tell exactly how much it cost her to invest
in the business. She had a redwood sauna, five massage rooms, an office, one
laundry room, shower facilities, bathrooms, massage tables, etc. She made
those improvements in 1972 and since that time, she made further improvements
such as changing the carpets, drapes, and putting up new doors. She also
stated that she found out about the Ordinance in December of 1979 and since
that time, was unsuccessful in her efforts to relocate her business to a place
suitable in the area. She applied to the Planning Commission for a variance
to allow her to remain at her business at her present location. She had a
number of letters from business and residential neighbors indicating there
was no problem in the area where her business was located. She was hoping to
get the variance so she would not have to come to the Council for an extension
due to hardship. She had appeared before the Planning Co~mnission on November iI,
1980.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. Walker, asked if the Council chose not to
grant the extension, did he feel he could renegotiate the lease with the land-
lord.
Mr. Walker answered that she was in a position to at least have an extension for
the period presently remaining on her lease without requiring additional nego-
tiation. He would suggest to her that she not exercise the option after
the remainng one and one-half year period.
Mayor Seymour asked relative to the initial investment made of $25,000 and then
the cost of improvements of $11,000 did she invest that $11,DO0 in the first
year, 1972, or subsequent to that.
Ms. Ard answered, after the first year and whenever necessary.
The Mayor asked if she had any recollection of what she may have invested in
the last two years; Ms. Ard answered she had to buy a new washer and dryer
costing approximately $700, 12 louvered doors at $26 each, and carpeting and
tile. She could not remember what the tile cost and she thought perhaps the
carpeting might have been $700.
Mayor Seymour then asked, other than a reasonable income she had taken out of
the business for herself, an income that netted $1,500 to $2,000 per month,
over the 8½ years above and beyond tha~ amount per month, what kinds of pro-
fits had the business shown in dollar amounts. He was trying to get to the
question of whether or not the original investment made had been returned.
Ms. Ard indicated the only way she could answer tha: was to say that she was
certain she received back her original investment of $25,000.
80-
City ~all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16,. 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if that meant she had received the $25,000 and the $11,000 above
and beyond the $1,500-$2,000 she realized; Mrs. Ard stated it was included in
that. The total income per month she received from the business was $1,500 to
$2,000 and she paid herself nothing in addition to that.
Mayor Seymour then asked in addition to the $1,500-$2,000 a month, had her
$25,000 and $11,000 been returned to her over the years; Ms. Ard stated she
believed so. Also she had been attempting to find another profession if she
could not find another place to move her parlor, but she had not made any head-
way and if she were given a two-year extension, it would give her ample time.
Councilman Overhoit asked her hours of operation; Ms. Ard answered 8:00 a.m. to
12 Midnight, Monday through Saturday, and Sundays 1:00 p.m. to Midnight.
Councilman Overholt asked if the Council were inclined to grant an extension
for the period of time on the condition that in the event there was a convic-
tion for a prostitution-related offense relating to her business, that the ex-
tension could be revoked, would she be willing to agree to such a condition;
Ms. Ard answered "yes."
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Walker if that condition were requested of his
client, would he stipulate that her agreement to that condition had been given
of her own free will; Mr. Walker answered so stipulated.
Councilman Overholt then asked if a condition of the extension would be that
the hours would remain the same as articulated, would she be willing to agree
to that condition; Ms. Ard answered "yes". Mr. Walker also stipulated that
agreement was freely given by his client.
Councilman Overholt stated that one of the major considerations in this case
was the fact that there was a lease that had some time to run which was entered
into well prior to the time the Ordinance took effect, or 18 months at $510 a
month; Ms. Ard interjected and stated that it was going to change in January
to $600 a month. ~-
Councilman Overholt continued that would make her undue hardship even greater.
The lease situation influenced him to consider an extension, not for the full
two-year period, but to the end of her existing lease. If she were willing to
agree to those two conditions, he would support a motion in ~hat regard.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to grant an extension of the
abatement period pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.89.040 to the
Maison de Massage, 1730 South Euclid Street, to June 30, 1982, the expiration
date of the existing lease, to prevent undue hardship, subject to the stipula-
tion that (1) hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 12 Midnight, Monday
through Saturday and 1:00 p.m. to 12 Midnight on Sunday and (2) that if
during the period to June 30, 1982 there was a conviction of a prostitution-
related offense at the business, the extension will terminate. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - TIFFANY'S FEMININE WAY: Request
by William N. Walker, Attorney, on behalf of Tiffany's Feminine Way, 2060 West
Lincoln Avenue, for an extension of time to the period of abatement pursuant to
Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted, together
with reports by the City Attorney, Police Department and Zoning Division.
80-1617
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. William Walker, Attorney, explained that his client had purchased Tiffany's
Feminine Way in 1978-79 and the approximate purchase price was $30,000 to
$35,000. They made improvements of approximately $5,000 and there were approxi-
mately 11 to 12 months left on their lease after which time they intended to
close or terminate their business if they were not required to do so before
that time. At the time of the purchase of the business, they utilized $20,000
in cash and a $15,000 second trust deed was given on the home of the purchasers.
They were both Vietnamese and might have some difficulty in understanding, but
they had enough understanding of English so that they might be able to communi-
cate effectively. He thereupon deferred to Lena Phelps who operated, managed
and controlled the operation of the business since its opening.
Councilman Overholt asked if she was one of the owners of the business. It was
confirmed that the other gentleman present, Dung Van Nguyen, was the owner and
she (Phelps) was the operator.
The City Clerk thereupon administered the oath to Mr. Nguyen and Ms. Phelps
that the testimony they were about to give was true and correct to the best
of their belief and knowledge; both Mr. Nguyen and Ms. Phelps answered
affirmatively.
Councilman Overholt asked if the note secured by the second trust deed was paid
off at this time; Ms. Phelps answered "no" and that approximately $3,000 was
still owed.
Councilman Overholt noted in the statement submitted that $5,000 was invested
in improvements to the business. He asked what those were in the costs.
Ms. Phelps answered they paid $35,000 for the business and in 1979 they installed
two showers, carpeting and panelling. The showers cost approximately $1,500,
the carpeting cost approximately $2,000 and the panelling approximately $1,500.
Councilman Overholt asked when they first learned of the Adult Entertainment
Ordinance; Mr. Walker answered that he was the one who informed Ms. Phelps just
two days before the matter was filed before the Council. She seemed ignorant
of the fact that such action was required because she had a license that was
dated to the end of t981. He explained to her that an extension of her
permit was required and that by ~he 20th of December, 1980, her doors would be
closed unless she obtained an extension of time from the Council. She requested
that he do so at the time and so was actually not aware of the situation beyond
four or five days prior to today's meeting; Ms. Phelps confirmed that those were
the facts as Mr. Walker stated.
Councilman 0verholt asked the hours of operation; Ms. Phelps answered 10:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. six days a week, and closed on Sundays.
Councilman Overholt asked if the Council were to grant an extension of time on
the grounds of undue hardship, would they be willing to agree if there was a
conviction of a prostitution-related offense connected with the establishment,
that the permit would be revoked at that time.
Ci.ty. Hall, Anahei. m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
· Mr. Walker explained to his client the import of what Councilman Overholt was
asking; they were agreeable to such a condition. They also further agreed to
retain their present, hours of 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday,
and closed Sundays.
Councilman Overholt asked if it was their intention, should the extension be
granted, to close the business at that location in October of 1981; Ms. Phelps
answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt asked the date of expiration of the license; Ms. Phelps
answered October 31, 1981.
Councilman Roth, speaking to Mr. Walker stated that due to the fact that the
Council was interested in the indication of undue hardship, it would have been
prudent for him to have listed in his letter of December 2, 1980 the $5,000
purportedly spent on improvements and the date they were incurred.
Mr. Walker stated the reason he did not do so was because at the time he did
not have the information. The letters were prepared on her behalf rather
hurriedly because of the fact that she had taken no steps to gain the extension
of time. He attempted to obtain a financial statement from her bookkeeper and
would ultimately do so, but was not able to itemize the improvements and invest-
ments made initially when she went into the premises and since she had been at
that location.
Mayor Seymour stated that he had the same concern as Councilman Roth. Not
having seen any itemization of improvements made it difficult to assess the type
of improvements made and whether the cost was relevant to those improvements.
They also did not have a copy of the lease in order to know that it did not
expire until the time stated. He did not believe they had the information
needed to assist them in rendering a decision.
The Mayor then asked the City Attorney if they wanted to give the petitioners
an opportunity to provide the information they had been discz~sing, would an
appropriate course of action be to grant an extension until the next Council
meeting, making it subject to their receipt of further information at that
time, or continuing the matter without revoking their permit.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that it could be continued, but he would recommend
on the Monday and Tuesday following Saturday December 20, 1980, the effective
date of the ordinance, that the business be closed until the Council made a
decision with any reopening dependent upon their decision on December 23, 1980.
The Mayor asked as an alternative if they were to find at least, with what they
had been provided, that there may be an undue hardship but they could not confirm
that today; therefore, they were going to give an extension from December 20,
1980 to December 23, 1980, could they do so.
The City Attorney stated that they could grant the extension to the next Council
meeting and any further extension would be contingent upon their providing
adequate proof relative to the information requested.
80, 1621
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Walker confirmed that they did not have that information today because he
did not have adequate time to provide it. The only thing he was able to put
together was a current statement of their operation expense, and the accountant
had not completed a breakdown of the improvements and other costs. Further,
the expiration date on the license and the expiration date on the lease were
different° The lease was in effect until December 1981, whereas the license
would expire in October 1981. Therefore, he recommended to her that her
business be terminated on the date of her license expiration, as opposed to the
lease expiration.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt there had been testimony today as to the
investment of fixtures and improvements on the premises, but they would like
to see the lease. He would be favorable to granting the extension for a week,
however, he asked why the City Attorney felt the businesm should close on the
20th of December when the Council was going to take action on December 23, 1980.
Mr. Hopkins answered that he would go along with an extension being granted to
December 23, 1980 which would be an extension period to the Ordinance. The Mayor
was first talking about a continuance and technically the operation would be
illegal as of Monday morning.
Mayor Seymour stated, so that Mr. Walker would have a clear understanding, the
Council wanted an itemized list to the best of his client's ability as to the
purchase of the business, the improvements made to the business, and a copy of
the lease.
Councilman Overholt stated he would like to have confirmation of the date of
expiration of the present permit and purchase documents if they were available.
There was some question as to the exact date of expiration on the permit, and
he wanted that clarified.
Councilman Roth wanted to be certain that Mr. Walker understood that on the
$5,000 worth of improvements, that the Council was interested in seeing an
itemization of those improvements, what they consisted of, t~e date installed,
and the cost.
MOTION: After additional discussion, Councilman Seymour moved to approve the
request for an extension of time to the period of abatement pursuant to Code
Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment on behalf of Tiffany's
Feminine Way, located at 2060 West Lincoln Avenue through December 30, 1980,
subject to the stipulations that (1) if during that time there was a conviction
of a prostitution-related offense, the extension would terminate and, (2) that
hours of operation will be 10:00 a.m. to i0:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday;
closed Sundays and within that two-week period, having been furnished with the
information and evidence asked for, Coundil ~butdlmake its final decision as to
whether or not undue hardship existed. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mr. Walker explained the import of the motion to Ms.
Phelps and Mr. Nguyen who indicated they understood what was being requested
and so stipulated.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
80-1622
City Ha!!~. An.a~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16~ 1980, 1:30 ~.M.
It was determined that the matter would be heard early in the meeting on
December 30, 1980; the Mayor also requested that the City Attorney have an
opportunity to review the documents before that meeting as well.
108: REQUES~ .FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - DANCE CENTER WEST: Request
of J. Kelvin and Mary Ann Rogiers for Dance Center West, 389 South Harbor
Boulevard, for an extension of the abatement period pursuant to Code Section
18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted, together with reports
by the City Attorney, Police Department and Zoning Division.
Mr. Rogiers first confirmed for Councilman Overholt that he would have no objection
to being sworn.
The City Clerk thereupon administered the oath to the petitioner that the tes-
timony he was about to give was true and correct to the best of his belief and
knowledge; Mr. Rogiers answered affirmatively.
Councilman Overholt first noted that this particular situation was unique in
that the business was located in the Redevelopment area (see minutes September
30, 1980). He then asked Mr. Rogiers when he first learned of the Adult
Entertainment Ordinance.
Mr. Rogiers answered that he became aware of the impact of the Ordinance when
he first began to look at relocating to 1925 West Lincoln in August of 1980.
Councilman Overholt asked what effort he had made to try to find a new location.
Mr. Rogiers answered that he had spent considerable time, along with Mr. Ken
Bouas, a real estate agent, looking all over the northern part of Orange County,
both in and out of Anaheim. He had a list with him of nine locations that seemed
like viable alternatives, some of which were in Anaheim and some were not. As
stated in his letters to the Council, there were objections to all nine locations,
plus others they had ruled out entirely. For that reason, he was requesting
an extension of the abatement period for two years so that they could move into
another location such as the one at 1925 West Lincoln.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he had specific needs relative to his dance studio
that made it difficult to find another location.
Mr. Rogiers answered "yes". They were eligible for a certain amount of help
from the Redevelopment Agency but the kind of space they were looking for to
accommodate their needs made it difficult to find the proper space. He con-
firmed that the location they found in 1925 West Lincoln was suitable.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Rogiers would have any objection to stipulating that
in the event that there was a conviction or any prostitution activity on or
around the premises that any extension would be immediately revoked.
Mr. Rogiers stated he objected ~o the question, but had no objection in agreeing
to that stipulation.
Mayor Seymour asked the hours of operation; Mr. Rogiers answered at the present
time they were open from approximately 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon
to approximately 10:30 p.m. in the evening, Monday through Thursday. Usually
80-1~$
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
there was very little activity on Friday at the present time. On Saturdays
hours were from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 pom. As a regular situation
they were not open on Sundays, with just an occasional opening on that day in
.the evening.
Councilman Seymour wanted to know if they asked him to stipulate to hours of
operation, to what could he stipulate.
Mr. Rogiers answered, at another facility, he would anticipate the possibility
of being open from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. six days a week. Saturdays would
perhaps be a little different, starting earlier and closing sooner.
After a brief discussion relative to anticipated hours of operation, Council-
woman Kaywood suggested that the hours be stipulated as no more than 10:00
a.m. to 11:00 p.m. seven days a week; Mr. Rogiers agreed to that condition
being attached to any extension.
Councilman Seymour noted that in a letter submitted to the Council, Mr. Rogiers
described the improvements that he would be required to make, expenditures of
funds and rents to be paid. He asked if they were all true as stated in his
letter; Mr. Rogiers stated that there was a certain amount of estimating involved,
but virtually they were true.
M~yor Seymour stated he felt this was a clear case of undue hardship.
Councilman Overholt asked where Mr. Rogiers formerly had his place of business;
Mr. Rogiers answered at 135½ West Lincoln in the Redevelopment area.
Councilman Overhoit asked if he were still at that location, would there be any
problem with the Adult Entertainment Ordinance; Mr. Rogiers answered none what-
soever as he understood. He also confirmed for Councilman Overholt that he was
displaced to his present temporary location by causes beyond his control and
was asking for the extension of time to further work aggressively with the
Redevelopment Agency staff and his broker to try to find a pl~ce that would be
suitable for his business. As long as the Ordinance remained, that would be
the case.
Mayor Seymour again repeated this was a clear case of undue hardship. The
Redevelopment program uprooted the business which was legally located, forcing
it to move elsewhere.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve an extension of time to the period
of abatement pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.89.040 relating to
Adult Entertainment for Dance Center West located at 389 South Harbor Boulevard,
for a period of two years to December 20, 1982, subject to stipulations that
(1) hours of operation will be no more than 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. seven days
a week and (2) if during that time there is a conviction of a prostitution-
related offense, the extension will terminate. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he considered it unfortunate
that Mr. Rogiers had gone through several weeks of agony and had to return to
the Council to restate his case (see minutes of September 30, 1980).
80-16~4
City Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
163: REQUEST OF KATELLA HIGH SCHOOL FOR PERMISSION TO USE CITY STREET FOR HIGH
SCHOOL MARCHING BAND PRACTICE: Request by Verne Horton, Principal, to use sec-
tions of Sycamore Street for marching band practice, was submitted.
Mr. Verne Horton, Principal of Katella High School, 1053 Lamark Lane, explained
that when he was apprised by the Anaheim Police Department that they were in
violation of an ordinance, he had two decisions to make: (1) try to get the
band off the street which they had done and, (2) try to find a way of studying
the feasibility of limited use or something of that nature so that it would be
legally done. He either wanted to be on the street with proper notification,
and if not feasible, they would have to handle the activity in another manner.
Councilman Seymour asked if he had been apprised and received a copy of memor-
andum dated December 9, 1980 from the Chief of Police with his recommendations
if the request were approved and what limitations would be placed upon that
request.
Mr. Horton answered that he had not received that, but if such was available,
he would be happy to comply within the framework outlined.
The Mayor noted there was also a memorandum dated December 10, 1980 from the
City Attorney containing his recommendations.
Mr. Horton stated those were the people who would dictate whether or not his
request was feasible and he was suggesting that since those would be the con-
ditions of the City, he would comply.
Mayor Seymour clarified that if there were any conditions which the Chief or City
Attorney were recommending that he felt were unreasonable and he (Horton) could
tell them why, he for one would even consider amending them.
Mr. Horton stated that they had specifically three activities coming up in the
entire Spring and thus, it was a limited use. They had a total of eight days
that they would perhaps want to be on the street from February through May.
He wanted it to be done safely and legally. Mr. Horton then briefly read
through the recommendations submitted and subsequently stated he felt they
could comply, because it was never their intent to march curb to curb at any
time.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Attorney recommended that =hey obtain a hold harm-
less agreement from the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) and also an
endorsement naming the City as an additional insured on the School District's
insurance policy. He asked if he had any problem with that.
Mr. Horton stated that an answer to that would have to come from his District
office.
Mayor Seymour suggested that the Council approve Mr. Horton's request subject
to the Police Chief's and City Attorney's recommendations, with the understanding
that in the event he found some of the conditions onerous, he would return to
the Council; Mr. Horton was agreeable to that suggestion.
80-1~62~
City Hall, An. aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved to approve the subject request under
the condition as articulated by the Mayor. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/106: PRICE WATERHOUSE PROPOSAL - REVIEW OF TREASURY FUNCTION AND OPERATIONS
AND PERFORMANCE AUDIT ASSISTANCE: City Clerk Linde Roberts announced that sub-
sequent to the items being placed on the agenda the agreements had been prepared,
and if it were Council's pleasure, execution thereof would be appropriate.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to (1) accept the proposal received from
Price Waterhouse at a total cost not to exceed $19,000, for review of the
Anaheim Treasury function and to document the current investment process, and
that funds be taken from Council Contingency Fund therefor; and (2) accept the
study proposed by Price Waterhouse to the Audit Committee regarding the Opera-
tions and Performance Audit function at a cost not to exceed $15,000, and that
funds be taken from Council Contingency Fund therefor. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour, speaking to the motion, explained
that not only was the Council Liaison Committee recommending that the activities
be accomplished, but also the City Manager's office was recommending the same.
However, he was not convinced that the funds to pay for the activities were
appropriately allocated to the Council Contingency Fund. The work they were
trying to achieve in the Treasurer's office was to obviously benefit the
Treasurer's function in the City. Therefore, it seemed to him to be appropriate
if they were going to spend money to improve an operation in that office, then
the earnings from the Treasurer's office should pay for that. Likewise on the
other proposal, relative to setting some standards that would improve the
operation and productivity of the entire City departments, it would seem
that should be paid for by prorating it over all the departments, rather than
going to the Council Contingency Fund. He could appreciate that it had not
been budgeted and that was why the Contingency Fund was recommended.
Assistant City Manager William Hopkins sta=ed that the Mayor;~ point was well
taken in terms of the end product, but the difficulty was up front in making
some outlay to achieve savings later on. In some areas they had latitude to
do what the Mayor was suggesting, but that was not so particularly in the
program assigned to the Treasurer's opera=ion nor in the Program, Development
and Audit function itself.
Further discussion followed revolving around the Mayor's proposed course of
action during which the amount remaining in the Council Contingency Fund was
discussed. There appeared to be a discrepancy in the balance left in that
account, Councilman Bay reflecting a figure of $156,021 and the Assistant City
Manager, $150,000. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Seymour confirmed
he was saying what they had budgeted to the earnings from the Treasurer's func-
tion, what they were now receiving and what they were going to receive over the
year were more earnings than budgeted; Mr. Hopkins answered that was true, but
that would not go into the Treasurer's program as such.
Mr. George Ferrone, Finance Director, suggested as an alternative they might
take the approach the Mayor was suggesting and appropriate additional funds by
Council action in the Treasurer's budget and as an offset to that count upon the
8o-i6~6
City Hall,.Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
interest income. There was certainly enough interest income beyond budget to
cover both studies if they wished.
Mayor Seymour stated then if they were going to amend the motion, they would
amend it to take $19,000 out of earnings from whatever department and appro-
priate it to the Treasurer's Department and then direct staff to take the
$15,000 on a pro rata basis from the departments.
Mr. Ferrone stated the first part was very clear but the second was rather dif-
ficult. He would suggest that for simplicity, they just direct that both be
taken from the increased function and raise the appropriation in the Treasurer's
budget to cover both of the studies.
Councilman Overholt stated he would include that in his motion; the Mayor
was agreeable in his second.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, an application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit
submitted by Disneyland Park to discharge fireworks on December 31, 1980, at
midnight, with a request for an exception to the 10:00 p.m. Code time limit
was approved as recommended by the Fire Marshal. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Elizabeth Giliszer for personal injury damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on
or about October 26, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Herman L. Ehlers for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about
October 26, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Stephen L. Tandy, Sr., for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of paint overspray by instructor and students painting a dwelling
at 449 E. Broadway, on or about November 5, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by William P. Hamm for damages to vehicle paint purportedly
sustained as a result of hot street surface patching substance being sprayed on
claimant's parked auto at 2669 Sereno Place during street work conducted by
City crew, on or about November 6, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of October 1 and November 5, 1980.
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.Mo
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of November 26, 1980.
c. 175: Public Utilites Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report
for October 1980.
d. 114: City of Buena Park, Resolution No. 7011, supporting the Department of
Water Resources' Water Conservation Program.
e. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for November 1980.
f. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of September 24, 1980.
g. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of November 20, 1980. (Unapproved)
h. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for November 1980.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendation
of the Chief of Police, a Public Dance Permit was approved for Rikio's Restaurant,
Inc., 2383 West Lincoln Avenue, for a dance to be held December 31, 1980, 9:00
p.m. to 1:30 a.m. (Ray K. Kondo, applicant)
4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11286: Submitted by Lewis L. Wright, el al, to
establish a 1-lot, 156-unit affordable condominium subdivision to RM-1200
zoned property located at 2633 East La Palma Avenue. (Submitted in conjunction
with Conditional Use Permit No. 2122 which will appear on the December 23, 1980
agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar)
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11286, and ratified
the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
5. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11305: Submitted by Bank of California, N. A.
Trustee, to establish a 2-lot, 99-unit condominium subdivision on proposed
RM-3000 zoned property located at 2170 South Harbor Boulevard. (Submitted
in conjunction with Reclassification No. 80-81-14 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 2121 which will appear on the December 23, 1980 agenda under Planning
Commission Consent Calendar)
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11305, and granted
a negative declaration status.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, clarified for Councilman Bay
that Tract No. 11305 involved the Westwinds Mobilehome Park.
Councilman Bay then asked if the Planning Department or the City Clerk received
any requests for a public hearing on the item.
It was determined that no requests had been received as yet. Miss Santalahti
explained that the appeal period on the CUP was 22 days after the Planning
Commission's action and thus there was still time to receive a request for a
public hearing.
6. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11320: Submitted by Ned Hutchinson, et al, to
establish a 1-lot, 22-uni~ condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned
property located on the south side of Ball Road, west of Magnolia Avenue. (Sub-
mitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 80-81-19 and Variance No. 3i78
which will appear on ~he December 23, 1980 agenda under Planning Commission
Consent Calendar)
City Ha~!,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11320 and g=anted a
negative declaration status.
7. 169: OAK STREET AND OAK STREET ALLEY, C.RANGE ORDER NO. 1: In accordance
with the recommendation of the City Engineer, Change Order No. 1 was approved
in the amount of $16,773.21, increasing the original contract price to $123,200.46;
Silveri and Ruiz Construction Company, contractor.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-562
through 80R-566, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certificagions furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-562: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PELANCONI
PARK STREAMBED IMPROVEmeNTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-809-7103;
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT .-
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT-
ING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CON-
STRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened January 15, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-563: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SENIOR CITIZEN
CENTER REMODELING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 16-821-7105 AND 17-821-
7105; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened January 15, 1981, ~t 2:00 p.m.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-564: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SLURRY SEAL APPLICATION, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-232-6340-00002. (Pavement Coatings Company)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-565: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNTSHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LINCOLN AVENUE TRANSITION
ROAD - TOPEKA STREET TO OLIVE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT
NO. 46-792-6325-E2620. (Five States Plumbing, Inc.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-566: 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
qi, ty, Hall~ ,Anahei~,~, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: OAK STREET & OAK STREET ALLEY
STREET IMPROVEMENT 33' W/O ANAHEIM BOULEVARD TO 20' E/O CLEMENTINE STREET, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2280, 82-366-6327-00975. (Silveri &
Ruiz Construction Company)
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-562 through 80R-566, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9876: Developer, W. D. Morris; tract is located
south of Arboretum Road and east of Anaheim Hills Road and contains 17 proposed
RS-7200 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub-
division, together with i:s design and improvemen:, was found to be consistent -
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract
No. 9876, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December
9, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4199: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4199 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4199: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-10, 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 No. 4199 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4200: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4200 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4200: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-30, 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 No. 4200 duly passed and adop:ed.
City ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1.980, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4201: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4201 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4201: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-24, RM-1200)
148: SUBREGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood announced that last
Wednesday, December 10, 1980, Supervisor Philip Anthony resigned from the Sub-
regional Planning Council and she was elected Chairman. The Council met
quarterly and that there was going to be a special meeting held relative to
air quality. She explained that the Subregional Council was a Liaison Group
formed to work between the Cities, County and SCAG.
139: URGENCY LEGISLATION - AB9: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the letter
received from Assemblyman Ross Johnson on his urgency legislation, AB9. It
referred to a special election to be held June 2, 1981 to decide the fate of
the Peripheral Canal. The Council had been on record in support of the Canal.
The amount of money that would simply wash away just by time elapsing was $90
million. She did not know whether they wanted to vote on the matter now sup-
porting his bill for the special election.
Mayor Seymour stated when he saw that letter he suggested that they write
Assemblyman Johnson and tell him that the Council was supportive and to let
them know how it was proceeding and when he might need assistance. If they
felt an action at this time beyond ~hat was necessary, then they should do
whatever was appropriate.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that he (Johnson) was asking for a show of support
because Mr. Brown, the new House Speaker, had come out against the bill and
it was becoming a north/south fight.
Councilman Bay suggested a resolution to be voted upon at the next meeting;
Councilwoman Kaywodd suggested also that a copy be sent to the Orange County
League of Cities. ~_
Mayor Seymour stated that although he did not know if that could be accomplished
in a week, he would like to see some data relative to the projected expenses
Assemblyman Johnson was talking about and also some data on the $90 million.
He was not certain what Assemblyman Johnson stated was correct, but he felt
they would be on firmer ground to have :he data when it came time to "push" in
the State Legislature.
Councilman Bay asked if the Intergovernmental Relations office could get that
data from Mr. Johnson; Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated they would arrange
to get the information.
Councilman Roth recommended tha~ they also solicit the support of the Chamber,
Realty Boards and other organizations and have them write letters of support.
Mayor Seymour suggested that be made a part of next week's action.
107: LETTER REQUEST - RENT ISSUE AND GOLF COURSE COMMISSION MATTERS: Council-
man Roth stated in the last two weeks they received two letters, one from Ms. Pat
Kish and another from Mr. Louis Dexter requesting that they be placed on the
Council agenda. He wanted to know what plans they had for both.
80-a6231'
C~ty. Hal!~. Anah~i.m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Clerk Roberts reported that on the Pat Kish letter, it was her intent to
write to her advising that on January 16, 1981, the Council would be hearing
the rent issue and it would be appropriate for her to attend that meeting,
rather than scheduling it as a separate item.
Councilman Roth indicated that was also going to be his suggestion. He then
inquired as to Mr. Dexter's letter which had been received in the last few
days.
Mayor Seymour stated that he had not yet seen the letter and asked why Mr.
Dexter wished to appear.
Councilman Roth stated that he wanted co discuss the removal of the Golf Course
Commissioner and the setting of some policies.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not know if that was necessary because he was
going to ask the Council, having received a letter from the City Attorney, if
the Council felt it appropriate, he would be happy to direct a letter to the
Chairman of the Golf Course Commission, enclosing a copy of the City Attorney's
opinion, and asking them to make an additional recommendation. If the Council
wished to take such action, he did not know why Mr. Dexter had to appear;
Councilman Bay agreed.
Councilman Roth felt that they should take some action and either deny him the
right to appear or take appropriate action on the Commissioner.
The Mayor stated that ha was not trying to keep Mr. Dexter from appearing. He
was going to direct a letter to the Chairman of the Golf Course Commission
stating what he just said, with a copy to Mr. Dexter telling him if he did not
think it was appropriate enough, that he contact the Council for further
opportunity to appear.
There was no opposition from the Council in the suggested action. The Mayor
then asked the City Attorney or City Clerk to prepare such ~etter for his
signature.
114: AUDIT LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING - DECEMBER 9,. 1980: Councilman Bay re-
ferred to the report of the Audit Liaison Committee meeting held December 9,
1980, Item 3, which indicated that Dean Grose was instructed to develop a
State of the City report for City-wide distribution at a cost estimated at
$15,000. The goal would be to distribute the State of the City report some-
time after the beginning of the year of 1981. He was concerned as to whether
the two Council Members on the Audit Committee were moving about to spend
$15,000 before talking to the rest of the Council Members about the matter.
Mayor Seymour stated on behalf of the Audit Committee, the answer was unequivo~
cably "no." The direction was to develop a program which would be presented to
the Council for approval. There was no commitment to an expenditure of funds.
114: PLAQUE FROM THE. SISTER CITY COMMITTEE OF MITO~ JAPAN: Mayor Seymour
presented a plaque which was given to the City from the Sister City Committee
of Mito, Japan now framed and ready for hanging in an appropriate place in the
Civic Center.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before recessing, Councilwoman Kaywood announced that she would not be attending
the scheduled evening meeting (son Barry Kaywood died in accident, December 14, 1980).
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed to 7:00 p.m. to consider the
application for A95 Review for the 1981-82 CDBG Program and Budget; and to
consider alternatives for the closure of Wilken Way, west of Oertly Drive.
(6:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilwoman Kaywood. (7:20 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE: Bob Jones
112: GREENMAN ET AL VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and Ruston and Nance were
authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 280347, Greenman
et al vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $4,000. Councilwoman
Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
112: DAUTRICH ET AL VS. PERS, CITY OF ANAHEIM~ ET AL: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the firm of Rutan & Tucker was authorized
to continue its representation of the City of Anaheim in Writ of Mandate pro-
ceedings in connection with Dautrich et al vs. PERS, City of Anaheim, et al.
Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
174: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CD,G) PROGRAM: To
consider the 1980-81 program activities for A-95 Review (the State of California
and Regional Clearinghouse Agency review process).
Mayor Seymour first announced that a letter was received from the Mother Colony
Household supporting the allocation of $20,000 for the purchase and installation
of an elevator and ramp for the Anaheim Historical Museum. As he recalled, that
had been included in the proposed budget; Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of
Community Development, confirmed that was correct.
Mayor Seymour then referred to the sidewalks they were approving at Tiller and
Oertly. He appreciated the report received from staff, but questioned if that
information had been communicated to the Neighborhood Council.
Mr. Priest answered that it had not. He then briefed report dated December 9,
1980 (on file in the City Clerk's office). He specifically noted Paragraph 5,
Page 1, of the report: "In the budget submitted to Council $20,000 was allocated
for sidewalks at Tiller and Oertly Streets in the South Anaheim Target Area. Pre-
liminary engineering analysis indicates that the total costs for sidewalks on both
sides of the streets in that area to be approximately $95,000." As the Council
would recall at the last session (~ee minutes November 25, 1980), the estimate
submitted was substantially in error. He also pointed out that funds were very
80-163'3
CitM .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
tight this year, but it had been their practice in the past that when they finally
received the actual number from HUD, they found that they had estimated conser-
vatively and the HUD allocation, therefore, could be greater than anticipated.
Relative to the sidewalks, at ~his time they were recommending that $20,000 be
used initially to construct sidewalks on Tiller Street adjacent to the curb,
one side only, Haster to Oertly. He would have to defer to the Public Works
Department as to what side of the street the sidewalks would be installed. In
terms of additional sidewalks, if as had been the case in the past, additional
funding became available, i~ would be their intention to return to the Council
or administratively to provide addtional funding for sidewalks in that area.
Mr. Bob Jones, Civil Engineering Associate, explained that it did not matter on
which side of the street the sidewalks were constructed because the cost would
be the same regardless. He was not recommending one side or the other. He also
did not know if the School Traffic Safety Committee had made any recommendation
as to which side would be preferable.
Mr. Priest pointed out that they expected to meet with the Neighborhood Council
regularly, and it may be that it was something that they would appropriately work
out with the Neighborhood Council.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak to the CDBG Program
1980-81 Program activities for A-95 Review.
Mrs. Janice Stehly, 104 West Tiller, first stated that she did not think their
area had been given that much money. She did not see what harm it would do to
complete sidewalks on both sides of the street. If Wilken Way were to be
closed as proposed, they would be in trouble. There was no place for their
children to play. They could not go to the park because they were too young
to cross Haster Street. They were already bussed out of the neighborhood and
going to a different City to school. She did not know how they could pick one-
half of the block vs. the other. In only the first two houses on her side of
the block on Tiller, there were five children and there were approximately 100
altogether. They caught the bus on her corner, but she did not know on what
side it would be fair to install sidewalk. She did not see why money could
not be appropriated for both sides. They had received estimates themselves
and one was approximately $35,000 for all 78 houses on both sides of Tiller
and Oertly.
M~yor Seymour asked for an explanation of the estimate of $95,000; City Engineer
William Devitt stated that Mr. Jones developed the estimate; but as the Council
was aware, they were constantly bidding work out and were able to keep track
of their construction costs and to develop that on base quantities.
Mr. Jones explained, on the basis of their past cost experience for sidewalk
construction, $95,000 was the estimate of the work they felt was necessary in
order to construct the sidewalks on Tiller and Oertly.
In concluding, Mrs. Stehly reported that at their Neighborhood meeting, a
majority were for sidewalks. For all those who could not be present, she did
turn in petitions.
Mrs. Holly Reese, 141 West Tiller, questioned Mr. Priest relative to the
options available for sidewalk construction; Mr. Priest then explained the
four options that had been discussed.
80- lc;34
Ci._~.y Hall, Ana..h. eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Priest also explained for the Mayor that, in fact, the proposed budget had
a very small contingency allocation of 4.7% which concerned him because it
meant if they cut it too low and had two projects both deserving which might
run over cost, they would then be faced with a very difficult decision of
cutting out one project or the other. He was, therefore, urging they keep the
contingency at least at the present level. He also confirmed the total
allocation recommended for the subject neighborhood (South Anaheim Neighborhood
target area) was $291,000.
The Mayor asked if the Council were to consider increasing the appropriation
to construct the total sidewalks at $95,000, what staff's recommendation would
be on a priority basis to find tha~ amount or reduce the allocation in some
other area.
Mr. Priest stated the one he would most dislike having to cut into would be Housing,
i.e., rehabilitation loans on houses within any of the project areas. Four hund-
red Thousand dollars was allocated with $91,000 going to loans in that area.
Recommendations beyond that in priority would be the one he suggested initially.
As he explained, they believed they were estimating conservatively and that they
look hard as the additional numbers were submitted from HUD and commit at least
informally any excess funding to the sidewalk project. Otherwise, the budget ~o
was at "barebones." The sidewalks in terms of the objective of the Block Grant
Program were not as high as housing, storm drains, sewers, etc. There were a
couple of areas in the application, one being an Environmental Specialist which
may or may not be funded dependent upon the Rental Certificate Program. That
might offer an additional $30,000, but he would find himself hard pressed other-
wise. He then reviewed the list of priorities, assisted by the Housing Manager,
Lisa Stipkovich. He emphasized in doing so he did not find any elements that
they had not worked very hard on with the Neighborhood Councils, and they would
not be comfortable in cutting those requests back.
Mr. Priest then confirmed for Councilman Bay that $15,000 was allocated to the
Orange County Fair Housing Council, ~hat the $2 million was an estimate of CDBG
funds that would be received, and that they would know in February the exact
high figures.
Councilman Bay stated as he understood the staff recommendation on the sidewalks,
he assumed that the staff took the least lines of resistance to get as much side-
walk out of the dollar as possible.
Mr. Jones clarified that the estimate was prepared on the basis of the sidewalks
being constructed adjacent To the curb and at standard right of way locations
which brought about the difference in the cost from $93,500 to $132,400.
Mayor Seymour surmised then that in 1981-82 the recommendation was to spend
$20,000 to build I000 linear feet of sidewalk on Tiller and in 1982-83 spend
approximately another $31,000 for sidewalk on Oertly.
Mr. Charles Deerborn, 2241 South Oertly noted tha~ the Mayor mentioned that in
1982-83 fiscal year, they could get another $31,000 for sidewalk on Oertly. He
wanted to know if that was definite or did that mean the money might be there.
80-1~$35
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor answered that they did not have any guarantees that the government
would not stop the program, but if they chose to continue to fund it as in the
past, they would be recommending that in 1982-83 that there be an additional
appropriation of $31,000 to construct sidewalk on one side of Oertly.
Mr. Deerborn also felt that if Wilken Way were closed (the next item to be dis-
cussed), they would have more traffic on Oertly, Tiller and Sirius, and it would
be dangerous on those streets because they were narrow.
The Mayor asked Mr. Priest for clarification that in February when they received
a better picture relative to funding and when they returned to the Council in
March for final approval and the Council wanted to make a change at that time,
if not major, they could then do so; Mr. Priest answered that was correct.
Mr. Don Casino, 243 West Blue Bell, asked why part of the tract adjacent to
the trailer park received meeting notification cards and part of them did not.
He felt that everything that happened in the tract pertained to all of them.
He also wanted to know why Tiller and Oertly were getting sidewalks and not the
rest of the tract.
Mr. Norm Priest first pointed out that the notification to which Mr. Casino
was referring was with reference to the next hearing, i.e., Alternatives for
the Closure of Wilken Way. He then explained for Mr. Casino and others present
who were not familiar with it, how the CDBG program worked and the procedure
involved. It was designed specifically for target neighborhoods and started
at the neighborhood level, citizens level and it did not come to the Council
until the citizens committee met in three sessions, worked out the budget, and
then presented it. There was a neighborhood committee which met in the subject
Neighborhood on a number of occasions and the meetings were advertised. They
sought to reach as many people as possible in the various target neighborhoods,
whereas in matters such as the one following this hearing, notification cards
were sent only to those in the immediate vicinity.
Mrs. Holly Reese stated that she was on the Neighborhood Coum~ittee for the South
Anaheim target area and she then explained how she was notified and what she did
to notify others in her neighborhood. Also, Mr Charles Deerborn and Mrs. Janice
Stehly briefly explained the notification process in their vicinity and empha-
sized the fact that advertising and notifications were carried in the newspapers
for two months. Mrs. Stehly also gave information relative to when the meetings
of their Council were held for those who wished to participate in the process.
Before concluding, Mrs. Reese stated that they had many children in their area.
She agreed that Tiller should be the first street with sidewalks because they
had the most children. If she had to ~hoose a side on ~hich they should be con-
structed, she would pick the side that she did not live on. That way, the
children could walk to the bus stop without having to cross the street where
it was the busiest.
Mr. Priest, in answer to the Mayor, stated that he would be happy to provide a
list of the people who served on the Neighborhood Council to those who wished
to have those names; the Mayor also suggested that those people also participate
in all future deliberations of the Neighborhood Council. He asked Mr. Priest
and Mrs. Stipkovich co further clarify the process encompassing the whole program.
80-i~,36
City Hall, .~naheim, ~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would like to honor the request from $25,000 to
$75,000 for that particular sidewalk improvement program, but to do so at this
time would require them to take the money from one area and to transfer it to
another. He then briefed the list of priorities where all the monies were
allocated, concluding that there were difficult decisions for the Council to
make. However, he was going to vote to improve residential housing conditions
before voting for sidewalks, not that he was opposed to them. When they had
a more accurate picture of the funding or in the event that a couple of programs
did not come to fruition, then his number one priority was going to be an
allocation of whatever funds they could find for sidewalks.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize the City Manager to submit the
City of Anaheim's 1981-82 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application
for Clearinghouse (A-95) Review by the State of California and the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he agreed relative to the delta
of $75,000 because they were talking about an estimate of $95,000 against
$20,000 this year. He would like to see the $31,000 currently set out in
fiscal 1982-83 moved up into the current year, along with the $20,000 and that
would give at least enough money this year to install sidewalks on one side
without going to the difference of $75,000. He would be in favor of reducing
the Housing Rehabilitation $31,000, while he would not be in favor of reducing
it $75,000. He would appreciate the Council considering a $31,000 shift to
at least provide sidewalks on one side during this fiscal year.
The Mayor stated he could support that, but not out of Housing. It was more
important to have safe and sanitary housing than to have safe and sanitary
sidewalks. He suggested that they take a look at other trade-offs. For
instance, there was a total of $15,000 for the Orange County Fair Housing
Council. ,-
Mr. Priest confirmed for Councilman Bay that if, in fact, that program were
cut $10, OO0 that Council would handle less cases for Anaheim.
Councilman Roth stated he was responsive to the concerns of the citizens, but
he had to agree that housing was one of the top priorities of the Council. Thus
ha was reluctant to allocate $31,000 from Rousing. Re did not know i~ this was
the appropriate time to discuss shifts, but perhaps it would be more appropriate
to do so in February when they would know the actual dollars they would be
receiving from HUD. He noted that the Council was trying to show good faith
in the neighborhood by indicating that sidewalks were also a concern of theirs.
Councilman Overholt stated he shared Councilman Roth's view in that they would
have a clearer picture in Febraury and they should wait until then to make a
move if they wished to do so.
Councilman Bay asked if they could agree on a priority for the first $31,000;
Mayor Seymour stated he agreed for the differential of $75,000 for sidewalks on
both sides and they might be able to reach that. He noted that if Mr. Priest and
his staff were only 10% conservative on the $2 million, that would yield $200,000.
8O-
City ~all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
169: PUBLIC HEARING - ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CLOSURE OF WILKEN WAY: To consider
alternatives for the closure of Wilken Way, west of Oertly Drive.
City Engineer William Devitt explained that the Engineering Division was directed
by the City Council at its meeting of October 28, 1980 (see minutes that date)
to prepare alternate methods for the closure of Wilken Way, westerly of Oertly.
He submitted a report dated December 8, 1980 along with sketches of the alter-
natives proposed A, B and C.
Mr. Bob Jones, Civil Engineering Associate, referring to the sketches of the
alternatives which were included in the Council agenda packet, explained and
described in each alternative (A, B and C) how the closure would be accomplished.
All three alternatives, incorporated in one sketch, were also posted on the
Chamber wall.
The Mayor then asked Mr. Jones to explain why the alternative that the Council
approved one year ago (see minutes December 26, 1979) at Wilken Way and Haster
Street was not accomplished.
Mr. Jones reported that they were authorized to close Wilken Way at Haster sub-
ject to the City being able to acquire the necessary additional dedication at
no cost. They had spent ~he past year negotiating with the four property owners
involved and they had three deeds, but not the fourth, and thus the project was
stopped. In a communication of a couple of months ago received from residents,
because ~he closure had not been accomplished, they asked the City to look at
alternate methods for the closure, resulting in the three that were presently
being proposed.
Mr. Jones then clarified for Councilman Bay that the cost of the original
closure was estimated at $34,000. Presently proposed, Alternate A--(see
memo dated December 8, 1980 from the City Engineer) a knuckle and cul-de-sac
and Madrid Street was estimated at $43,000; Alternate B--a knuckle at Troy
Street and a tee intersection at Oertly, $65,000, and Alternate C--construc-
tion of a cul-de-sac on Wilken Way west of Oertly and "T" intersection at Oertly,
$39,000. In all of the costs they assumed that ~he right-of-way would be ded-
icated at no cost. He also estimated that the cost of acquiring the necessary
dedication on the original proposal would be $4,000 or $5,000 and thus the cost
for the improvement and acquisition of land would be approximately $40,000.
Councilman Roth then explained how the proposal for the closure of Wilken Way
evolved from 1979 to the present.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing asking first to hear from those in
favor of one or more of the alternatives proposed, and subsequently from all
those opposed to any or all alternatives for closure.
Mr. Don Casino first asked if they were also going to talk about the people
in the trailer park located east of Harbor and directly north of Wilken Way.
qity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Jones did not see that the trailer park would be a factor at all, the only
difference being that the people in the park would not be able to drive down
Wilken Way and exit onto Haster.
Mr. Casino pointed out that according to the map of the area posted on the
Chambers wall, it was directly in the west driveway going into the trailer
park.
The following people then spoke in favor of the closure of Wilken Way and expressed
their thoughts on the alternative(s) they favored:
Mr. Daniel Geering, 134 West Sirius: He was opposed to closing Wilken Way, west
of Oertly, the primary reason being safety. There were five exits on the
residential area onto Hastar--Sirius, Tiller, Cliffwood and Bluebell. On the
north there was only one exit at Oertly and on Harbor, to the west only one exit
and one to the south. Only one exit had a traffic signal to get into highly
traveled streets, the one at Wilken Way and Harbor and that was the one under
three proposals to be closed. Further aggravating the problem were the 18-wheel
trucks that had been allowed to park along Haster either legally or illegally.
To get outside to Haster, it was necessary to drive into the travel lane before
being able to see to make a left or right turn. The original proposal was the ~-
most satisfactory to him because it would still leave them with a good access
to Harbor Boulevard and the only one =hat had a traffic light. He confirmed
for the Mayor that he was speaking in favor of the original proposal and in
opposition to the other proposals.
Mr. Charles Deerborn, 22410ertly Drive: He was in favor of the closure west
of Oertiy. That way there would be no access through Wilken Way into the area
to get onto Haster. If they went to the original proposal, he was concerned
that the traffic was going to travel over Wilken Way to Oertly, down Oertly
and then exit on Tiller or Sirius. Thus ail the traffic would be coming
through those streets. If blocked at Oertly, that would not occur. He con-
firmed that he favored the closure west of Oertly either A, B or C and was
against the original proposal. ~-
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the closure;
there was no response. He assumed, therefore, with ~he exception of Mr. Geering
and Deerborn, the rest of the residents were either opposed or did not care.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not cer=ain the Mayor's observation was
correct. He asked for a show of hands of everybody present who was in favor
of any closure of Wilken Way. There were three. The Mayor, noting that Mr.
Deerborn had not raised his hand in opposition asked why he was not doing so;
from the audience, Mr. Deerborn indicated he was only in favor if the street
had to be closed.
In finality, there were three people in favor of the closure and approximately
50 to 60 people were present who raised =heir hands in opposition to the closure.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to the closure of Wilken
Way.
80-
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The following people spoke in opposition to the closure and highlights of their
opposition were as follows along with possible alternatives:
Mr. Don Casino, Bluebell and Oertly: the closure would affect them. The traffic
on Orangewood from Harbor to Haster was a speed barrier. There were two blind
corners coming out of Oertly leading onto Orangewood. It was not possible to
see either way. It was a blind corner and that would eliminate any exit from
that tract other than those already there.
Margaret Simon, Cliffwood Avenue: She did not see the need for a closure and
felt there were other alternatives for the people on Wilken Way. A year ago
when the closure was approved, no one within the tract area knew of it to voice
their opposition at that time. She suggested that they install a traffic light
on the corner of Wilken Way and Haster Street. She also felt it would be
appropriate for the City to paint red zones coming out of Oertly and Orangewood,
so that a driver could see coming out of Oertly. She was opposed to the
closure.
Terry Gamble, 202 West Cliffwood: From the posted street map of the area, she
explained what she felt would occur if Wilken Way were closed as originally
proposed. In finality, the traffic would be diverted to Cliffwood or Tiller
where there were no sidewalks. On the alternative, it would be a problem for
people trying to get to the only access to Harbor Boulevard safely. She then
gave an overview of the problems of circulation in the entire general area if
either the original or alternative closures were implemented. She emphasized
that to close Wilken Way at any point which was the original access to the
neighborhood and had the other street in the tract absorb the traffic would
be wrong. The money that would be spent could be otherwise allocated for side-
walks for the safety of their children. She thereupon submitted petitions from
people in the area opposed to the closure.
Mr. Lynn Brizendine, 243 West Cliffwood: He was against any form of blockage of
Wilken Way. If nothing else, there could be flashing lights installed from each
direction showing a hazard ahead. ,-
Mayor Seymour noted earlier that a Mr. Theodore Wagman had asked the number of
traffic accidents that had occurred on Wilken Way; Ms. Shirley Meredith,
Assistant Traffic Engineer, reported that the original study showed only three
collisions during a three and one-half year period. Also, a speed survey of
vehicles done on Wilken Way at the time revealed that 83% of the sample taken
were traveling somewhere between 24 and 34 miles per hour.
Dorothy Beday, 239 West Cliffwood: She was very much opposed to the closure
of Wilken Way by any alternative. Such a proposal would shut all the people
off in that tract with one exit only. She agreed tha~ relative to Orangewood
and Oertly, if the curbs were painted red on those streets, it would alleviate
a very hazardous situation. They needed every exit they had in that neighbor-
hood at this time.
Mrs. Johnson, 238 West Cliffwood: She had never seen an accident on that s~reet
and likewise, they had as much of a speed problem on Cliffwood as those on Wilken
Way.
~itZ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Frank McCormick, 229 West Bluebell. He suggested that the people on Wilken
Way call the police as he had done, to slow people down. Their taxes were too
high and he was opposed to spending any more money on such projects. He then
referred to a hump located on his street which was the result of a poor repair
job by the City at approximately House No. 243 Bluebell.
Mayor Seymour asked staff to make note of that situation and to investigate it
accordingly.
Mrs. Fern Call, owner of the house at 333 West Wilken Way: There had been acci-
dents on Wilken Way and about half had occurred in front of her house. However,
she explained the access and circulation problems that she felt would be created
with new developments pro~ected for the area. Considering those with the pre-
sent access in that residential area, she did not see how they could consider
taking public money and creating something to help one street that was going
to harm so many others.
Mrs Janet Stehly, 104 West Tiller: It was difficult to exit the area. There
were large trucks parked on Haster making it very difficult to see. She drove
all the way up to Oertly and down to Harbor so tha~ she could exit at a point
where she could see.
Mr. Charlie Nichols, 2165 Madrid: He was concerned relative to emergency vehicle
access and questioned if any discussion or survey had been made with the Fire
Department, Police Department, Paramedics, Ambulance people, etc. regarding
what the closure of Wilken Way might do to their activity. He realized that
people had been complaining about the speed on Wilken Way. The survey indi-
cated that 83% of the drivers had been violating the speed laws on that street.
He did not wonder at that because there was a 15 mile per hour speed limit
around the curve on Wilken Way which was not a realistic speed limit in his
opinion. If they raised it to 20 to 25 miles per hour and then enforced it,
it would eliminate a great deal of ~he trouble. He also felt that the meeting
itself tonight was superfluous because ~here were only three people who wanted
Wilken Way closed, whereas the great majority were not in favor of the closure.
Shirley Meredith reported tha~ during ~he original report, that they had memor-
andums from both the Police and Fire Department opposing the closure of Wilken
Way.
Mr. Glenn Sharon, 124 West Sirius: Relative to Haster, he stated that a friend
of his indicated there was a grid map proposing that Has~er be six lanes, as
wide as West Street, where they could connect the Santa Aha Freeway with the
Garden Grove Freeway. If so, thera would be a great deal more traffic going
up and down Haster.
City Engineer William Devitt confirmed that they had no proposals to make Haster
six lanes and he knew of no such study in process with regard to such a proposal.
It was possible that Mr. Sharon was thinking of the Anaheim Boulevard and Haster
Street Overcrossing.
Mrs. Rosemary Chisholm, 108 Cliffwood Avenue. She explained the Neighborhood
Watch Program they instituted about one year ago which had since diminished.
The situation relative to the traffic and speeding on Wilken Way became their
issue, the people on Wilken Way, wi:h no group involvement. Earlier when it
Cit~.. Hal. l, A~.aheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
was mentioned that neighborhoods should work as a group, it usually started out
that way but then there was too much influence from one group and that group
lost its insight. They could not just think of one street but had to consider
the whole neighborhood.
Mrs. Shirley Bramer, stated that next week at this time, the whole situation
would again come to the forefront. They were from Westwinds Trailer Park which
was proposed to be rezoned and with that rezoning, the only two entrances to
the park would be on Wilkan Way and Cliffwood. That would mean that the Harbor
exit would be closed adding more traffic to Wilken Way and particularly to
Cliffwood. She urged all those who would be affected to be at the meeting next
week.
Sue McCormick, 229 West Bluebell. She explained that she traveled north on
Haster everyday during the week and had to make a left turn onto Bluebell.
There was dangerous and fas~ traffic at that location. Sometimes she turned
down Wilken Way to get to Oertly and then onto Bluebell. They also used Wilken
Way all the time to get onto Harbor. The signal light at that location made it
feasible to do so. The traffic going down Orangewood was very heavy, traveling
east and west, with many homes facing that busy street. There was a signal at
Orangewood, Haster and Harbor. She did not know if it would pay to install a
three way stop, a signal light, or something on that order.
At this point, Councilman Roth stated he was ready to take an action to move
not to close any street. He had heard enough to convince him that the need
was not there, even though some people on Wilken Way would feel that it would
be nice to divert traffic to some of the other streets.
Mrs. Terry Gamble questioned what Mrs. Bramer had said relative to the rezoning
of the trailer park and that it would affect Wilken Way and Cliffwood with
heavy traffic. She wanted to know what she meant by that. If there was going
to be a meeting on December 23 that would affect her street, perhaps she should
know about it.
Mrs. Bramer explained that the new plan for condominiums which had been approved
by the Planning Commission called for only two entrances to that new development
(~estwinds Investments). One entrance would be a new entrance directly at Cliff-
wood at the corner. Another entrance would be on Wilken Way with no entrance
onto Harbor Boulevard.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated that the Council did not have an answer
to Mrs. Gamble's question because they had not seen the project referred to.
Relative to what was going to happen next week, the City Clerk informed him
that zoning proposal would be on the City Council agenda under the Planning
Commission Consent Calendar. He explained that when the Planning Commission
made any decision, any member of the public could appeal that decision to the
City Council by filing a request for appeal, along with the appropriate fee.
(Mrs. Bramer stated that the fee was $411 and they were ready to appeal).
Next week undoubtedly those concerned were going to appeal the Planning Com-
mission's decision. That did not mean, however, tha: a hearing was going to
take place at that time, but that the matter would automatically be set for
a public hearing with a hearing date to be determined at that time. He em-
phasized that the public hearing would not be on the Council agenda next
Tuesday, because legally it was not possible to do so, and that no action was
going to be taken in the meantime.
80-1642
City Hall, Anaheim, Cal~f.or~ia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Clerk then announced that anyone could appeal the matter any time up
until 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 23, 1980.
Councilman Bay stated Mrs. Bramer would not have to bother because he was going
to pull the item from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and request review
of the Planning Commission's action, thereby requiring the matter be set for a
public hearing.
The Mayor then closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that no action be taken of any type for any
closure of Wilken Way. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked that staff investigate some of
the blind spots that were reported tonight, particularly at Oertly and Orange-
wood, to see if they could work out a simple, low-cost improvement in that area
by some no parking at those corners. Also, he wanted staff to take a look at
and bring back to the Council for a decision, whether they would want some no
parking on some of the entrances and exits onto Haster out of the neighborhoods
to improve visibility. He noted ~hat there was a great deal of truck parking
by the big trailers in his neighborhood, as well, in an attempt to avoid the -
fees to park in the yards provided for them, thus blinding out some of the inter-
sections. He did not know whether the same situation was occurring along Haster
although some of the testimony revealed that was true. Staff should look at
the whole area to determine what could be done with regard to short no parking
zones to clear up the visibility on those corners.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (9:35 P.M.)