1979/08/2879-960
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Go~don W. Hoyt
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
PUBLIC WORKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thornton E. Piersall
STADIUM, CONVENTION CENTER & GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler
PUBLIC UTILITIES ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER: Edward G. Alario
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS MANAGER: Nancy Johnson
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
CETA SERVICES MANAGER: Bill R. Hepburn
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welComed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Edward Machado, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Job Shop Industry Week" - Week of August 27, 1979
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held February 20 and March 27, 1979, subject to typographical corrections. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,401,807.41, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
114: PRESENTATION: Mayor Seymour, in a continuing expression of appreciation to
Councilman Roth for representing the City by riding "Bingo" the Elephant, marking
the opening of the Circus in Anaheim, presented him with further tokens of that
appreciation, including an elephant and wild game hunting license and an elephant
gun properly equipped with ammunition (both plastic), along with a toy elephant.
79-961
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28,. 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth graciously accepted the gifts; however, with the hope that such
appreciation would soon come to an end.
175: FAVORABLE DECISION FOR ANAHEIM IN ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE RATE CASE - DOCKET
76-205: Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt stated he was delighted to
advise the Council that a decision had been handed down from ~he Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission on Docket 76-205, an electrical wholesale rate case by
Southern California Edison (SCE), from which the City gained everything they hoped
for. The refund would amount to approximately $6.5 million and, depending on the
status of appeals, should be received within six months to one year. Also, in
all of their cost of service items, they were ruled in the City's favor and upheld
by the Commission. He presumed that the judge in the Federal District Court in
Los Angeles where the City had an anti-trust suit in progress would also look at
that decision. If so, and if successful, $6.5 million trebled would turn into
another $19.5 million, or $26 million in total.
Mr. Hoyt concluded that winning the subject case was an outstanding victory and
a tribute to the attorneys, Speigel and McDiarmid, who carried the case through.
Mayor Seymour extended his congratulations on behalf of the Council to Mr. Hoyt
and the attorneys.
150: GRANT PROPOSAL - LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 79R-491 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated
August 22, 1979 from the Deputy City Manager James Ruth, authorizing the'City
Manager to submit an application to the State for a Land and Water Conservation
Grant in the amount of $208,250 for facility improvements at Pearson Park. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-491: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS FOR THE PEARSON
PARK PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID APPLICATION ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-491 duly passed and adopted.
180: GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE INCLUDING PUBLIC OFFICIALS ERRORS AND OMISSIONS:
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the offers of Marsh &
McLennan of $10,000,000 liability coverage excess of $10,000,000 and $1,000,000
Public Officials Errors and Omissions as contained in letters dated August 15
and 21, 1979, respectively, was accepted, as recommended in memorandum dated
August 21, 1979 from Risk Manager Jack Love. MOTION CARRIED.
79-962
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
158: DEDICATING ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG FRONTAGE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-492 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated August 22, 1979 from City Engineer William Devitt, dedicating
the ultimate right of way along the frontage of City-owned property located on
the east side of Brookhurst Street, north of Katella Avenue to 60 feet from the
centerline of Brookhurst Street. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-492: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.
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. 79R-492 duly passed and adopted.
123: GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES AND INVESTIGATION IN THE WESTRIDGE AREA OF ANAHEIm-!
HILLS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-493 for adoption, as
recommended in memorandum dated August 20, 1979 from the City Engineer, author-
izing an agreement with Moore & Taber, Consulting Engineers and Geologists, in
the amount of $3,640 for geotechnical services and investigation in the Westridge
area of Anaheim Hills, with funds to be appropriated from the Sewer Maintenance
Fund. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-493: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH MOORE & TABER AND AUTHOR-
IZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-493 duly passed and adopted.
114: REVISION OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 701 - SIDEWALK AND PARKWAY TRERS: Council-
man Bay moved to amend Council Policy No. 701 relating to fees for sidewalk repair
for damage caused by a tree on private property, $3 per square foot of 4-inch side-
walk repaired and $3.25 per square foot of 6-inch sidewalk repaired, and changing
the work unit involved to Facility Maintenance as recommended in memorandum dated
August 22, 1979 from the Executive Director of Public Works. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114: COUNCIL POLICY RELATING TO THE SELECTION OF PROFESSIONAL. CONSULTANTS: City
Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum from his office dated
August 22, 1979, recommending adoption of the new policy which the Council requested
be researched and developed at their meeting of May 29, 1979. He noted that the
proposed policy did not include the selection of firm~ providing legal services
to the City.
79-963
City Hall~ Anal.elm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay moved to establish a Council Policy relating to the selection of
professional consultants as recommended in memorandum dated August 22, 1979 from
the City Manager's office. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth expressed his opinion that the policy
was excellent and the intent of the Council; however, he questioned why the policy
should not be applied to legal services.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that Section 703 of the City Charter
provided that the City Attorney would have the control of outside counsel with
the Council's approval. There were cases when they had to act quickly in order
to engage outside counsel and felt that procedure would impair their ability to
move quickly. They also felt including legal counsel with consultants was
somewhat inappropriate since it was a special service.
Councilman Roth noted that the Council's request for such a policy was triggered
by a discussion relative to fees for Special Counsel, Alan Watts, yet the resul-
tant policy exempted attorneys.
Mr. Hopkins answered the policy applied to those legal services under the City
Attorney's control. They could prepare a special policy covering that, but he
felt it should not be included in the consultant category.
Mayor Seymour stated his concern was the input that might or might not be provided
by either elected and/or appointed officials. If a contract for professional
consulting was in excess of $20,000 and involved the Electric Utility, he wanted
to know if the Board as defined in the policy would go to the Public Utilities
Board before the matter was presented to the Council.
City Manager Talley stated it had been the practice in the past that Council
preferred that procedure take place. While it was not a requirement in the
administrative process, they had been doing it, and he would expect that the
Department would continue doing that. Otherwise, they would be getting into
an area more properly the function of a non-Charter board. Rather than become
involved in that type of situation, he asked that they continue the informal
practice of passing it through the Public Utilities Board. That was traditionally
done first, rather than having Council refer it back to them. Frequently, however,
they were involved in subjects that were strictly administrative.
Mayor Seymour then explained it was not the Alan Watts fee situation that prompted
him to request a policy regarding consultants, but the hiring of a consultant
initially on a reservoir project that brought about a follow-on contract that
could be awarded only to that firm. He reiterated his concern was that either
elected or appointed officials be part of the process. If they were going to
be spending in excess of $20,000 on a consultant's contract, it deserved the
scrutiny not only of the decision-making body, the City Council, but also the
appropriate board or commission and if there was no board or commission involved,
then the Council Liaison Committee approached.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered an amendment to the original motion that the
policy provide that on consulting contracts in excess of $20,000, prior to submission
to the Council, that it be submitted to appropriate boards, commissions or Council
Liaison Committee. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of dis-
cussion.
79-964
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Council discussion followed wherein Councilman Bay stated if a contract came
to the Council and it had not been through a board or commission at that time,
at the discretion of the City Manager, he believed it would be better if the
Council then directed that it go to the appropriate commission and particularly
on large consulting jobs. If the City Manager under the stated present conditions
brought a contract directly to the Council without first taking it to a board
or commission, he would assume he would have some good reason for doing so.
Mayor Seymour stated if it was going to be the exception that Councilman Bay
was concerned with, then the City Manager could recommend waiving the policy
on those exceptions and move ahead.
Councilman Bay stated he would not be against the amendment if it was possible
to waive that policy by a request of the City Manager.
A brief discussion then followed between the Mayor and Councilman Overholt wherein
it was clarified by the Mayor that the contract would go before the appropriate
board or commission for recommendation and in the event there was no board or
commission, it would go before the appropriate Council Liaison Committee; Council-
man Overholt stated he supported that concept.
Mr. Talley asked that the Council be certain that the City Attorney was comfor-
table with the amendment so that it would not impose a legislative obligation
on an administrative decision.
City Attorney Hopkins stated as far as he could see, it wa8 merely a recommendation
that was going to be reviewed with the commission or board as appropriate, and if
it was just a recommendation, he did not see any problem. Presumably it would
already be cleared through the City Manager's office by the time it proceeded
to that stage.
Mr. Taliey stated that the recommendation of the City Manager or the department
head would be merely submitted for review and not for a recommendation.
After a brief discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Talley on that point, Mr.
Hopkins stated that he did not see any objection to a mere recommendation that
would not have the power of veto, just a recommendation; Mr. Talley noted that
they might receive two recommendations.
Councilman Overholt stated it was his understanding in the instance where there
was no board or commission, the matter would go before the Liaison Committee
which included two memebers of the Council, and he presumed the Liaison Committee
would have the Manager's recommendation at that time and the City Manager would
not be bound by the Liaison Committee.
Mr. Talley stated he would still submit the report and the Liaison Committee
would submit their reaction to it.
A vote was taken on the amended motion offered by Councilman Seymour MOTION
CARRIED. ·
A vote was then taken on the original motion by Councilman Bay establishing the
Council Policy accordingly as follows:
79-965
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
"COUNCIL POLICY NO. 401:
It is the policy of the City Council that the following
procedures shall be used in the selection of technical consulting
services. This policy shall include, but not be limited to,
services in the following fields: (Legal services are not included.)
Engineering (civil, mechanical, electrical, structural,
traffic, etc.)
Architecture
Landscape Architecture
City and Regional Planning
Economic Analyses
Property Appraisals
Financial Services
Data Processing Services
Purpose of Policy
Technical consultant services are of a professional nature, and
due to the ethical codes of the professions involved, as well as
the nature of the services to be provided, do not readily fall
within the competitive bidding process. Technical consultants
should be individually selected for a specific project or problem
with the objective of selecting that most qualified consultant at
a fair and reasonable cost.
Selection Procedures
A. Major Projects - Anticipated fee of over $20,000
Affected department(s) shall prepare a Request for
Proposals (RFP) and invite a minimum of five ($) quali-
fied firms to submit proposals.
When five (S) potential firms are unavailable, or if it
is in the best interests of the City to limit the
number of firms solicited, the basis for such action
should be included in the report to the City C~uncil.
A Review Board selected by the appropriate department
head and composed of appropriate staff representatives
and/or qualified outside representatives will review
the proposals received and select the most qualified
firms for interviews. Upon the conclusion of the
interviews, the Review Board shall rank the consultants
based upon the following criteria.
a. Ability of the consultants to perform the specific
tasks outlined in the RFP.
b. Qualifications of the specific individuals who will
work on the project.
79-966
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
c. Amount and quality of time key personnel will be
involved in their respective portions of the project.
d. Reasonableness of the fee requested to do the work.
Demonstrated record of success by the consultant on
work previously performed for the City, and for
other municipalities or enterprises.
f. The specific method and techniques to be e~rployed by
the consultant on the project or problem.
The Review Board's recommended selection will be forwarded
to the City Manager for placement on the Council agenda.
The recommendation should include the fees quoted by each
consultant and a summary of the basis used to select the
recommended consultant.
When the anticipated fee exceeds $20,000, the recommendation
of the Review Board should also be reviewed and acted upon
by the appropriate public board/commission, or Council
Liaison Committee prior to submittal to the City Council.
B. Intermediate Projects - Anticipated fee between $5,000 - $20,000
Affected department(s) should utilize procedures noted
above and solicit proposals from a minimum of three (3)
qualified consultants.
C. Hinor Projects - Anticipated fee under $5,000
The department heads shall maintain current files on
qualified consultants in appropriate categories. The
department shall by telephone or letter contact at least
three (3) qualified consultants and request them to submit
a proposal.
The department head shall make a selection based upon the
criteria noted in Section A and forward a recommendation
to the City Manager/City Council.
Renewal of Contracts with Professional Consultants
Requests to the City Council to renew an existing contract with
a professional consultant should include an evaluation of the work
performed by the consultant, as well as determination that the fees
being charged are comparable to similar services offered by other
consultants."
MOTION CARRIED.
79-967
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
106: FISCAL YEAR 1978-79 PROPOSITION 13 STATE ASSISTANCE (BAILOUT) - RESERVE
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR - CONSTRUCTION AND EqUIPING OF A
MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE GARAGE FACILITY - MODIFICATION OF ASSEMBLY BILL 8
FIXING AND L~V¥ING THE 1979-80 TAX RATE: City Manager Talley briefed the
Council on mem6randum dated August 22, 1979 from the Assistant Finance Director
recommending appropriation of the remaining FY 1978-79 Proposition 13 State
Assistance (bailout) receipts, as well as the estimated assistance receipts
for FY 1979-80 totalling $1,610,696 and also Attachment I and II; memorandum
dated August 22, 1979 from the Assistant Finance Director recommending reserve
appropriations for the prior Fiscal Year and Attachment I, II and III; memor-
andum dated August 29, 1979 from the Department of Finance and Public Works,
recommending that staff obtain lease purchase financing proposals from inter-
ested financial institutions for the construction and equipping of a mechanical
maintenance garage facility; memorandum dated August 29, 1979 from the Assistant
Finance Director recommending that staff be directed to research and investigate
means to modify or cause to have modified some specific provisions of AB 8 which
eroded, without Justification, the City's financial stability, and memorandum
dated August 28, 1979 from the Program Development and Audit office recommending
that the Council by ordinance adopt an ad valorem tax rate for FY 1979-80 of
$0.094 per $100 of assessed valuation for purposes of general obligation bond
redemption.
Mayor Seymour asked, before setting priorities relative to the expenditure of
State funds, if there were questions of the Council relative to the first item,
FY 1979-80 Assistance Appropriations.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if on AB 8, a copy of the draft that was prepared had
been sent to the local League of Cities and State League.
Mr. Talley answered "no" as it would be his intention if Council approved that
report today, to send a copy to the League and to every City Manager, requesting
their comments on the report. He did not believe it appropriate until the Council
either adopted it, had taken a position, or had at least received and filed a
report.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be very much in favor of so doing. The
August 24 Legislative Bulletin from the League, item 3, supported it, but it did
not go into as much detail as staff's report, and she felt it critical that they
do so. She commented that it was sad that local control had flown up to Sacramento.
Councilman Bay then posed questions regarding the assistance appropriations
(Attachment I - Remaining Prioritized Capital Improvement Projects) one of which
involved the high priority given sidewalks on the east side of Gilbert Street,
south of Broadway. He wanted to know if that involved the two small strips
on the end and if the County had put sidewalks in the areas in between because
a strip of County land was involved.
City Engineer William Devitt confirmed Councilman Bay's understanding. It would
finish the improvement in the City and would mitigate the responsibilities that the
City had to provide access for its children. In addition, whenever there was
a project adjacent to any other city or county, they made every effort to have
79-968
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
them continue a project to completion. This was an extension of an existing
sidewalk extending it to the County property line and it was their responsi-
bility from then on. The reason for its priority was due to the delegation
that was present in the Council Chamber at a prior meeting requesting that it
be placed at the top of the list.
Councilman Bay noted under the same list, Swan Street, Romneya to Anaheim Boule-
vard, $55,000 and below the zero (additional unrefunded capital improvement
projects) Anaheim Boulevard - Swan Street Storm Drain Removal, $30,000. He
questioned whether they would have to be done concurrently and also questioned
what the impact would be in putting them together.
Mr. Devitt stated it would desirable if they were done concurrently and there
would be a distinct advantage in having them done together.
Councilman Overholt asked what additional expense there would be at a later
date if they did not include the storm drain removal in the present list of
priorities; Mr. Devitt answered approximately a 10 or 15% increase in project
cost if they were not a co~on project and bid independently at different points
in time.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the Project Alpha Offsite Storm Drain as to whether
or not a time element was involved, where funding would come from if not in the
prioritized capital improvement projects, and if separately funded, would that mean
ripping up streets twice.
Mr. Devitt answered that it was a vital project with a strong element of time
involved. If the project went beyond three years, a risk was being taken. It
would not involve ripping up streets twice. The drain would start at Project
Alpha and continue on to the Carbon Creek Channel down West Street. It was
Offsite Project Alpha.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the Broadway Storm Drain from Valley Street to
Brookhurst, $365,000. She noted it was not too long ago that Broadway was re-
surfaced, and presumed because of the lack of storm drains, it was under water so
much that it was deteriorating faster than if storm drains were installed.
Mr. Devitt stated that was correct and that a street was designed to last 15 years
with good drainage and without it, the life was 5 years.
Mr. Thornton Piersall, Executive Director of Public Works, then clarified questions
pertaining to alley reconstruction. With the force account, they were reconstruc-
ting about three-fourths of a mile under the Street Maintenance and Property
Maintenance program. This was an additional mile beyond that and also the
reconstruction which was covered under the Block Grant Program. Overall,
there was approximately 27 miles of alley to be reconstructed and they were
about halfway through at this point.
Councilman Bay then commented on AB 8 and what he gleaned from the City Manager
was that it would render any future bailout funds very questionable. After read-
ing the report, looking into it himself, and from what he had heard, they were
going to have to be careful about committing capital improvement projects this
79-969
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
year on the remaining money if it related to one-half million dollars more each
year thereafter. Critical to their decision on the priorities was how much
they committed for the next year and the year after that, because not only
was there the possibility that those funds might not be available, but also
instead of being State relief for the cities, it could be city relief for the
State. If they were going to consider committing all of the $1.6 million and
in so doing commit themselves to two and three more years added capital
improvements, they should also be looking at alternatives as to what they were
going to do if they did not receive that money.
The Mayor then asked to hear from any member of the public relative to how they
felt the funds should be appropriated.
Judy Dugal, 5356 Westr±dge Road, stated she was speaking on behalf of the residents
present today. The Council let them know they were concerned by approving the
construction of a branch library for their area. They supported that action
both as parents concerned about the betterment of education and as residents
who realized how the addition of a library would enhance their community. Anaheim
Hills had become one of the fastest growing areas within the City with a projected
population growth of 65,000 and an enrollment figure overall of 4,000 students.
With that view in mind, it was essential and important that the branch library
suit the present needs, as well as future needs. Being associated with the Canyon
Hills Junior Women's Club, they had recently committed themselves to a book cam-
paign designed to stock the shelves in the library and had a library book fund
savings account. By working together with the residents, local organizations
and City staff, they could effectively produce positive results for such a vital
need within the community. She thanked the Council for the opportunity of ex-
pressing their support for the funding of a library in the 1979-80 budget.
Mayor Seymour asked how many other citizens were present on the matter and felt
the same way relative to the library; approximately 12 people responded by a
show of hands.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, stated she was in support of financing for
the library. They were going to have $289,000, but she was concerned over where
they would go next year since that amount would not build a library and it might
never occur. She urged the Council to direct the library to look for grants as
a source of funding to insure that money was going to be there. If they took
funds from other areas, they would merely be hurting other parts of the City
where needs existed. She reiterated she supported funding for the library,
but she did not want the citizens of the canyon, five years from now, to end
up with $289,000 in the budget with no money coming from other sources. She
agreed with Councilman Bay, it ~ight be a false hope for all of them.
Mayor Seymour asked, if the Council were able to deal with the question of future
funding for the library, did she foresee the library as being the number one
priority as far as capital improvements in the canyon; Mrs. Hall answered "no",
she saw Canyon Site No. 2 as having the top priority and the library No. 2. The
Mayor stated they had already taken care of Canyon Site No. 2 in the budget.
Mrs. Hall indicated that the library would then be number one priority.
79-970
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Discussion followed between Councilman Roth and City Manager Talley as to where
funds would be derived if the allowed funds were no longer available for next year.
Mr. Talley explained that the money, if committed to the library, would be found
and it would be in the budget because it would not be an option. He assumed that
he would take it out of "bailout" funds and if that did not exist, then Revenue
Sharing, otherwise, other operating programs.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated that although he heard some valid concerns
regarding AB 8 and although they must be prudent, he was of the opinion there
was overreaction to the report they received on AB 8. He then asked the City
Manager the worst that could happen relative to AB 8.
City Manager Talley stated it was his opinion it would have zero influence on
the City. The only point he was making was that he did not think the Legisla-
ture had any business moving the revenues around.
After further discussion on the issue, Mayor Seymour stated he would not support
any action on which he felt they could not follow through. If the Council was
going to commit to the library, they were going to have to do so all the way.
Mr. Talley stated he believed that Revenue Sharing would exist, or bailout funds,
or both, but he felt there was a strong possibility the U.S. Congress when it
came to renewing Revenue Sharing might enact to leave the Sta~e share out which
would trigger AB 8. He did not believe they would take both Revenue Sharing
and AB 8 away.
Councilman Overholt stated if the Council acted today on the library budget for
the present Fiscal Year, it would carry out a commitment the Council already
made to the residents in that portion of the community to furnish resources now
offered to other areas of the City. His vote would be one to build the library
and to commit to the financial resources to complete that library.
Councilman Bay stated he was not against the canyon branch library and never
had been. He wanted to see it built as well as other things, but there was no
way to discuss specific dollar amounts on the item without talking about AB 8.
They had to consider not only what they were going to commit to it this year,
but also what they would commit to for the next two or three years. It dealt
with all priorities and knowing what they had precommitted.
biayor Seymour stated he would be interested in seeing the City Manager's best
estimate as to the worst that could happen with AB 8 and perhaps they should
postpone expenditures until that information was supplied. Specifically
relative to the fire station and the library, the Council needed his best
guesstimate relative to State "bailout" funds within the time frame of next year
and the following year.
Mr. Talley stated his opinion was that they would have somewhere around 50% of
the current "bailout" amounts or better for the next two years even if Congress
instituted a reduction.
79-971
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The worst would be in the area of $600,000 to $700,000 and staff had already
agreed to assume in the operating budget about $700,000. The issue was how big
the library would be. Under the worst case, he was of the opinion they could
fund the library and the fire station with "bailout" and/or Federal Revenue
Sharing.
The Mayor asked to hear from Councilman Overholt since he was the Liaison member
to the Library Board.
Councilman Overholt stated they had a meeting with the Library Board and the
City Manager, and it was the recommendation of the Board that a library with
18,000 square feet be recommended for the hill and canyon area. This was a
reduction from the prior recommendation which was 25,000 square feet. Included
in the 18,000-square foot facility were community rooms or rooms that could be
used for particular affairs, and the Library Board felt it was not within their
jurisdiction to recommend the additional expense for community service facilities.
His understanding was that the projected cost for 18,000 square feet would fill
the needs of the canyon area for the foreseeable future and would allow for
expansion of services as the population increased. The figure given by the
architect for the construction cost was $1.5 million, $300,000 of which would
be required in this year's budget. The proposed allocation on the priority list
would cover $289,696 and the library allocated $10,000 of its general fund budget
for this year. Next year, there would be a $900,000 commitment to continue the
project and $300,000 in the next succeeding fiscal year if they were to proceed
on the 18,000-square foot facility. He indicated they should also direct their
attention as to whether or not they wanted a larger facility which would also
include facilities for community activities.
Mayor Seymour stated if they moved into the area of community facilities, he
personally saw the need for such facilities. On the other hand, the pressures
the Council was under relative to the other prioritized capital items led him
to believe the best road was the commitment to the 18,000-square foot facility
and the funding schedule outlined and to subsequently direct the architect to
so lay out the building so as to be able to add additional square feet in the
vicinity of 4,000 for community purposes at some future date.
106/140: MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the funding schedule for
an 18,000-square foot regional library in Anaheim Hills as follows: 8289,696,
current fiscal year; $900,000 - FY 80-81; and $300,000 - FY 81-82. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know from the residents
if they had a preference relative to the site - whether the original site or on
the parking lot site at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course.
The Mayor explained that the City currently owned the site on Nohl Ranch Road
very close to the elementary school and not far from Canyon High School which
was the original proposed site for the library. Recent discussions had been
undertaken relative to relocating to the Golf Course site and those were the
two site options. The Library Board was recommending the original site because
no money would be saved on the Golf Course site and the way traffic moved down
Nohl Ranch Road presented a hazard for that site. He then asked for a show
of hands on site preference - approximately 11 favored the original site and
one favored the Golf Course site.
79-972
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked James Ruth if the original site that was chosen was
that adjacent to the hilltop site scheduled for a future park.
Mr. Ruth presumed the site Councilwoman Kaywood referred to was that east of
Via Cabrillo; Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed that it was. Mr. Ruth stated they
were looking at a three-year time frame on the park site, but the library site
was acceptable to the Commission. They had reviewed it and staff also recommended
that and concurred in that location. Relative to the joint use of parking between
the park and the library, that was a part of the original discussion, and it was
felt there would be benefit in so doing. He believed there would be some cooper-
ative usage.
Councilwoman ~aywood was of the opinion that it would be desirable for Mr. Ruth
to be sitting on the architectural meetings so that a plan would not be devised
for one project that would later be found to have an adverse affect on the one
adjacent.
Councilman Bay asked the City Manager on the basis of the commitment to the
proposed financing schedule for the library, plus what they were already committed
to on the second half of Fire Station 8, could that possibly wipe out any other
capital improvements next year.
Mr. Talley answered that it could other than those projects funded from special
sources such as Enterprise Funds, Gas Tax Funds and Sewer Funds.
Councilman Bay stated he was ready to act favorably on the motion, but he wanted
everybody to fully understand the situation; the Mayor interjected that the
situation should be clarified for the public and the press, and he thereupon asked
the City Manager in the budget that was approved in June without any bailout funds
whatsoever, how much of that was for capital improvements.
Mr. Talley answered that the total capital improvement budget was approximately
$44.5 million of which nearly all was non-General Fund. For the General Fund
projects, they were using "bailout" funds, where typically General Revenue Sharing
Funds were used for those projects.
In order to put things in proper perspective, the Mayor then asked the City
Manager if there was a possibility that there would not be any capital improve-
ments in the City other than the continuation of the library and fire station.
He used the comparison of $44.5 million for this year's capital i~provements done
through various sources of revenues with the $1.157 million of "bailout" funds.
Thus, no one should be led to believe that nothing would be done next year.
Mr. Talley explained that the list represented what they considered projects of
a very high priority for which no other funding source was available. It was
conceivable that they would just be finishing up projects the Council authorized
this year with funds that could be applied to those projects.
The Mayor clarified that many millions of dollars worth of capital improvements
would be done in the City next year whether or not "bailout" funds were available.
Mayor Seymour then included in his foregoing motion that the library be built
on the original site; Councilwoman Kaywood asked that Mr. Ruth also be included
in the planning meetings. Councilman Overholt accepted the inclusions.
79-973
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor clarified his motion as follows: to approve the funding schedule for
an 18,000-square foot regional library in Anaheim Hills to be constructed on the
original site under the financing schedule previously articulated and with Deputy
City Manager James Ruth to be included in all planning meetings.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting, Mayor Seymour then offered the following items for consider-
ation of approval from the list of prioritized Capital Improvement Projects (Attach-
ment I - August 22, 1979 memorandum) and additional unfunded Capital Improvement
Projects (Attachment I, Page 2 same memo):
Prioritized Capital Improvement Pro~ects
Peralta Canyon Park, $115,000
Sidewalks - Gilbert Street, east side - north of Valdina, $40,000
State College Storm Drain - Romneya to La Palma, $335,000
Storm Drain - Swan Street - Romneya to Anaheim Boulevard, $55,000
Sidewalk - West Street from South Street to Vermont, $30,000
Additional Unfunded Capital Improvement Projects
Anaheim Boulevard - Swan Street Storm Drain Removal, $30,000 (ties in with item 4
above)
Acacia Street Storm Drain - Romneya to La Palma, $200,000
Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain - Chantilly to Rio Vista, $55,000
Cerritos Avenue south side - east of Euclid, $50,000
State College Storm Drain - Sycamore to La Palma, $85,000
He noted that the $289,696 was already allocated for the library. Also included
would be the Family Foursome requests and funding schedule to be funded by Stadium/
Convention Center generated funds in FY 1980-81 totalling $325,000 (Attachment III).
If the Council approved the above improvements in the spirit which he was suggesting,
the list, to his knowledge, would serve citizens living in-the residential areas.
Much of the storm drain work that he suggested be eliminated on the remaining
prioritized capital improvement projects covered industrial areas in the Sunkist
Cerritos area, and it would be at their expense if they were removed from the list
and replaced with residential neighborhood storm drains and projects of that type.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the Stadium/Convention Center capital
requests were for 1980-81; the Mayor thereupon eliminated that $325,000 from his
proposed list. As well, after a brief Council discussion, he stated that he would
be willing to include the sidewalk on Gilbert Street, east side - ~outh°of
Broadway contingent upon the County delivering the remainder o~ that sidewalk
as previously discussed.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem in changing the priorities at this
time because with storms drains, the need was so great with respect to all of
them and that was the reason why she wanted to have a bond issue on the ballot.
Therefore, if the list presented reflected the priorities, she wanted to stay
with that list.
79-974
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor noted that he had not changed any monies for storm drains, but only
where they would be going; Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from the City
Engineer as to why the projects were prioritized in the mmnner they were pre-
sented.
City Engineer William Devitt explained that through staff discussions, the
projects were prioritized on the basis of what they thought was the greatest
need. He then commented upon several of the deliberations. The Cerritos Storm
Drain was an existing line channel that had cracked and failed and the attempt
was to replace that with the pipe. The other project on which he received many
calls from citizens in the area involved the Winston Street-Sunkist intersection.
He had a petition from ali of the industries along Winston to improve that dirt
intersection. As well, a large mobile home park had been completed in that area.
The cost was minor, but the job was a major one as far as community impact.
The Mayor stated he felt they could absorb both of those projects in what he had
suggested.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Devitt relative to the Cerritos Avenue State
College to Anaheim Boulevard project; Mr. Devitt explained that the water flowed
down Cerritos and caused a problem at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and
it historically had been a flood area. That project would be a definite aid tO
the Anaheim Boulevard area at Cerritos.
Councilman Bay then questioned Mr. Devitt on the Kellogg Drive Storm Drain at
Orangethorpe Avenue, asking if that was part of the Redevelopment area; Mr. Devitt
explained it was never in the Redevelopment area. ~]~e drain itself was never
included as a drain to be constructed by Redevelopment, but part of it was in
the Project area.
Councilman Bay stated he agreed with the Mayor in the temporary removal of that
project in comparison to other priorities, but he asked that Mr. Devitt explore
the possibility of that $180,000 cost being paid for by Redevelopment monies.
Mayor Seymour then recommended the following: approve the remaining prioritized
capital improvement projects, Attachment I, page 1 of August 22,.1979 m~morandum
excluding at this time the Kellogg Storm Drain at Orangethorpe, $180,000; Cerritos
Storm Drain, 970 feet east of Anaheim Boulevard, $120,000; Cerritos Avenue, State
College to Anaheim Boulevard, $305,000, or a total of $605,000. Approve Unfunded
Capital Improvement Projects, Attachment I, page 2, Anaheim Boulevard, Swan
Street Storm Drain Removal, $30,000; Acacia Street Storm Drain, Romneya to La
Palma, $200,000; Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain, Chantilly to Rio Vista, $55,000;
Cerritos Avenue south side, east of Euclid, $50,000; State College Storm Drain,
Sycamore to La Palma, $85,000, or a total of $420,000, leaving an unallocated
amount of $185,000.
City Manager Talley suggested that since they were looking at an approximate six
month minimum work load with the projects proposed to be funded, a report could
be submitted in six or seven months as to whether or not their estimates were
proper and if the balance could then be reallocated. The Council had today given
staff the guidance needed relative to the major portion of the funds. He estimated
it would be approximately March 1st when they could report to the Council as to
actual cost for the project and the status at that time.
79-975
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Devitt what such a delay would cost relative
to major programs that had been on the urgent priority list.
Mr. Devitt stated as he understood, they would be coming back in six months to
give a progress schedule. They had not yet started design on any of the projects
and it would take a maximum of six months to get some of the projects under way.
It was unlikely they could have all bids out within six to nine months.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to approve the remaining prioritized
Capital Improvement Projects and also approve the Unfunded Capital Improvement
Projects both as articulated above with a report to be submitted in six months
relative to progress on the Capital Improvement Projects with allocation of the
remaining unallocated balance to be considered at that time. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Mr. Talley stated that when bids were received on the library
project, he would probably be coming back with an ordinance establishing a special
fund doctrine so that the funds could be impounded for three fiscal years.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve certain reserve appropriations from the
prior fiscal year totalling $1,175,137, to FY 1979-80. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
159: MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to direct staff to obtain Lease/Purchase
Financing Proposals from financial institutions for the construction and equipping
of a Mechanical Maintenance Garage Facility. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Talley then briefed the Council on report dated August 22, 1979 from the
Department of Finance relative to Assembly Bill 8 (AB 8) which included an
extensive discussion of provisions contained in the bill which involved local
governments, "a" through "g", all of which had been enacted, with the exception of
"e". The report also contained a summary and a conclusion which stated the re-
quirements of the bill were indicative of the further decline of California
Cities' ability to control their own destinies and a move toward a more total
State domination. If Council concurred relative to the report, it would enable
the Intergovernmental Relations staff to represent that the City would want the
provisions modified and to work with the Mayor or other members of the Council
at the League level in trying to collect what they considered serious intrusions
into local affairs.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct staff to research and investigate means to
modify or cause to have modified specific provisions of AB 8, to provide permanent
post-Proposition 13 State Assistance for local governments. Councilman Bay sec-
onded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the report would be cir-
culated in the League; Mr. Talley answered that it would be sent to every city
tomorrow. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it could be sent State-wide as well.
Councilman Bay was not supportive of that suggestion.
Mayor Seymour stated he was generally supportive of the motion, but it was so
comprehensive it touched upon areas to which he was sensitive. If a "yes" vote
meant that he was either opposing the effects and intent of Proposition 13 and/or
79-976
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
he was opposing the philosophy of the Spirit of 13, he could not support the
motion. To the degree that the State was being unreasonable in carrying out what
they perceived to be an approach to bailout, he could support that aspect. Thus,
he was in a quandary on the motion.
Councilwoman Kmywood stated that the report was talking about new things that
the State was looking to do to interfere at the local level and "messing" with
funds which they had never been able to do before.
Mr. Talley then explained the direction they were looking for. They accepted
that Proposition 13 was the will of the people and also conceded to the view
that the Gann Initiative would pass. However, AB 8 gave School Districts power
over the City, it was an intrusion of the physical and operational affairs of
the City, as well as other adverse impacts listed in the report.
The Mayor stated one problem area from his viewpoint was the establishment of a
deflator factor (paragraph d) relative to State "bailout" funds. He wanted to
be certain that Anaheim received its fair share at the State and Federal level,
but if he were to be put in a position philosophically of trying to increase
State "bailout" funds, that seemed to be counter productive to the intent and
philosophy of Proposition 13.
Mr. Talley explained what they were stating relative to "bailout", that to call
AB 8 a long-term financial assistance bill was a misnomer when a deflator factor
was included that could remove all of that. In essence, they were saying "stay
out of City business."
Nancy Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, suggested that they might also
consider circulating the report to all local legislators who were currently working
on the "clean-up" bill and the report was the kind of information they were looking
for.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion including the provision that a copy
of the report be submitted to the 25 other Orange County cities, the League of
Cities, and local legislators, but not to the State League. MOTION CARRIED.
171: ORDINANCE NO. 4042 - FIXING AND LEVYING 1979-80 TAX RATE: City Attorney
William Hopkins recommended that first reading of the proposed ordinance be
authorized today. However, the Charter provided that the Council fix the rate
on or before August 31 for the next fiscal year. Final adoption
would occur on next Tuesday, which would be September 4. Thus, to avoid any
problem, he also recommended that the rate be adopted as an emergency ordinance
due to the Charter provision.
City Clerk Linda Roberts thereupon read the proposed ordinance in its entirety.
Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4042 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4042: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A
PROPERTY TAX ON ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1979-80. ($.094/$100)
79-977
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4042 duly passed and adopted.
171: ORDINANCE NO. 4043: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4043 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4043: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A
PROPERTY TAX ON ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1979-80. ($.094/$100)
PUBLIC HEARING - REHEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application by Frederick R. and Ruth E. Sachet, to permit the sales
of home furnishings on ML zoned property located at 1040 Kraemer Place.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-18, declared the
project exempt from the requirement to file Environmental Impact Report and
negative declaration status was previously granted by the Council on May 15,
1979. The Planning Commission further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1923
(PC79-18) and the application was also denied by the City Council at the May 15,
1979 meeting (79R-276-see minutes that date).
A rehearing was requested by Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney for the applicant, and
granted May 29, 1979, with a public hearing to be scheduled in 90 days. Mr.
Farano was now requesting a continuance of the public hearing to some time after
September 11, 1979.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak on the matter; no one was present.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request for con-
tinuance was approved, with rehearing scheduled to be held October 2, 1979,
3:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-22A: In accordance with application
filed by Orange County Water District and Harmco Materials, Inc. public hearing
was held on proposed abandonment of a City road and public utility easement over
a portion of La Jolla Street from Kraemer Boulevard east to its present terminus,
pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-458 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and
notice thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated July 17, 1979 and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said abandonment
subject to the condition that an easement be preserved for the existing gas
and electrical lines.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
79-978
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
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. 79R-494 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 78-22A, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-494: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACTION AND ABANDONMENT OF LA JOLLA STREET, EASTERLY OF KRAEMER
BOULEVARD. (78-22A)
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. 79R-494 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:30 P.M.)
153: SENIOR ACCOUNTANT POSITION IN THE CETA SERVICES DIVISION: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman gaywood, the addition of a Senior
Accountant position to the CETA Services Division was authorized, as recommended
in memorandum dated August 21, 1979 from the Human Resources Department. MOTION
CARRIED.
101: EXTENSION OF SZABO FOOD/CITY OF ANAHEIM STADIUM AGREEMENT: City Manager
Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated August 24, 1979 from the Stadium
Convention Center, Golf Course General Manager Tom Liegler, recommending the
subject extension.
Councilman Seymour moved to approve in concept and instrucing the City Attorney
to prepare an addendum to the agreement with Szabo Food Service at the Stadium
to extend it through December 31, 1985 in return for advance of funds for
constructing and equipping concession stands and restaurants, etc., in the
expansion portion of the Stadium. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: PUBLIC UTILITES DEPARTMENT METER READING PROGRAM: Councilman Overholt
offered Resolution No. 79R-495 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
August 20, 1979 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, approving
an agreement with Barry and Company in an amount not to exceed $5,200 for
professional services in connection with an evaluation of the City's meter
reading system. Refer to Resolution Book.
79-979
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-495: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH BARRY AND COMPANY FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH A METER READING SYSTEM EVALUATION, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant General Manager of Public
Utilities, clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
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. 79R-495 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay left the Council Chamber. (4:40 P.M.)
123: COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY PROPERTY EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH MARRIOTT COR-
PORATION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-496 for adoption, as
recommended in memorandum dated August 22, 1979 from the City Attorney, approving
a Property Exchange Agreement and Escrow Instructions by and between the City,
the Marriott Corporation and the Community Center Authority in connection with
the Convention Center Betterment II Program. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-496: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A PROPERTY EXCHANGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, THE MARRIOTT CORPORATION, AND THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY;
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND RELATED
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-496 duly passed and adopted.
173: REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF TAXICAB PERMIT - YELLOW CAB COMPANY: To allow
the operation of two to four vans in the Disneyland area during convention and
heavy peak periods, at $1 per person per destination up to a $4 maximum charge
per trip per destination.
Councilman Bay returned to the Council Chamber and Councilman Overholt left
the Council Chamber. (4:43 P.M.)
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Slagle if he had any intention of going outside
of the area discussed in his letter request dated July 5, 1979 (on file in the
City Clerk's office), that is, Disneyland, Disneyland Hotel, Grand Hotel and
the Convention Center.
79-980
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Larry Slagle, Vice-President, Yellow Cab Company of Northern Orange County,
stated that primarily that was the basis of the plan. It could possibly extend
to the Stadium and downtown, but their indication showed that the biggest demand
was at the Grand Hotel where people disembarked from buses, not someone wanting
to go to the shopping center as Mr. Parrish of the Anaheim Plaza Transportation
Company was concerned about. In any event, they did not want to go any further
than a mile from the Disneyland area in order to put group loads together. As
well, they did not want to leave the City boundaries because to do so would
require a Public Utilities Commission permit. Michael Valen, Town Tour Fun Bus,
also had a concern relative to that aspect, and he gave him (Slagle) a letter
stating that ~hey had no problem with Yellow Cab's proposed service if they
stipulated they had no intention of operating in the Buena Park/Knotts Berry
Farm area, and Mr. Slagle indicated they had none. As well, he had a letter
signed by the Manager of the Grand Hotel, the Executive Vice-President of the
Disneyland Hotel, Inn at the Park, Mr. Stox, Carl Karcher Enterprises, Dennis
Cook of Howard Johnson's and Bill O'Connell with the five Stovall properties,
approving such a program. They did not envision any competition with Plaza
Transporatation. It was only for convention activity, and there would perhaps
be four groups of people at the same location and they would all get into the
same vehicle. However, if someone from a convention asked to be taken to
Anaheim Plaza, they would do so, but they performed that service at present
by taxi.
Councilman Overholt returned to the Council Chamber. (4:48 P.M.)
Additional discussion and questioning followed between Councilwoman Kaywood
and Mr. %lagle to clarify different aspects of the proposed requested service
at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern regarding
the fact that Anaheim Plaza Transportation came in and requested to provide a
service for which there was a tremendous need in the City, just as they were
concerned with Yellow Cab not having someone come in and take from their service.
She did not want that to occur with Plaza Transportation.
Councilman Roth stated he was supportive of the request as it related to the
fuel shortage and the serious problem existing with air pollution. Thus, if
one van could perform the service of several vehicles, it was a step in the
right direction.
Mr. Michael Parrish, Plaza Transportation Company, stated they did not oppose the
expansion of fleet taxicab service although he did not go along with the type of
rate Mr. Slagle was asking to charge, because it was not definitive enough and was
really a random rate. As a taxicab company, they should charge on a meter. They
were a taxicab company and Plaza Transportation was not and many different issues
could arise in the situation, upon which he elaborated. He then answered a line
of questioning relative to rates and other aspects of the service they provided
posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth after which, the Mayor asked
Mr. Parrish to restate his concern since it was not clear to him.
Mr. Parrish clarified that Yellow Cab was proposing to charge the same rate as
Plaza Transportation and yet Plaza Transportation had to stay on a schedule, whereas
Yellow Cab did not. Thus, Yellow Cab could cover their stops five minutes prior to
79-981
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
their schedule and when Plaza Transportation arrived, they would find no patrons.
One way that situation could be corrected was to put the proposed vans on meters
and have the fare split amongst the passengers. Another way would be to keep
Yellow Cab from going north of Lincoln Boulevard to the Anaheim Plaza. If Mr.
Slagle indicated the immediate Disneyland area in his application, perhaps that
was where he should stay.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Slagle if he would have any objection to limiting the vans
to south of Lincoln Avenue; Mr. Slagle did not believe that was a problem, but
relative to the rates, it was harder to figure out what the meter was going to
be in order to divide the cost amongst the passengers.
The Mayor then asked if there were no meters, could he live with not going north
of Lincoln; Mr. Slagle stated that was not a problem.
Mr. Parrish stated that would satisfy him; Councilwoman Kaywood suggested more
specifically, not to Anaheim Plaza.
Mr. Parrish stated, in effect, that is what would occur if he stayed south of
Lincoln. Their mainstay was to pick up from the Hotel area and take them to
the Shopping Center.
Councilman Overholt agreed with the restriction and the new shuttle service
proposed, which essentially was a peak period service, could not terminate at
Anaheim Plaza in the peak period and that was the only time they would be
charging a flat rate. He did not believe the Yellow Cab service should be allowed
to compete with the service provided by Plaza Transportation, otherwise it would
be out of business in a very short time and that was his concern. He wanted to
protect that operation because it was performing a needed service and doing a
good job for the merchants at the Center.
Monica Keppel, Plaza Transportation, stated she did not understand what specific-
ally a jitney service was. When they applied for their permit, they were required
to stop at certain stops at specified times. To her, the subject request was the
same thing, but the company could not operate as a taxihab. She wanted to know if they
installed a meter, could they do so.
Mayor Seymour asked if the request were approved prohibiting the vans from
having a destination at Anaheim Plaza, would that answer her concerns; in
finality, Ms. Keppel answered "yes".
Councilman Bay asked to hear from the City Attorney relative to the information
he had indicating if they allowed Yellow Cab to go into the jitney service with-
out a fixed route or specific times, where the destination was not necessarily
under the control of the passenger, it would effect the Municipal Code.
City Attorney Hopkins referred to memorandum dated August 16,.1979 from the
Assistant City Attorney which defined a taxicab as described in paragraph 2.
Under that definition, it was his opinion that the proposal of Yellow Cab was
still included in the taxicab ordinance. The jitney service ordinance provided
that the jitney service operate over fixed routes and required approval of the
Council. Thus, the Code did distinguish between the two types of service and
79-982
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
it would not require a change in the ordinance. In his opinion, if Yellow Cab
utilized a van, it would not be defined as a jitney because it would not involve
a fixed route.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-497 for adoption approving the
expansion of the taxicab permit of Yellow Cab Company of Northern Orange County,
to allow the operation of two to four vans in the Disneyland area during conven-
tion and heavy peak periods, at $1 per person per destination up to a $4 maximum
charge per trip per destination, but excluding Anaheim Plaza as a destination.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-497: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A SPECIAL RATE CHARGE FOR TAXIVANS FOR THE YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF NORTHERN
ORANGE COUNTY, INCORPORATED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayo~ declared Resolution No. 79R-497 duly passed and adopted.
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 Betty Jean Rowzee for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of an accident with City truck on or about July 17, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Roy Rowzee for loss of consortium purportedly sustained
as a result of his wife's accident with City truck on or about July 17, 1979.
c. Claim submitted by James H. Davis for damages purportedly sustained as a result
of electrical problem outside dwelling causing power back-feed, on or about
August 7, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Colleen Dawson for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about
July 7, 1979.
e. Claim submitted by Michael Spasich, Amesia, Inc., for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of problem with main sewer line serving 2675 W. Woodland
Drive, on or about July 23, 1979.
79-983
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105:
b. 105:
c. 105:
d. 105:
e. 140:
f. 105:
Community Services Board - Minutes of June 28, 1979.
Public Utilities Board - Minutes of July 5, 1979.
Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of August 8 and 15, 1979.
Library Board - Minutes of July 18, 1979.
Library Department - Monthly Report for July 1979.
Anaheim Housing Commission - Minutes of June 6, 1979.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit submitted by Empresa Frias, for a public dance to be
held September 1, 1979. 7:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention
Center. (Cruz Munoz Frias, applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit for pinball machines, video electronic games,
pool table and foosball to be located at Kojaks Koney Island, 3024 West Ball
Road. (Larry I. Weissman, applicant)
c. Entertainment Permits for Red Lion Inn Bar, 120 East Lincoln Avenue, and
E1 Burrito Bar, 557 South Olive Street, to allow a mariachi band at each.
(Arnulfo G. Granados, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
158: DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-498 for
adoption accepting deeds of easement. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-498: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Arthur G.
Wilmsen, et ux.; North American Investments; Jack J. Wright, et ux.)
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. 79R-498 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4036 AND 4037: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4036
and 4037 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4036: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.06.060 AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS .0257 AND .0267 TO SECTION 18.06.060 OF CHAPTER
18.06, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (parking
standards for racquetball and tennis facilities and child day care centers)
79-984
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4037: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-61-69(89), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4036 and 4037 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4038: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4038 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4038: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(26), ML)
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. 4038 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4039 THROUGH 4041: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4039
through ~,041, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4039: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-28, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 4040: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(83), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 4041: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-26, RM-3000)
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. 4039 through 4041, both inclusive, duly passed
and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4044: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4044 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4044: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(90), ML)
79-985
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
114: SEPTEMBER 4, 1979 COUNCIL MEETING: Councilman Overholt reported there
was a possibility he might not be in attendance at the next Council meeting,
Tuesday September 4, 1979 because of vacation, but he would not be leaving the
State.
114: PIO RELEASES: Councilman Roth asked that on PIO releases which were routed
to the Council, in the future, he wanted to know who originated and who released
the announcements so that he could inform his constituents when asked.
175: UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES ON FAIRMONT BOULEVARD: Mayor Seymour reported
that he met with a number of citizens in the Anaheim Hills area who seemed to
indicate they would be willing to pay for undergrounding of utilities on Fairmont
Boulevard depending on the cost. That being the case, he felt that it might be
worthwhile at a later time, after the City Manager had an opportunity to provide
some feedback, to consider a mailing in utility bills to the residents of the area
asking, if the City were to place a surcharge on them in order to put ali future
utilities underground, would they be willing to pay, yes or no. He asked the
City Manager, (1) if it was too late to underground utilities on Fairmont at this
time since the last decision made was to install overhead utilities, and (2) input
as to the feasibility of using utility bills for some type of survey, as well as
providing a guesstimate cost that would be split among the citizens of Anaheim
Hills to pay for undergrounding.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:35 P.M.)
112: GEHRLS VS. GUZMAN ET AL: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council-
woman Kaywood, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange County Superior
Court Case 28-97-32 (Gehrls v. Guzman) for the sum of $12,000 pursuant to the
settlement proposal dated August 27, 1979, and to execute all documents related
to said settlement proposal. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess to 7:30 P.M. at the Anaheim Convention
Center, 800 West Katella Avenu, Santa Ana Room, for the purpose of discussing
parking congestion in the area west of the Convention Center. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:36 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order in the Santa Aha Room
of the Anaheim Convention Center, all Council Members being present. (7:30 P.M.)
124/149: PUBLIC HEARING - PARKING CONGESTION~ AREA WEST OF THE CONVENTION CENTER:
To solicit public input relative to the parking congestion in the area west of the
Convention Center between West Street and Jacalene Lane.
Mayor Seymour introduced staff present and welcomed the residents to the meeting.
He referred to the staff report dated August 1, 1979 from the Engineering Division/
Public Works Department which discussed the traffic problem in the area and options
for a satisfactory solution, as well as the merits and disadvantages of each of those
alternatives.
79-986
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager William Talley then briefly summarized the staff report for the
benefit of the audience and, in concluding, pointed out that if permit parking
were instituted (paragraph b, page 2), it would be the obligation of the residents
of the area to see that all vehicles had a proper permit on them. It was also felt
traditionally that approach did not work and the neighborhood subsequently wanted
tow away. It was also staff's feeling if they were to permit this in the Eleanor
Drive area, they should be expecting to receive requests from other residential
and commercial areas near high use facilities.
The Mayor asked if any members of the public wished to speak.
Mrs. Ed Morman, 1883 South West Street, asked relative to permit parking, starting
the first of November until the first of April, they had company from the East
coming and going on evenings, weekends or holidays, and she wanted to know where
they would get permits.
City Manager Talley answered that she would go to the Convention Center office
although he did not know how Mr. Liegler would handle the situation. There was'
no problem relative to supplying permits for every vehicle in the neighborhood,
but a problem would arise regarding visitors. If they allowed for visitors,
there was obviously not enough room for four cars to park. In some areas,
specifically Inglewood where the permit process was instituted, permits were
sometimes given to kids to sell. He reiterated they could not give out more
permits per house than there were parking spots in front of that house.
Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium, Convention Center & Golf Director, explained that they
had revi~wed permit parking in other cities. Their thinking at this time was to
measure the normal slots in front of a house and then parking permits would be
issued accordingly. They would be passable permits, that is, not affixed on
individual cars because vehicles were changed, but passable under the control
of the individual residents. They wanted to be liberal so that when the residents
had visitors, they would be able to care for them, as well as their automobile
under normal circumstances. The exact number had not yet been determined, but
a preliminary figure was three per family, and they would have to make some
corrections depending upon homes, number of vehicles and people living in
those homes. The permit would be placed inside the vehicles so that the checker
could see it and it would be transferrable to friends and relatives and people
visiting the area.
The Mayor clarified it would only be needed when parking on public streets and
not in garages and driveways.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Leigler stated if two people had parties
involving a number of cars, there was no easy answer to such a situation and
they had not figured out the exact details. They would be very liberal in work-
ing with the neighborhood to their mutual best interest, and there would be
times when they would have to place restrictions on a particular situation.
The Mayor stated he was under the impression the only time they would enforce
parking would be on those dates when the expected overflow parking from an
event at the Convention Center.
79-987
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Liegler stated it would be difficult to make a decision as to when that
parking would be from the Convention Center or vehicles of people working in
the area.
The Mayor then asked if he was suggesting that they hire the part-time parking
checker and he or she would be in the neighborhood every day.
Mr. Liegler answered, "yes" primarily during the normal hours when residents
needed the parking and certainly Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
Councilman Roth stated that relative to the permit concept, he was interested
in trying to get the residents to the meeting tonight so they could make a
determination as to whether or not they wanted government to get involved with
parking in front of their homes. There might be those who supported permit
parking and those who did not. He preferred to leave the situation as it was
presently, but was looking for a preference of the majority of the people.
Mayor Seymour then asked for a show of hands of those citizens from the neighbor-
hood who wanted to leave the situation just as it was at present. Thirteen (13)
residents indicated their preference for leaving the situation as it is.
The Mayor then asked how many preferred the alternative of permit parking. Four
(4) residents indicated the preference for permit parking.
Mrs. Val Doherty, 1116 Wakefield Place, was of the opinion parking by permit as
a first step would be a hindrance to those wanting to park in their neighborhood.
Mr. Phil Allisio, speaking on behalf of Mrs. Bertha VonGilligan, owner of the
property at 1150 Dooley Place, stated that Mrs. VonGilligan had never had any
problems with people who visited the Convention Center or the Stadium, and she
had lived in the tract since its inception. Most problems were caused by people
in the area. They wanted the situation to remain as it is. If it was changed
and Eleanor Drive should be closed off, it would cause congestion on Casa Vista.
He then explained the circuitous route that would have to be taken through the
various streets in the area if Eleanor Drive were closed. It would be an incon-
venience and at the time of an energy crisis, a waste of fuel. He reiterated
the situation should not be tampered with but they did feel that the Police
Department should support the area more than they were doing relative to parking
and congestion.
The Mayor pointed out that unless people were parked illegally, there was nothing
the Police could do. Since public streets were involved, people had a right to
park wherever they could do so, unless posted otherwise.
Mr. Allisio clarified what he meant was that if the Police patrolled the area
when an event was taking place at the Convention Center, they could observe
the problems that were occurring and just by being there, could alleviate some
of those problems and the complaints that were coming to the Council.
Mr. Herb Clark, 1908 Cathy Lane, refuted the statement made by Mr. Allisio relative
to the Police Department. He lived on a cul-de-sac and sometimes problems did
arise with people parking in driveways. However, the Police did come by and
79-988
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
ticket those vehicles and that was not the problem. As he viewed it, taxpayers
were entitled to use public streets just as residents from the area parking on
public streets in Los Angeles County unless there was abuse, such as trampling
on a lawn or dropping beer cans, which he had never seen. He believed that the
very few times during the year when the Convention Center parking lot was over-
flowing and people parked in the area, they did a good job and it was seldom
when tickets were issued. He felt they were wasting the Council's time and
vice versa by going through an exercise such as the meeting tonight.
Mr. D. A. Navarett, 1881 Morgan Lane, stated that he favored permit parking.
Morgan Lane and Eleanor Drive were the streets closest to the Center and they
always had cars parked there. There were always beer parties and a lot of
bottles all over the area. That should be stopped and permit parking was
about the only way it could be stopped.
Councilman Roth asked if the beer drinking was done by people in the area that
might be visiting or people that were going to or from the Convention Center;
Mr. Navarett then relayed an incident which occurred in front of his house which
took place three nights prior involving two cars and four people. He went out
and asked what they were doing and they told him they had come from the Center
and thought they would have a drink. In the morning, there were bottles and litter
ali over his yard.
Mr. Nell Lisbett, 1164 Wakefield, explained that since moving into the neighborhood
approximately six or seven months earlier, he had noticed a great number of cars
in the area when the Convention Center was full. It was difficult to park and
was difficult to get into the driveways. Although the cars did not block the
driveways, they parked by the driveway's edge to edge thereby not providing
enough space to get in or out without difficulty. He did not know if permit
parking was the answer, but something had to be worked out. In New Jersey,
they had a system whereby at certain hours parking was not allowed for non-
residents. If there were visitors, all that was required was a call to the Police
Department relaying the license number of the visitors' vehicle. The Police
patrolled on a regular basis and any car for which they did not have a license
number was automatically ticketed and after a certain number of hours, it was
towed away. Just as with Mr. Navarett, he too had experienced problems with
bottles, trash and ali kinds of litter on his lawn.
Mr. Bill Marly, 1108 Dooley, stated he had seen people picnic on other peoples'
lawns, and on his walks through the neighborhood, he always saw beer cans and
bottles. It was not a problem all of the time but on some occasions it was
atrocious. There were also people who just did not want to park in the lot
in order to protect their cars and because it was more convenient for them not
to park in the lot. He once passed a petition to have Eleanor Drive closed
and, on second thought, he did not think it was a good idea. Permit parking
was a start and would probably alleviate the problem.
Councilman Roth asked how he accounted for the fact that on the show of hands,
13 were opposed and 4 supported permit parking; it was his opinion that most
people realized some of the problems involved in the mechanics of getting a
permit.
79-989
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Marly stated that a number of the people that had previously been outspoken
on the matter were not present, but he did not know why. He had spoken with the
Assistant Traffic Engineer after the last meeting who was of the opinion that
permit parking was a good place to start and the easiest, least expensive and
most expedient thing to do. Relative to selling the concept to his neighbors
as questioned by Councilman Roth, he explained the further away they moved
from the Convention Center, the more difficult it would be to sell the concept.
For instance, the people on Jacalene Lane hardly had a problem, but he lived
on a small cul-de-sac in close proximity to the Convention Center and had three
cars, with no parking whatsoever in front of his house.
Mrs. Estele Purvett stated she lived on Wakefield and it was an intermittent
problem and with some cooperation and input from the Convention Center, if they
could post a sign on the day when they expected overflow parking, she felt
people would be somewhat intimidated by such a sign indicating residential
parking only. That was not to be everyday because it was not an everyday problem.
In speaking about the closure of Eleanor Drive, that was the ingress and egress
to their neighborhood and putting a fence around themselves would be difficult
on the residents.
Mr. Vic Staff, 112 Dooley Place, stated it was important to look at what was
planned for the Convention Center in the future in making it the number one
center in the country. They were planning to close off Convention Way which
would then become an exit only at the end of an event. There would also be a
main entrance on Convention Way located closer to the neighborhood than the
present entrance. Thus, in addition to the present problem, he foresaw a
number of problems when large events concluded in the future. A great deal of
traffic would be flowing out onto West Street which then would encounter con-
gestion at West Street and Katella. The traffic would then start shortcutting
through the neighborhood. He commented that permit parking seemed expedient.
A suggestion he had made before was to install a wall the full length of West
Street from Katella to the condominiums on Orangewood, so that there would be
no ingress or egress by foot traffic or by vehicle. He lived next to Marly and
there was a lot of trash and recently an incident of stolen plates and stolen
cars had been left in the area particularly when rock concerts were held at
the Center.
Mr. Allisio again explained that he did not mean his remark relative to the
Police Department to be offensive. He meant they should patrol the area when
rock concerts were being held at the Center. On one occasion during a concert,
a beer party was held on the sidewalk, and he called the Police who told him if
they were on his property to call them. He was interested in having the Police
patrol on those occasions.
Mr. Liegler stated that in the staff proposal, they did leave out the alternative
expressed by the citizens - to leave the situation the same as it was at present.
That would be his preference as well. He also explained that his home was five
to six miles from the Convention Center and although he did not have the same
traffic problem as the Convention Center area, he did have the same problems
relative to trash and parties in the neighborhood. Not all of the incidents
79-990
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 28~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
could be totally contributed to the Convention Center operation. They also
performed a service at their cost which no other Convention Center performed
and that was to provide regularly a neighborhood clean-up program. They toured
the entire area and tried to clean it up to the best of their ability. They
would continue to do so and he would like to hear from the citizens that perhaps
the best answer was to leave the situation as it is until such time as the
Betterment II Program was completed. They would be involved in some additional
burdens of traffic flow, and it would be better to look at the situation at that
time.
Mayor Seymour stated that the alternative seemed to be, (1) leave as is, or (2)
a form of parking permit, from something that may not be too effective such as
putting signs up but not enforcing them, all the way to an enforced permit
parking program as discussed. Another show of hands revealed that eleven (11)
favored alternate number one and eight (8) alternate number two.
Further discussion followed between the Council and Mr. Talley relative to the
flexibility and practicability of using temporary signs that would not be enforced,
permanent signs indicating parking for residents of the area only, signing and
enforcing permit parking for Eleanor Drive, Morgan Lane, Dooley Place and Wakefield
Place only, etc. In concluding, Mayor Seymour stated as of this moment it would
be inappropriate, based upon testimony, to consider permit parking or closing
Eleanor Drive or anything else. They had to closely monitor the situation and
as they proceeded in the Betterment II Program, if the problem worsened or
public opinion expressed was more favorable towards permit parking, the Council
should be prepared to take action. Although all of the people who might want
permit p~rking were not at the meeting for some reason, there was substantial
enough interest from the neighborhood to leave the situation as is. Councilman
Roth wanted to know how many notices were sent out to the citizens in the
Eleanor Drive area; the City Manager stated 130 notices were hand-delivered,
and a meeting notice was posted and published. He agreed that with that type
of notification, there should have been a better response.
Before closing, Mr. Lisbett asked if there was not going to be any permit parking,
why the Police Department could not patrol the area more often; Mayor Seymour
stated he was certain that Captain Kennedy noted the comments made this evening
and, to that degree, they would receive better Police service relative to cur-
tailing drinking on public streets and that type of activity.
Mayor Seymour confirmed that the situation would remain as is in the neighborhood
until such time as the Betterment II Program was completed when further action
might be necessary.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood secOnded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8:40 P.M.